Posts made by Texas Holders

Oh okay, got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

Can you jump your land units from your capital to your regional territories except colonies?

What is the meaning of: you can trace a line from your capital to all your regional territories except colonies?

Land units can only move to adjacent territories.

Colonies are geographically separated from your capital.  You have to pass through a sea zone or someone else’s territory to move from it to your capital.  Regional territories can be reached from your capital without passing through a sea zone or another power’s territory.

For example Morocco is a colony, Marseilles is a regional territory.

So the US transport thing was changed or wasn’t it?  Is it just under consideration?  I am confused.

Land units can only move to adjacent territories, if the territory is two spaces away, than it isn’t adjacent.

???

Land units can only move one space per turn.

I think one CP advantage of forcing the revolution is that you basically seal off the east.  If you capture Moscow, you still need to defend it from the British.  If Moscow is captured, the British player should be making an effort to liberate by pumping in forces through Kazakhstan or Karelia.  Once a revolution is triggered, these avenues should be closed and the British would have to go through the Ottomans if they want to get to the Germans and Austrians from the east.  With the revolution, you can push everything west, with a capture of Moscow, you have to devote forces to keep it.  I am not sure if that is worth the trade off of a victory city or not, but the revised rules do make it more worthwhile for the CP than the OOB rules did.

@ossel:

@Flashman:

Big naval builds for the CPs may be an answer, but the Allies should be able to match them. Or outspend Germany on fighters to gain air supremacy.

A submarine fleet would be another possible answer, but they’re so puny in this game.

Are people actually spending the money on ships in this game? I feel like if I don’t maximize the number of land units I buy every turn, my supply lines dry up and my fronts falter.

That has been my thought as well.  If the CPs can rival the Allies on the seas, it may significantly alter things on land as well.  The Italians can’t afford to buy ships.  Would the French even bother?  They don’t need one.  It would force the British and Americans to buy ships rather than land units.  My first couple games, the CPs ignored the sea and the US didn’t have to buy a single warship.  I will have to try this out to see what the effect would be.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Texas:

I like the rule as it stands, otherwise it lets you game the system.  Here are a couple examples if you allow someone to move where they have units already present:

Poland is contested between Germany and Russia, Ukraine is Austria-controlled with a German unit present.  By allowing Germany to move troops to the Ukraine, you allow them to bypass any combat in Poland, or basically just walk through unscathed since combat is not required to be conducted in a contested beyond the initial invasion.

Â

If everything else in your example remains the same, but Ukraine is contested Germany can move through anyways. Your scenario is not a very big deal since 1. Germany had to get a unit to Ukraine on a previous turn in the first place (which means that a can opener move where Austria would wipe out a Russian controlled territory and Germany could move through on its next turn is not possible), and 2. Like I already said, Germany can do that anyways if the territory remains contested. If you want to talk about gaming the system, think of Russia’s position in the current game where they move out of the territory in question to make it no longer contested and therefore Germany would not be able to move in. Russia stops opposing the CP in a territory, and that makes it harder for the CP to move in? That’s what’s truly gamey and will lead to nonsensical gimmicks in-game.

@Texas:

Another example, the Germans have captured France’s northern coast and the UK has some forces inland  The UK conducts an amphibious assault and contests one of these territories.  On the following turn, they would then be allowed to just continue inland without fighting through the German line.

Again, if the territory the UK has forces in inland happens to be contested, the UK can move through without fighting the German line. We are left with Powers avoiding contesting territories (conceptually, avoiding trying to fight to slow the enemy down), in order to slow the enemy down!

@Texas:

I understand the issue some have with the rule as it stands, but it also doesn’t make sense for a country to be to walk through an opposing countries entrenched troops unharmed either.

As I have shown, they already can do that. It just needs to be to a contested territory rather than an allied one. :?

Under my change, the can opener is barely any more potent (if at all) than it already is, since it requires that a unit of your power already be in a tt if you want to move there from a contested. Like I said above, a power still can’t get away with one power (Austria, for example) wiping out a russian-controlled ukraine and  then allowing Germany to move in, since Germany would not have already had a unit there. If you have to already have had a unit in the TT in which you would like to move into, it is decidedly NOT can opening, at least not any more than the rules currently allow in the contested tt movement rules.

Do my examples make sense or would a little more detail be helpful?

No, wouldn’t be able to move through.  They would only be able to move through if the second territory is contested with their units present.  Both of my examples were of movement into a territory that is uncontested and controlled by your ally.

The way I have interpreted it, you roll for mines only when you enter a sea zone, so the battleship wouldn’t have to roll for the mines.

@Flashman:

I’ll say it again - the Central Powers are crippled by the unhistorically slow movement over land to reinforce their fronts when they get close to Paris and Rome.

I don’t really follow this.  The initial setup has troops in every territory between Berlin and the western front.  The Germans will have new troops entering the front every turn.  You may have a gap if you redirect troops east rather than west, so the real disadvantage is that Germany and Austria are both fighting two fronts.

I like the rule as it stands, otherwise it lets you game the system.  Here are a couple examples if you allow someone to move where they have units already present:

Poland is contested between Germany and Russia, Ukraine is Austria-controlled with a German unit present.  By allowing Germany to move troops to the Ukraine, you allow them to bypass any combat in Poland, or basically just walk through unscathed since combat is not required to be conducted in a contested beyond the initial invasion.

Another example, the Germans have captured France’s northern coast and the UK has some forces inland.  The UK conducts an amphibious assault and contests one of these territories.  On the following turn, they would then be allowed to just continue inland without fighting through the German line.

I understand the issue some have with the rule as it stands, but it also doesn’t make sense for a country to be to walk through an opposing countries entrenched troops unharmed either.

That sounds right.  As soon as the German soldier moves in and the territory becomes contested, you would remove the British control marker.  After you conclude combat, France wins the battle and takes control of the territory.

@ghr2:

The absorbing hits is the only good thing i think,  if it cost 4 instead of 6, then it would be more worth it.  or at least make it a 3/1 or 3/2 by default.

As a unit that basically generates a 3 IPC unit each turn on the front lines, 6 IPCs is a bargain in my opinion.

Yeah, they soak up a hit period, but if you are going around with one infantry and a bunch of tanks, you will get destroyed on the counterattack.

@ghr2:

@Texas:

Fighters do have attack/defense during land battles.  After the air battle, the fighters that remain attack/defend at 2.

Where does it say that in the rulebook?

Page 19.  It also says it directly on the battle board.

I think you touched on it right there.  Tanks are an investment, but they also need to be used in the right situation.  I foresee them being best used on the western front where you have large stacks of infantry with both sides getting constant reinforcements.  Also, the tank to infantry ratio during a battle should be pretty low since they don’t defend well, you are inviting a counterattack.  The tank is a complimentary unit, not a primary unit.

@Richter:

@Imperious:

They negate hits on your units

Thats it - but I ran the numbers through a lil simulation - 2 infantry are better even if one is lost immediately…

Tanks actually pay for themselves after two rounds, from round 3 on, an initial purchase of 1 tank is better than an initial purchase of 2 infantry and the advantage increases each subsequent round.  Now this only applies if you are on the offense, if your capital is being threatened, go with the infantry since the tank doesn’t absorb a hit on defense.

@Flashman:

I’m beginning to suspect that the RR as written is a dead letter because:

1. Since it occurs on the Russian turn, the Allies will manipulate it to their advantage, particularly by ensuring it happens before the CPs can take Moscow, thus denying them the advantages of that including obtaining a victory objective.

2. In the light of 1. above, the CP will ensure that the circumstances in which revolution can occur never in fact so so, and that they take Moscow by a direct route instead, thus precluding any chance of Revolution.

I think they’d better think it out again.

I completely agree here.  I see no advantage for the CPs to force revolution over capturing Moscow directly.  They lose out on a victory city and the IPC bonus.  I would say if by triggering the revolution the CPs still kept the advantages it would be worth, but not otherwise.

@oztea:

A 3 IPC unit is needed to activate Romania, to gain 3 IPCs.
Technically, activation isn’t necessary

I don’t understand what you are saying.  If he would of activated Romania, Russia would of had 28 IPCs rather than 25.

Fighters do have attack/defense during land battles.  After the air battle, the fighters that remain attack/defend at 2.