Report from the Front Turn One

Post a reply

This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review

Expand view Topic review: Report from the Front Turn One

Re: Report from the Front Turn One

by Flashman » Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:45 pm

Also, it looks like Switzerland is an easy conquest. This can then become the focus of the Paris-Rome strategy, which can be merged into a single front with units from either being able to support the other. This is not possible with a Paris-Moscow approach.

Re: Report from the Front Turn One

by Aran55633 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:42 pm

"...or if at least two Allied capitals, one of which must be Paris or London are controlled by the Central Powers."

... Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but it seems to me, at first glance, that this may lead many Central Powers players to choose to focus on the Western and Italian fronts.

You must have Paris or London (doubt many will go after London...), so you obviously have to do plenty of fighting on the Western Front, and then you need one more capital. Seems to me that it would be easiest to have A.H. focus on Italy, take it down, then help take out France.

Allow for the minimal necessary expenditure to hold Russia where it is, with assistance from the Turks. Seems like a fairly obvious strategy...

But then, I obviously haven't played. I'll leave the speculation at that until after playing a game or two.

Re: Report from the Front Turn One

by Flashman » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:34 pm

Rail movement should be represented by moving land units quickly from A to B.

The suggestion that it is represented by current movement rules was made for WWII versions; unfortunately that asked us to believe that trains carrying tanks moved twice as fast as trains carrying infantry. They didn't and I don't.

Re: Report from the Front Turn One

by marcelvdpol » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:07 pm

You could argue that "Rail Movement" is represented by IPC's. Germany, having an extensive rail network, earns a lot of IPC's each turn which can be used to mobilise new units. I hope that new infantry units can be produced in other places than a capital, but I guess from what I've read so far this is not the case.

On the other hand, from what I've read so far, turns will be a lot faster and more streamlined, so the "nightmare" of living through a Pacific 1940 Japan turn 1 (which can last roughly an hour) is not likely in this game. It could mean that sea movement might be faster though, making control of the seas more important than it is in Axis & Allies WWII.

Water has, for a long time, been the most reliable way to get goods from point A to point B which is why it was so important for Britannia to Rule the Waves. Even on the continent of Europe control of the great rivers has always been considered quite important which is why a lot of castles were built at river forks, river crossings and river estuaries.

Re: Report from the Front Turn One

by Flashman » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:45 pm

I though that maybe if you withdraw from a contested area, you have to withdraw all your units.
But we really need to see how multi-national armies function.

Only pic of the map so far is this (blow up image): ... _en_US.pdf

My guess is that this is pretty close to the setup, others disagree.

Re: Report from the Front Turn One

by Caractacus » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:16 pm

Imperious leader wrote:As long as that area is not contested or under attack.
Sorry, yes, I thought that bit was obvious. I was just wanting clarification on the 'I have 14 units in this space and he has one; am I pinned here for the turn while I deal with them' situation.

I assume that yes, I am, but I just hoped to trigger Larry into confirming it.

Re: Report from the Front Turn One

by valtteri771 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:00 pm

Nice report! Has there still been a picture of the map or any info on its size and amount of territories?

Re: Report from the Front Turn One

by Flashman » Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:38 pm

Mmm, I was looking at the setup and saw there are no french units in central Africa, so wondered if the UK can enter the Portuguese tts and bring Portugal into the war. However, looking again at Larry's post it seems that only the capital (i.e. Portugal) counts for mobilization. Presumably if Germany attacks a Portuguese colony the whole of Portugal is mobilized.

WILD BILL wrote:
Flashman wrote:I infer, then, that minor allies are brought in (mobilized) when a unit of their big brother moves in.
For example, Bulgaria goes to war when a Turkish unit moves into Bulgaria (a Turkish ally).
But can Austria or Germany activate Bulgaria in the same way?

Can the UK mobilize Portugal (French ally) by moving into Mozambique, or would this be considered a violation of neutrality?
Quote from Larry's report:
"Both Serbia and Romania are Russian allies. This is indicated by the small Imperial Russian Eagle emblem located on both the territories"

From what Larry said above and continuing into his next paragraph if you are activating a minor power to absorb the units into your army it should have your marker on it. Sounds like it must be that particular power, or they will fight you.

PS: I think rail would be pretty cool at some limited level in NCM, but entire armies having the ability to move 5-6 territories on a whim (even in a historical route) would destroy balance IMO (it would be to difficult to predict with in the confines of the game). These games are set for certain expectations in unit movement for balance, and I can't see major armies (or large navies going port to port) being allowed to move halfway across the map if you want some kind balanced system.

I'm all for some limited rail abilities (even printed on the map), and it would be cool to attack this infrastructure w/SBR or cutting off these lines by capturing territories in the route. Sounds like we will have to resort to house rules this time around though (again).