"A german soldier is not better than a french soldier"
Kaizer Wilhelm II
Men with guns fight the same way, coming from UK, Germany or Spain.
The difference is in the tactic and doctrines made by their leaders. French commando principes or German Aufstrag-taktik. AirLand Battle doctrine from USA, or Blitz-krieg from Germany.
All units must have same combat value and cost for all nations.
The difference lay in the way they are used.
Infantry working in conjunction with matching artillery gives extra combat value.
Tanks working in conjunction with matching bombers gives extra combat value.
Destroyers working in conjunction with matching aircrafts gives extra combat value.
Many of the ideas for concepts was made by Liddle-Heart and Fueller, and it was very random which nations picked which ideas.
In 1940 the scwarm and rotte taktik used by Luftwaffe was far superior to the british vic-formations. But for playability the UK fighters got a higher combat value ?
The combat system from Revised is not bad, it just need some revising.
Different combat value and cost between nations will complicate play so much, that the average gamer will stay with Risk.
While I think it would add to the game and advanced players can certainly handle it I'm not sure if the payoff is worth the trouble.
NOTE: Experienced players DO use the battle boards, just not all the time. It comes in handy for larger battles.
- Posts: 951
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
- Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere
Take Soviet infantry, for example.
Early on in the war, the Germans had every reason to believe Nazi propaganda about Russians being sub-human as they rolled over Soviet defences.
They had to change their tune later on as improved leadership and motivation seemed to make Russian infantry invincible.
I think there is enough scope for variations with tech and national advantages to mess around with the basic units.
I am not sure this really does negate this need. It may still be desirable to have combat adjustments for fortifications, amphibious assaults, techs, etc. that are on a finer scale than 1/6.Larry wrote:Comments noted
I'm hearing you. (Keep it simple stupid) I'm leaning towards keeping it simple stupid. this would negate the need for D10 or D12 dice.
What say you?
"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok
As far as different combat values and costs by nation, I don't think this is a critical factor in the game one way or the other. Therefore, KISS. More attention needs to be paid to other factors like railroads, commerce raiding, SBR, victory conditions, etc.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests