Larry wrote:Striker wrote:
Naval movement being 5 standard: This absolutely made the "naval war" A quick cleanup operation for the allies. This means nothing... A concerted effort by the allies could generate the same results in a 2SZ game. Outnumbering the axis fleet severely, the allies used the additional movement to make attacks that weren't available before(This mainly benefited the French). How so? I think the only power to really get a significant benefit from the 5SZ system is the US and I'm not really sure that's even a benefit. They get into the game a lot quicker and they can shuffle reinforcements in quicker as well. That's probably good for the game and helps reduce the number of rounds the game goes. Does it help the allies too much? I'm not sure... but I do know that it doesn't hurt them.
The french fleets, especially the one off western france, get much more opportunities to do turn 1 attacks.
The first allies to have their turn(IE russia) sacrificed their navies to put a dent in the CP naval units, then the later allies(britian, france, Italy) send in their navies to finish the damaged CP ones off. No axis naval units were left on the board end of turn 1. Rolls were not particularly lucky on either side. Yeah. like I said you can do this in a 2SZ game too. So what can I conclude from all this so far...? I can't conclude anything other than the US can go deeper into the Med... a turn faster actually. It also gets into the game quicker and with more resilience thanks to the reduced number of rounds it takes to reinforce them.
The other effect of 5 naval unit was giving USA 2 significant advantages:
1) Immediately upon entering the war they were able to land 4/5 transports of troops on the ottoman capital, at the same time that the british were reaching it, sealing the fate of the ottoman empire. Are you telling me that you took the US fleet into sea zone 20? You exposed your loaded transports to Turkish mines, 2 Turkish cruisers and a Turkish force sitting in Constant? How did that work out for you? I'm finding this to all be a bit difficult to believe
Remember I mentioned that there were no CP Naval units left on the board? They had no cruisers to contest with, so they only lost one transport to mines and then landed the rest in an attack that killed just enough Ottomans for the British to finish them off next turn.
2) A very efficient shuck was established between Canada and France. A set of transports starting off France could pick up US troops that moved to Canada and unload them in france the same turn. This effectively halves the amount of money that the US needs to spend on transports. As good an idea as this is, we are not talking about game strategies at this point. This effort as well as all naval movements will be more effective... who cares. It moves the game along.
How the proposed rules effect game balance doesn't matter?
Post game opinions: 5 naval movement standard is extremely overpowering and felt "gamey" I don't think it feels "gamey." . "non combat" naval unit of 5 would be fine, but combat operations should be limited to 2 space movement. Oh... So it's OK to move 5 but not attack after moving 5? I don't buy it.
What don't you buy? It's a lot less overpowering that way. You can't naval assault ottomans capital in one turn from the US, or attack CP fleets with every available ship turn 1. 5 move only for non-combat speeds up the game with much gamey strats.
Now on to the strategic movement side of things.
Germany's perspective: Germany initially expanded east and west with it's forces turn one. After securing some "buffer territory" between the french and Berlin Germany SM'd it's entire western front to join the east front. The next turn it did not move it's forces freshly produced in the capital, so that it could add another turn's purchases and SM them both to the east. Russia had no chance facing the *entire* german army all of a sudden and quickly fell to revolution shortly after. Oh come on... Did the Russian die of fright? Did they not have some kind of counter army that they generated during the same number of turns? BTW with the SM rules you cannot cross half of Europe and engage these units in combat. The enemy ALWAYS has a reaction time to counter strategic movements.
The Russian army did not die of fright, but were most definitely outnumbered by the German army, who had it's *entire* strength present and superior economy pumping even more units in their direction. They did not SM directly into combat, rather into Poland which was captured G1. The then took Urkraine and two bordering territories to finish up the revolution conditions. Russia's only possible "reaction" was to make Germany pay as much as possible for gained land, which wasn't enough to keep them alive. If you want specifics, I recall they fell back to moscow after the stack arrived next to them, and then prepared to counterattack territories that would keep them out of revolution. They fell because the superior german stack attacked moscow with the majority of the stack, but split off forces to capture the other territories. Russia was simply outmanned and couldn't defend everything.
The western front had no German soldiers for about 3 turns. Three turns no German soldiers in the west? That should have placed a big ass French army in Hanover. Knock-Knock... Who's there? The French army. The French army who? The French Army that will be attacking Berlin very very shortly. In that time the french advanced uncontested 2-3 territories in, occupying even Munich. However at that point, the entire German army phased in from the east front to meet them. I don't see how this could happen - sorry
What can't you see about this? The german east army finished dispatching Russia and quickly strategic moved back to berlin to defend the capital. France did have forces that could reach it in a turn or two, but they had to turn back to defend Paris from Austria.
The Austrian perspective:
Austria demolished Romania with available forces on it's first turn and then focused completely on Italy, knowing Russia would be tied up with Germany.
Stategic movement sealed Italy's fate, which was quickly ran over by Austria's superior forces. Ok... Wow that was easy. You must be playing a different game than I am. I've never seen the Austrians push through Italy as you just described. At best this is a-typical and should not even be part of this discussion.
Austria makes at least double Italy's economy and starts with superior forces...Whats so hard to believe about them crushing Italy when those forces can be quickly moved to the front? Nothing sounds atypical about that at all.
Austria had skirmished with France and gained a foot hold in southern france thanks to a lucky infantry attack. The same turn that Rome fell(turn 5) the entirety of Austria's force in Rome strategic moved to threaten Paris, forcing the French to strategic move back to Paris and abandon their advance into Germany.
Well I think the game must have been pretty much over by this point... and id the CPs still lose the it?
The British perspective: Strategic movement made the "All India, Ottoman first" strategy a no brainer. With France not threatened they strategic moved their Indian reinforcements with the steadily advancing front line towards the Ottoman capital. The ottomans fell British turn 5 or 6 thanks to the American attack turn 4 or 5. Not being able to strategic move into/through allied territories meant that it was out of the question for Germany or Austria to consider sending reinforcement sot help defend. In your dreams....
The end game: With Russia revolted and captured, Germany and Austria focused on France, knowing it required less moves for them to reach Paris compared to the amount of moves that the British east army required to reach Austria's capital. Britain, France and America pumped infantry into Paris but it fell within a couple turns. CP victory was achieved before Britain could advance quick enough into Austria's undefended east.
The difference between victory and loss may have been due to the ottomans sending a raiding force(~8 units) into Africa which took away about 10 income from the allies even if they weren't getting anything themselves. (the player felt that the capital was falling regardless, so why not be a pain in the but guerrilla force?).
Concluding thoughts/Post game opinions:
Naval movement: We agreed that the combat capable 5 naval movement was overpowering. There's an entire section of the game being resolved in one turn, and being able to reach turkey in one turn also felt abusive. We don't feel the game gained much by this addition. So in what round did Paris fall?
You seem to be implying that it's silly I complain of an allied advantage when the axis won this game. Only the allies benefit from the 5 move naval units. The axis, mainly Germany, benefited even more from the strategic movement. Germany's Ping-pong between the west, east, and west again was what made it possible for their win. Basically, I'm trying to say two wrongs don't make a right. I may only speak for my group, but we would find it more "fun" if the "naval war" lasted more than a turn. It's an extremely poor decision for the CP's to spend additional on navy once they've had theirs wiped out and have nothing to work with.
-The other con is that it highlights the abuse of British all Indian spending to an even greater extent. Britain being allowed to do that feels just wrong, but it's an obvious strategy for quickly taking out a CP power. Turkey is one tough nut to crack. It can and in my experience does keep up with the Brits in India. Britain cannot be totally dedicated to the war with Turkey. It often must participate in Northern Europe (IMHO).
Again, we are looking at Britain having an economy 2-3 times the size of Turkey's. If they can SM all their Indian produced troops to the front right away, how long to do you expect turkey to last? Is their a strong reason for not limiting India's production to value? From what I've seen almost every experienced player on the boards have been pointing out this flaw.
-Adjust the strategic movement rules "somehow". The concept of it is great but needs fine tuning. If you are only allowed one stategic move it encourages uberstacks even more, so maybe allow multiple? No way...
Counterbalance this by not making it an unlimited move. About 5 spaces seems right, You can pretty much reach anything or place you my want to go in 2 moves as it is.
Some kind of limit would stop the gamey 1 turn front switching that Germany was able to do between the East and West fronts.
-Finally, I know it's not related to the movement rules but do *something* about British spending in India, the Ottomans just don't have a game and are simply a speedbump like Italy. Based on my experiences I don't agree. Britain cannot totally focus on builds in India and still hope to win the game. Are you suggesting that Turkey can pull all or most of Britain's income toward it alone and still give the allies a chance of winning this game? Are you suggesting that France alone can handle Germany and Austria, or even Germany alone? More often than not I see Turkey controlling: Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, Sevastopol and contesting Arabia, Egypt and Persia, if not blitzing into Africa. The amount of UK IPCs spend in India is pretty much self-regulated by the other demands placed on Britain's income.
I can only hope that more battle reports from experienced players can convince you otherwise. The combination of France, Italy, and Russia can generally keep the CP's busy enough just long enough for Britain to deal with Turkey and then directs it's Superpower economy at one of the other two CPs.
In all honestly Larry, you asked for battle reports using the proposed rules. I went and put in the time/effort to organized and type up the post-game report...
... So how do you think I feel then when you call parts of it BS, while at the same time omitting details(like the lack of ottoman ships), and fabricating events(I never said that on the Russian front the CP's initiated Combat with a strategic move.)
At this point I feel like I wasted my time, you seemed to only agree with what you wanted to while dismissing any problems I noted. What message are you trying to give the other players you asked to playtest this?
Striker... You're right! I was very rude to you. I apologize.