[14.12.2] Effect: The unit thus indicated as “in the strategic reserve” may return to the map at the end of any future Player Detraining Phase, Axis or Soviet (as it would via Detraining; 9.2).
Example: It could detrain at the start of the next Axis Detraining Phase, or the next Soviet Detraining Phase.
Which one is it? At the end or at the start of the detraining phase?
[14.12.2] Effect: The unit thus indicated as “in the strategic reserve” may return to the map at the end of any future Player Detraining Phase, Axis or Soviet (as it would via Detraining; 9.2).
Example: It could detrain at the start of the next Axis Detraining Phase, or the next Soviet Detraining Phase.
Which one is it? At the end or at the start of the detraining phase?
At the end. I will correct the text. it does not have much effect anway one way or the other.
We've recently started a campaign game using these proposed rule changes to provide carl with, hopefully useful, feedback. I myself am playing the Germans and my friend Jan van der Laan is playing the Russians. I'll try to post weekly as we get together once a week to play.
The opening moves for the Germans were pretty straightforward. The westfont was surrounded, the Northern front attacked by the three German armies and consequently destroyed. In the South the result was no effect (die roll of 1), so the rule change that advancing after combat for army group Romania wasn't allowed anymore didn't really make any difference here . Army group `North took Riga.
On the Russian turn my opponent tried to break out from the encirclement, but I placed a counterblow marker on a stack of German units which meant the surrounded Westfornt had to attack not one (voluntary break out attempt cross hair marker) but as many as three German units. This lead to an automatic counter-attack. Because of this the Germans were allowed to advance after combat and take Minsk.Conclusion: against such odds it's better to just let your unit die out of supply than risk a counter-attack which might give your opponent the opportunity to advance after combat.
On the second German turn a Russian army trying to block the approaches to Leningrad was surrounded. My opponent thought he'd be able to break the encirclement by voluntarily overstacking on his turn, thereby preventing a surrender and losing a VP and causing "merely"the destruction of the overstacked out of supply unit.Around Kiev a similar situation showed itself on the map.However, by playing the Kesselschlacht card at the beginning of his player turn I eliminated the unit in the North. This left only the front in Leningrad itself which had not yet been converted to fortress strength. In Kiev my opponent did manage to pull off the trick he'd intended.However, all this left very few Russian units on the board.
On my next turn I took Leningrad (Lucky roll of "6"with a panzer army against the Leningrad front (non-fortress) in mud conditions.Smolensk was taken by army group centre as well as Kiev and Odessa (previous turn actually). I wasn't pushing hard for Moscow but tried to score many points in the South, where the Russian front-line was showing large gaps. However, my opponent managed to repair these somewhat on his turn. With winter coming some of my units were in a precarious situation, though as they were completely in the open and exposed to Russian winter counter-attacks (not the CRT CA)with the shock markers provinding an extra punch. Nor would the Germans be able to do much using the Soviet CRT along with the already unfavorable odds for them. They still tried to attack from the Leningrad area to get behind the Russian lines and then be able to attack Moscow from the rear bypassing the defense terrain to Moscow's west. However, despite relatively good odds, using the Soviet CRT led to a non-desirable result for the Germans, at least one that didn't allow any advance.Initially the Germans had been very pleased as it seemed the weather was holding (card draw turning mud weather into clear), however, during the sma card draw the weather turned yet again, so back to mud... It looked like this was as far as the Germans were going to get in 1941 and they would have to brace themselves for the Russian counter-attack and the hellish winter weather. Should they, however, be able to hang on to their positions in the woods and marshes South-Easst of Leningrad, the Russians might be in serious trouble by Spring 1942. However, first they'll have to make it through the winter. The Russian winter turn (snow) is next...
Just a brief overview of the changes we encountered during game play and our very initial impressions:
* 4 cards instead of 6 for the Germans at start: we didn't really think the Germans desperately needed more and if the intention is to make things a bit easier for the Russians, then this is definitely a very simple and elegant solution.
* Army group Romania not being allowed to advance after combat (in addition to not being allowed to move): In this particular game (see above) the combat result was "no effect" so it didn't come into play. It might potentially have made a difference as one of those units could have been even closer (perhaps even adjacent to) Sevastopol by the beginning of winter. Now the Russians still had time to get another unit to the front and assist in the defence of this objective city. If that is the intent, then it's surely a small help.
* Germans using Soviet CRT:This seems to have a bigger impact. Unless you have a stack of two very powerful German units, chances of a succesful attack (i.e. at least get to advance after combat) are very slim. However, during the entire conflict the Germans had very few, if any, large scale (counter-)attacks that took place in winter, so it might even be more historically accurate. However, it does seem to take away that last little bit of punch the Germans have in them in winter and long winter.The question is whether that is desirable and whether it won't upset play balance. As yet it's too early to tell.
* Movement 2 after rail movement instead of 3 for the Germans: this seemed to make no difference in our game at least: since you cannot detrain in a city that's only just been conquered really exploiting this, seems to be impossible already. Or perhaps we're missing something? If not, then I'd say this rule can be done away with.
* Sevastopol unit arriving as a Fortress unit: well, it saves the Russians a card and that card can then be used for something else. It seesm to be historically accurate, as i understand that Sevastopol was already pretty heavily fortified even by late 1941. Not sure whether I'm happy with this rule yet, though (since I'm the German player, I'm obviously not, but just speaking from a gemer's point of view, here, haha!)
Just a brief overview of the changes we encountered during game play and our very initial impressions:
1 * 4 cards instead of 6 for the Germans at start: we didn't really think the Germans desperately needed more and if the intention is to make things a bit easier for the Russians, then this is definitely a very simple and elegant solution.
2 * Army group Romania not being allowed to advance after combat (in addition to not being allowed to move): In this particular game (see above) the combat result was "no effect" so it didn't come into play. It might potentially have made a difference as one of those units could have been even closer (perhaps even adjacent to) Sevastopol by the beginning of winter. Now the Russians still had time to get another unit to the front and assist in the defence of this objective city. If that is the intent, then it's surely a small help.
3 * Germans using Soviet CRT:This seems to have a bigger impact. Unless you have a stack of two very powerful German units, chances of a succesful attack (i.e. at least get to advance after combat) are very slim. However, during the entire conflict the Germans had very few, if any, large scale (counter-)attacks that took place in winter, so it might even be more historically accurate. However, it does seem to take away that last little bit of punch the Germans have in them in winter and long winter.The question is whether that is desirable and whether it won't upset play balance. As yet it's too early to tell.
4 * Movement 2 after rail movement instead of 3 for the Germans: this seemed to make no difference in our game at least: since you cannot detrain in a city that's only just been conquered really exploiting this, seems to be impossible already. Or perhaps we're missing something? If not, then I'd say this rule can be done away with.
5 * Sevastopol unit arriving as a Fortress unit: well, it saves the Russians a card and that card can then be used for something else. It seesm to be historically accurate, as i understand that Sevastopol was already pretty heavily fortified even by late 1941. Not sure whether I'm happy with this rule yet, though (since I'm the German player, I'm obviously not, but just speaking from a gemer's point of view, here, haha!)
Cool, thanks for your input!
My comments (the rule changes are at V3.0 right now, I'll post them soon).
1- I am thinking about changing this to "Pick 6 cards and keep 4 cards)
2- Histrically the troops in Rumania did not attack right away, but waited about 2 weeks. So no advances after combat is just more realistic historically anyway.
3- The change is not that dramatic, but I like it a lot (it,s fun!). Also, what do you think about the Rule giving the Soviets 2 shifts with their "Shock2 markers in Snow and Long Winter? i was thinking about reducing this to "Long Winter" only. Not sure about this one.
4- Yes i agree. it has a pretty limited impact and I was thinkign about removing it too (I have already removed the "you must take a combat loss from a 2-step unit if possible" already).
5- Yes, this one is historically accurate. And allows the Sebastopol Fortification to be set-up one turn in advance.
3- It hasn't come into play yet, as it's now the Russian's first winter turn (we called it quits after the German player turn). We'll be continueing play again Tuesday evening (tomorrow). What I do like about it, again without actually having played it like that yet, is that it gives the Russians a bit of extra punch in winter, which is something they need and it's historically accurate. However, I fear that a German win in 1941 becomes all but impossible with this change if the Russian places his shick markers well...Lon winter would certainly reduce the impact a little, but again, as yet I'm not sure whether this is good or bad.
4- Yeah, I like the choice between eliminating a weak unit or reducing a full strength unit in strength. I'm glad you did away with that one! And yes, I feel the movement after detraining can simply be 3 for both sides, because, as i said, the restriction that detraining must be initiated in a city you already conquered prior to this player turn (i.e. your previous player turn or your opponent's prior turn (after a counter-assault or counterblow)) already prevents abuse of this as far as I can tell.
1- That's a nice compromise between the rule in the book and simply drawing 4 cards (previous version proposed rule changes). It's fine with me either way.
5.3.4 - Turn two, Germans played Panzerblitz which I was able to counter with Conflicting Hilter Directives. However German also had Operational Reserves. Given that the Panzerblitz was cancelled, we allowed this play of a second move card (figuring that since the first card was cancelled, it had never occured and allowed the move. Was this correct, or was the Panzerblitz card, although cancelled, the one movement card allowed sue to this proposed rule?
7.2.3 Free fortress build-up. Had no effect. Germans concentrated all efforts on Leningrad and then Moscow. Never got adjacent to Sevastopol, so it did not matter. Leningrad fell during German turn 3, (due to play of operational reserve allowed German unit adjacen to Leningrad prior to Russian detraining. Therefore, no Russian unit could move up to support Leningrad due to zone of control stopping detraining and Kalinin being too far away to move adjacent to Leningrad. Germans were able to move multiple Panzers to Leningrad's two adjacent hexes and an infantry up to handle any counterblow meaning that Germans attack and take Leningrad on Turn 3 before any fortification possible. I would prefer allowing Leningrad to start fortified. Otherwise, any movement card in German hand (out of first two turns of card draws) means that there will be an attack on Leningrad before any possibility of fortifying. Moving regional unit out of Leningrad may prevent turn three attack, but will also prevent regional unit being in Leningrad to fortify.
13.1 German use Russian Table, 2 shift Russian Shock Attack - I see where Carl is considering reducing this to only Long Winter. Cannot agree. In my game, Germans played Unseasonal Weather on October turn, turning mud to clear AND December to mud. Therefore, January was only snow turn with shock attacks (March/April was also changed to snow with a second weather card, but the Russians do not get any shock attacks on that turn). In my game, the Germans concentrated on the North, leaving the South farily week. I needed the two shift to be able to mount any counterattacks in the South.
Maybe I'm just very unlucky playing this particular opponent, but in both games, Leningrad fell on turn three due to his concentration of all but one Panzer and having a movemnet card, and, after that, no matter what I do, Moscow will fall in 1942. of course, by the end of 1942, I was on the outskirts of Odessa, Kiev and had recaptured Smolensk (from the south), but he held Moscow, Kalinin, Tula and Leningrad.
5.3.4 - Turn two, Germans played Panzerblitz which I was able to counter with Conflicting Hilter Directives. However German also had Operational Reserves. Given that the Panzerblitz was cancelled, we allowed this play of a second move card (figuring that since the first card was cancelled, it had never occured and allowed the move. Was this correct, or was the Panzerblitz card, although cancelled, the one movement card allowed sue to this proposed rule?
7.2.3 Free fortress build-up. Had no effect. Germans concentrated all efforts on Leningrad and then Moscow. Never got adjacent to Sevastopol, so it did not matter. Leningrad fell during German turn 3, (due to play of operational reserve allowed German unit adjacen to Leningrad prior to Russian detraining. Therefore, no Russian unit could move up to support Leningrad due to zone of control stopping detraining and Kalinin being too far away to move adjacent to Leningrad. Germans were able to move multiple Panzers to Leningrad's two adjacent hexes and an infantry up to handle any counterblow meaning that Germans attack and take Leningrad on Turn 3 before any fortification possible. I would prefer allowing Leningrad to start fortified. Otherwise, any movement card in German hand (out of first two turns of card draws) means that there will be an attack on Leningrad before any possibility of fortifying. Moving regional unit out of Leningrad may prevent turn three attack, but will also prevent regional unit being in Leningrad to fortify.
13.1 German use Russian Table, 2 shift Russian Shock Attack - I see where Carl is considering reducing this to only Long Winter. Cannot agree. In my game, Germans played Unseasonal Weather on October turn, turning mud to clear AND December to mud. Therefore, January was only snow turn with shock attacks (March/April was also changed to snow with a second weather card, but the Russians do not get any shock attacks on that turn). In my game, the Germans concentrated on the North, leaving the South farily week. I needed the two shift to be able to mount any counterattacks in the South.
Maybe I'm just very unlucky playing this particular opponent, but in both games, Leningrad fell on turn three due to his concentration of all but one Panzer and having a movemnet card, and, after that, no matter what I do, Moscow will fall in 1942. of course, by the end of 1942, I was on the outskirts of Odessa, Kiev and had recaptured Smolensk (from the south), but he held Moscow, Kalinin, Tula and Leningrad.
5.3.4 - Yes the card WAS played (even if cancelled afterwards), so it did count for the one card played. BTW I already modified this rule in Ver3.0 of the proposed changes (available tohight).
7.2.3 - Not a good idea: It would be gimmicky. Historically Leningrad could have fallen in 1941, but the Germans diverted the ressources of AGN to the drive on Moscow. Note that with Sevastopol now an "Instant" fortress this will free some ressources to send up north to defend Leningrad.
13.1 - Yes, you have an excellent point there. I'll think about it some more, personally I would much prefer to allow the bonus on both Snow and Long Winter, I just want to make sure it's not too strong. BUT do note that Turn #5 is a special exception anyway (you have a -2 Defensive shift for the Germans even if the turn ends up "Snow".
Play balance is probably pretty subjective. I enjoy the game in its current form and certainly do not find the Soviet side easy beats.
Some of the new changes introduce more exceptions to remember and more rulebook checking eg. Germans use German CRT table but use the Soviet CRT during winter. Yes I know its a wargame but I do like the KISS principle.
Personally I feel all proposed play balance adjustments should be listed in the optional rules play-balance section like it is for many games. Players can then pick and choose the ones they like. It can help provide handicaps for newbies to play against experienced hands for example.
Play balance is probably pretty subjective. I enjoy the game in its current form and certainly do not find the Soviet side easy beats.
Some of the new changes introduce more exceptions to remember and more rulebook checking eg. Germans use German CRT table but use the Soviet CRT during winter. Yes I know its a wargame but I do like the KISS principle.
Personally I feel all proposed play balance adjustments should be listed in the optional rules play-balance section like it is for many games. Players can then pick and choose the ones they like. It can help provide handicaps for newbies to play against experienced hands for example.
Actually, I agree. However, if Carl is willing to put time and effort into perfecting the game even more, then I'm more than willing to assist in that process.
Although I'm an experienced wargamer, I don't yet have enough games of NR under my belt to be able to say whether it's truly balanced or not. I do agree with you that I haven't yet experienced the Russians to be easily beaten. The 1945 scenario does seem to be more difficult for them than it was historically, but that it was relatively easy for them historically (esp. the advance from Vistula to Oder in January 1945) was also due to some militarily very unsound decisions on the part of the Germans. If you don't do that in the game, then yes, it will become more difficult to beat the Germans (quickly).
We also played Barbarossa twice using the original rules and twice it was a Russian win (once I advanced my panzer arnies much too far, because of which they were all cut off and eliminated. In hindsight my opponent probably also used the placement rule incorrectly, as he still advanced them up to three hexes as if it were a detraining move. The second time I was one or two VP short of a win).
So even if it is unbalanced (in favor of the Germans), it's not so blatantly so that it's obvious from the first play.
I do hope Carl will keep the changes to a minimum, but my impression is that he is (e.g. eliminating the different movement rates for Germans and Russians after detraining).
I agree that having the Germans use the Soviet CRT is not KISS and something inside me is also somehow opposed to it, but at the same time I know that had the original ruleset been such, I never would have complained about it. perhaps it will, as Carl thinks, indeed make gameplay more exciting. It's certainly true that German attacks were a lot less effective in winter than in summer on the Eastern front, so as far as that's concerned, the rule shows this more.
I do hope Carl will keep the changes to a minimum, but my impression is that he is (e.g. eliminating the different movement rates for Germans and Russians after detraining).
Yes, do not worry. I'm always a porponent to keep thinks simple, AS YOU ALREADY MUST KNOW: I mean, the first version of NR! used only 40 counters to simulate the East Front!.
The list of proposed changes was NOT a definitive package, it was a list of things I wanted people to test and comment on. I was expecting tu cull quite a lot of what is proposed. And some of it is just errata.
BUT, if there was ONE rule only that I could keep, I would keep the "German switch CRTs" rule. It's REALLY not that complex, and IMHO it imporves play a lot, is fun and historically OK.
As for play-balance, this is an ebbing thing: newbie players will find one side is better, then after some expereince the other side will get the favor, then after some more experience it will change again, etc... If I do changes, it will be for the "Long Haul" and expecting players to get some serious play experience (at least half a dozen plays). A lot of games get so little play that the long-term imbalance possibility is never a problem, as very little player will do repeat games.
13.1 - Yes, you have an excellent point there. I'll think about it some more, personally I would much prefer to allow the bonus on both Snow and Long Winter, I just want to make sure it's not too strong. BUT do note that Turn #5 is a special exception anyway (you have a -2 Defensive shift for the Germans even if the turn ends up "Snow".
The -2 shift for German attacks on Turn 5 only has an effect if the Germans actually attack. So the only impact that Turn 5 may effectively have is to prevent German attacks on that turn. However, considering that there are no real negative attack results in the CRT, will it even have that? As long as the Germans do not position themselves where a counterattack could hurt them, they do not risk anything.
For the Russians to push the Germans back in the first winter, they need to be able to attack, not just defend. Given the paucity of troops during the first winter, I am lucky to be able to mount a three to one attack against a single Rumanian Army. With the increased shock value, the Russians might be able to force a Panzer Army to retreat.
It just seems that without some increased attack ability, the only impact of the first winter will be is that German attacks will be less successful attacking. Maybe I am under a mistaken impression, but I thought historically the Russians were able to force some retreating on the Germans in front of Moscow and the Germans suffered some losses, which, in large part, led to the German determination to try the South in 1942.
13.1 - Yes, you have an excellent point there. I'll think about it some more, personally I would much prefer to allow the bonus on both Snow and Long Winter, I just want to make sure it's not too strong. BUT do note that Turn #5 is a special exception anyway (you have a -2 Defensive shift for the Germans even if the turn ends up "Snow".
The -2 shift for German attacks on Turn 5 only has an effect if the Germans actually attack. So the only impact that Turn 5 may effectively have is to prevent German attacks on that turn. However, considering that there are no real negative attack results in the CRT, will it even have that? As long as the Germans do not position themselves where a counterattack could hurt them, they do not risk anything.
For the Russians to push the Germans back in the first winter, they need to be able to attack, not just defend. Given the paucity of troops during the first winter, I am lucky to be able to mount a three to one attack against a single Rumanian Army. With the increased shock value, the Russians might be able to force a Panzer Army to retreat.
It just seems that without some increased attack ability, the only impact of the first winter will be is that German attacks will be less successful attacking. Maybe I am under a mistaken impression, but I thought historically the Russians were able to force some retreating on the Germans in front of Moscow and the Germans suffered some losses, which, in large part, led to the German determination to try the South in 1942.
Yes indeed. As the proposed rules stand now the Soviets do have the 2-shift "Shock" markers for both Winter and Long Winter. I just want to make sure this is not overkill. The Russians do have a very large number of units in 1942, and hopefully they are not getting "too much of a good thing" here.
Also, Stalin was convinced that the Germans would try stabbing at the Moscow area again in 1942, this is why he concentrated his forces there, and that the south was left wit very weak defense line. This, plus the fact that the Spring Soviet offensives all ended in disater, further thinning their lines...
13.1 - Yes, you have an excellent point there. I'll think about it some more, personally I would much prefer to allow the bonus on both Snow and Long Winter, I just want to make sure it's not too strong. BUT do note that Turn #5 is a special exception anyway (you have a -2 Defensive shift for the Germans even if the turn ends up "Snow".
The -2 shift for German attacks on Turn 5 only has an effect if the Germans actually attack. So the only impact that Turn 5 may effectively have is to prevent German attacks on that turn. However, considering that there are no real negative attack results in the CRT, will it even have that? As long as the Germans do not position themselves where a counterattack could hurt them, they do not risk anything.
For the Russians to push the Germans back in the first winter, they need to be able to attack, not just defend. Given the paucity of troops during the first winter, I am lucky to be able to mount a three to one attack against a single Rumanian Army. With the increased shock value, the Russians might be able to force a Panzer Army to retreat.
It just seems that without some increased attack ability, the only impact of the first winter will be is that German attacks will be less successful attacking. Maybe I am under a mistaken impression, but I thought historically the Russians were able to force some retreating on the Germans in front of Moscow and the Germans suffered some losses, which, in large part, led to the German determination to try the South in 1942.
Yes, good points here. Do keep in mind that one hex is 100 km. The eventual withdrawal of the German troops in the Moscow area was around 150 km if I'm not mistaken, so an overly successful Russian counterattack might be a bit out of whack too. Then again, had the Germans run instead of stood fast at that time, it has been argued that the effects of the Russian winter-offensive would have been way more far-reaching.I guess one way to possibly prevent this in game play is to position the German troops carefully. One difference with history is that in the game you DO know that the Russians are getting ready for a counter-attack (the shock markers providing a 2 shift to the right).
I guess it simply needs more playtesting as Carl already pointed out.
Note: Reply of a interested but still inexperienced NR gamer.
I have read over the proposed changes with some mixed feelings. Of the proposed changes the Fortress change bothers the least.
One item that I did not see discussed was the change in 7.2.4 where, beginning T18, "Education" continues for free while free "Experience" does not. Maybe it affects only a handful of units (maybe 6-8 practically; 10 max) but gives the Soviets a large(r) late game advantage. Has anyone played through far enough to see if this tips the inevitable even more?
Also, boersma8 in item 4 wrote "Movement 2 vs. Movement 3" should have been put in the context of Supply. Initially, I was a bit confused by that as others may be.
As to the Soviets getting a 2 shift for Shock attacks in Snow/Long Winter AND having the Germans use the Soviet CRT (with a lot more exchanges). My play as Germans would be to simply idle at some distance from Moscow (and possibly Leningrad). This I did in my first play and with limited Russian mobility, they would have had to really stick their necks out to attack possibly risking Surrendered units. If weather is historical, pressing an attack by the Germans at either Leningrad and more so at Moscow with that terrain is nearly absurd absent Soviet incompetence.
In the real world, that first Winter was one of the worst on record. The Germans were not prepared (having to keep small fires burning under their tank engines so they would turn over, etc, etc.) but worst of all they overreached in their objective and underestimated their opponent.
These things do not have to happen in a game.
As it is, "lucky" weather for the Germans would grant another Clear turn (T3), Mud in T4 and no Long Winter putting the Russians over a barrel.
It seems that rather than an outright rule change another avenue would be additional Event cards that could grant the Soviets a "sticky" bonus that would last through the Snow turns. That of course, could have counterpart German events that might reflect better preparation for Winter or just a recognition that the Soviets would not surrender so don't push a losing situation...(at some point the German generals must have realized that taking Moscow wasn't going to happen long before it became a fact). Such cards could be a set that expires and is removed by say Summer of 1942 (much as the "not 45" cards are later in the game).
Finally, in my last game - a learning one for the other player. He had 3, perhaps 4 Exchange results in the 1st 3 turns; 2 of them in the North on T1. There were no advances so neither Riga nor Minsk fell. Ultimately, those results really put the Germans in a bind.
Perhaps (please don't flame me on this - it is only an idea) to make the game more fluid (and this will hurt the Germans later on), one could, on an Exchange result, either allow a limited advance if there was more than a single attacking formation OR still allow an advance if the odds were say 3:1 or 4:1 or better. Applies in Clear or Snow. For the size of the armies involved, this would seem to be practical. I wonder if in the original play testing if this was tried or not? Carl?
I realize that it might unhinge the Russians totally but 4:1 (and even 3:1) odds start becoming hard to get quite fast for the Germans, but with the proposed Snow rules, would put the Germans in the same bind a couple of turns later.
Note: Reply of a interested but still inexperienced NR gamer.
BTW I just posted version 3.1 of the proposed changes a few Seconds ago. BGG should have this "up and running" in a few days.
Education and Experience: I have gone "middle of the Road" here. The VPG 1st Edition of the game had BOTH these continue on to the End of the war. GMT was worried that some people found it too strong an advantage (I did not), so I removed both. The proposed change gives the Soviets half the advantage back.
Snow Combat Shifts and the Switch of tables: These changes are really not as strong as they appear. The Soviet have to be careful where they attack in 1941 as their units are very brittle. Plus the Germans never mounted any serious big-scale Offensives in winter in 42, 43 or 44. They attacked mainly in Summer: this change will show that.
Play balance is probably pretty subjective. I enjoy the game in its current form and certainly do not find the Soviet side easy beats.
Some of the new changes introduce more exceptions to remember and more rulebook checking eg. Germans use German CRT table but use the Soviet CRT during winter. Yes I know its a wargame but I do like the KISS principle.
Personally I feel all proposed play balance adjustments should be listed in the optional rules play-balance section like it is for many games. Players can then pick and choose the ones they like. It can help provide handicaps for newbies to play against experienced hands for example.
I strongly agree with this. I have yet to see a rule that really improves the game, while all of them add to the fiddle factor.
Here are ideas for 3 new cards. I'll admit they were done with the idea that the Shock Armies were not going to be "ruled" into the game as having 2 Shifts in Snow Turns.
The first two cards are "sticky" events that last through continuous Snow Turns. (Or in Card 2 through Clear Weather for the German side) Don't know how anyone feels about this "sticky business". If drawn by the Soviets they get their 2 column shifts for Shock Armies and if by the Germans, the benefits of better preparation (card 1) and advantage due to mobility and organization in Clear weather (Card 2).
The idea of the cards were to give both sides a boost providing they had the right card at the right time. No different than "Siege Artillery" showing when in front of Sevastopol or Leningrad...
Card 1:
"Model's Modus Operandi" Add +1 to all Unit strengths on Defense in this and subsequent Snow turns (this Winter only) Apply if defending from volunteer Soviets voluntary attacks, CA/CB due to CRT results. (Reflects Model's observation of the 1941-42 Soviet counter-attacks and how to better stop them and generally better German preparation for Soviet counter-attacks; possibly exclude the Axis allies...)
"Mother Russia" For this and subsequent Snow turns (this Winter); Soviet Shock markers provide a +2 shift for all attacks.
Card 2:
"German Blitzkrieg Doctrine" During this and subsequent Clear weather turns, the Germans get a Normal advance (including Armor advance) in an Exchange Result provided that the Germans had more than 1 German (exclude Axis Allies) unit in the attack.
Card 3:
"Successful Partisan Suppression" Winter/Long Winter turn only, Germans gain 1 Blitz marker per card discarded (max of 3); may be used in CA or CB (reflects use of kampfgruppe to repulse breakthroughs)
"Uncle Joe's Shadow" Soviets has Shock counters available in every attack this turn (Winter only) including CA, CB and voluntary attacks. This may not be combined with a "continuing event" such as "Mother Russia" or "Inured Siberians"
[7.2.2] Upgraded, but Brittle: Even after Upgrading, those stronger (red) Russian units still have only one step until Turn 17, when they become 2-step units (see 7.3, below). Thus, as Upgraded one-step units, when they are eliminated, they are placed in the Shattered, Destroyed or Surrendered boxes on their red (one-step) side and will return, when replaced, on that same side. However, they are considered two-step counters for removal to the Surrendered Holding Box (see rules 10.7.1 and 11.1).
Does this means that unit on the Red side when moved to Surrendered and then put back on the board it will come back on their brown side instead?
***
8-9 – Germans +1 Card: During his Card Phase, the Axis player can chose to receive one extra Event card and if so loses 1VP (for those turns only).
Is this optional now for Germans? Meaning they can take 1 extra card but loose VP or draw only 4 and keep the VPs? I think that's bit harsh.
i really like the idea of having cards for the very early part of the game (1941 only). half a dozen of so could be a nice extra to GMT C3i magazine.
I'll ask them if this is possible. If yes we could start a topic about new cards suggestions.
If they allow adding the new cards, maybe cards with errata would be possible too? For #10 and #37?
Btw these ideas for cards look good. I would still keep SHOCK +2 shifts advantage for first long winter (the one where Russians get +2 for defense) regardless of the cards.
i really like the idea of having cards for the very early part of the game (1941 only). half a dozen of so could be a nice extra to GMT C3i magazine.
I'll ask them if this is possible. If yes we could start a topic about new cards suggestions.
Would those cards also be available any other way? Would they be actual cards or simply pictures of cards in the magazine? How could one buy this magazine?
Would it also be possible to compile an all-new additional card deck which might be sold separately? (I know that a game called Singapore 1942 did that. Heck, I even playtested that expansion (-:
While the idea looks very attractive, caution is advised as these cards have never been playtested and some might have too much of an impact on game-play.
Would those cards also be available any other way? Would they be actual cards or simply pictures of cards in the magazine? How could one buy this magazine?
Would it also be possible to compile an all-new additional card deck which might be sold separately? (I know that a game called Singapore 1942 did that. Heck, I even playtested that expansion (-:
Yes usually when GMT offers ne cards in their Magazine, they also have some decks that can be purchased separately for a few dollars.
And sure it would be possible to create a completely new card deck, using the same system that was done to create and offer on www.artscow.com the cards with graphics on them.
But this would take time and I don't have this right now. But any gamer could make a custom set.One example here:
i really like the idea of having cards for the very early part of the game (1941 only). half a dozen of so could be a nice extra to GMT C3i magazine.
I'll ask them if this is possible. If yes we could start a topic about new cards suggestions.
If they allow adding the new cards, maybe cards with errata would be possible too? For #10 and #37?
Btw these ideas for cards look good. I would still keep SHOCK +2 shifts advantage for first long winter (the one where Russians get +2 for defense) regardless of the cards.
Two things:
1 I think GMT could add a sheet of cards (6-9) to a C3i magazine. Biggest issue is to make sure they are dead ringers for the decks we have as any shift in color is a giveaway to what might be in your hand. Probably less expensive to get a new deck as C3i's run $20.
2 Keeping the 2-shift Shock army effect in the 1st long Winter is fine. The variable weather can either eliminate the Long Winter in early '42 or make it very, very long indeed.
I believe the point of the cards to introduce some "what-ifs" into the game. Carl is very much more aware of the trade-off between play balance and staying reasonably "historical". And No Retreat is far more a game than simulation IMHO - a very good game I might add!
Both Cards 1 & 2 were intended as "sticky events" that remain in effect as long as the conditions exist. The effects include both Snow and Long Winter Turns.
Carl has expressed interest in a "1941 deck" that might address issues on both sided - such my OP where the Exchange results in my last game simply stopped the Germans in their tracks (I was the Russians).
Would those cards also be available any other way? Would they be actual cards or simply pictures of cards in the magazine? How could one buy this magazine?
Would it also be possible to compile an all-new additional card deck which might be sold separately? (I know that a game called Singapore 1942 did that. Heck, I even playtested that expansion (-:
Yes usually when GMT offers ne cards in their Magazine, they also have some decks that can be purchased separately for a few dollars.
And sure it would be possible to create a completely new card deck, using the same system that was done to create and offer on www.artscow.com the cards with graphics on them.
But this would take time and I don't have this right now. But any gamer could make a custom set.One example here:
If you don't mind - where did the lose 1 VP to gain a card come from for the Germans in the Summer of '42? It was not in the v2.0 rule changes.
And if I read it correctly, the VP would be given up in both turns the extra card is available if you chose to take +1 card. A pretty steep cost.
Thanks.
The intent here was to give the German player, on each turn, the choice between doing nothing, or drawing a card and losing a Victory Point. if you have a better wording then be my guest. Hey, I'm a French-Canadian and English is not my primary language.
Where did it come from? I just added it on a whim, that's all! Seriously on the VPG 1st edition of the game this event did not exist, i added it on the GMT version, but IMHO it should cost something.
Or... What about 1VP penalty, ONCE, for the two card draws? It might be better...
If you don't mind - where did the lose 1 VP to gain a card come from for the Germans in the Summer of '42? It was not in the v2.0 rule changes.
And if I read it correctly, the VP would be given up in both turns the extra card is available if you chose to take +1 card. A pretty steep cost.
Thanks.
The intent here was to give the German player, on each turn, the choice between doing nothing, or drawing a card and losing a Victory Point. if you have a better wording then be my guest. Hey, I'm a French-Canadian and English is not my primary language.
Where did it come from? I just added it on a whim, that's all! Seriously on the VPG 1st edition of the game this event did not exist, i added it on the GMT version, but IMHO it should cost something.
Or... What about 1VP penalty, ONCE, for the two card draws? It might be better...
Comments?
I am certainly interested in what others think on this. My first impression would be to go halfway - 1 VP and you get the +1 card for each Clear weather month. In 1942, the Germans (while delusional) were likely under no illusions about their opponent, realizing that these Russians were a mouthful and thus the doctrine, supply, planning etc. that the cards represent seem to be a reasonable thing for that period.
While I have played only a small handful of games, the only easy German win would seem to be the Sudden Death in T3. After that, they need to use their mobility, cards and dice-gods to win! Absent a real slip up by the Russians allowing a sizable OOS encirclement to occur, the game seems to eventually to to the Russians. If they cannot launch a counter-offensive in the first Winter (which is very difficult in NR in any case), they will be able to do so later in '42...
Where did it come from? I just added it on a whim, that's all! Seriously on the VPG 1st edition of the game this event did not exist, i added it on the GMT version, but IMHO it should cost something.
Or... What about 1VP penalty, ONCE, for the two card draws? It might be better...
Comments?
I only played few games, and all of them PBEM so we played campaign from turn 1.
My feeling that taking away those two cards from Germans will even more tip the scale towards the Russians. These two cards allow German to take some risks in the last summer before initiative changes. Taking this away from them just eases Russian task in the 1943 and after.
Just my 2 cents. I would keep this part as written in current rules.
Where did it come from? I just added it on a whim, that's all! Seriously on the VPG 1st edition of the game this event did not exist, i added it on the GMT version, but IMHO it should cost something.
Or... What about 1VP penalty, ONCE, for the two card draws? It might be better...
Comments?
I only played few games, and all of them PBEM so we played campaign from turn 1.
My feeling that taking away those two cards from Germans will even more tip the scale towards the Russians. These two cards allow German to take some risks in the last summer before initiative changes. Taking this away from them just eases Russian task in the 1943 and after.
Just my 2 cents. I would keep this part as written in current rules.
I tend to agree. Also, I'd say a VP is worth more than one card. Being the Germans you need to take an ADDITIONAL town/city to get that VP back or cause an ADDITIONAL Soviet unit to surrender. To me one card doesn't justify that. Possibly not even two. So yes, at the very least I'd go for 1VP for 1 card extra on each of the two clear weather turns (so two cards). To be quite honest, I don't even think the Germans need to be blunted even more than they already have been with all the proposed new rules. At several points during the war, argueably I have to admit, the Germans could have beaten the Russians: Moscow 1941, Stalingrad 1942 and even Kursk 1943 hade they attack a few months sooner. If you weaken the Germans too much, then all of these will become impossible. I don't feel that's desirable.
Carl, in version 4.0, will you integrate the changes into a complete (online) rule book? That'd be great so one won't have to keep both the rule book and the proposed new rule changes at hand when playing.
Carl, in version 4.0, will you integrate the changes into a complete (online) rule book? That'd be great so one won't have to keep both the rule book and the proposed new rule changes at hand when playing.
Don't worry. When I have made up my mind, there will be a "Living Rules" booklet available qwith all the changes integrated, like was done last October.
I cannot do this by myslef, sadly, as i don't have the original files for the rules (GMT have them), so it will be the good people at GMT who will integrate everything into the last final version of the rules.
What is the purpose of this process? Are these changes going to become the new official rules for the GMT edition? Are they based on clarifications to the printed rules, resolutions for missing game conditions, or changes based on the way the game plays out?
(Sorry, I'm too lazy to read through this document right now. My first attempt to play through a solo game was too frustrating.)
What is the purpose of this process? Are these changes going to become the new official rules for the GMT edition? Are they based on clarifications to the printed rules, resolutions for missing game conditions, or changes based on the way the game plays out?
(Sorry, I'm too lazy to read through this document right now. My first attempt to play through a solo game was too frustrating.)
The purpose is to make a few last clarifications and changes.
I'm a huge fan of NR, but respectfully I have to offer a dissenting opinion about the spirit of these rule changes. I'll try to be brief and clear, but like Mark Twain said, I don't have a lot of time so I ended up writing a lot.
What I personally don't like is two things. Firstly is that the proposed changes add quite a bit more complexity and IMO detract from the elegance of the basic design.
Second and more important it feels like the rules are attempting to address a problem of balance by reducing variability, the range of possibilities, and the uncertainty of the players. I worry that in general this is a flawed strategy for addressing play balance in the abstract, and that in the specific it will make the game less interesting in the early years, and overall less interesting because the tree of possibilities is reduced.
Let me try to explain what I mean.
A simple game like tic-tac-toe, or connect four has no tension because they're solved. A more complex game like chess is still interesting, but the openings are carefully studied and for experts, the opening are just a bit they get through as they try to understand their opponents intentions. The openings are decipherable, and pre-calculable because early in the game the possibilities are limited. As the game progresses, you have to be a super computer to have a recipe for success.
In NR it is my understanding of the problem is that there is a concern that with the fixed initial setup it's possible for the German player to scrutinize their position and develop a couple of openings that are significantly more better than all others. With a few lucky die rolls and lucky cards plays, these openings will result in a X% chance of an early German victory. A recipe for success.
Now, we don't need to agree on what the realistic value for X is, so long as we agree that X is not zero or so low as to be functionally zero. Of course if there were no meaningful chance of victory then it would not serve as an effective impetus to behave historically. So let's assume X is egregiously in favor of the Germans.
I can think of three general approaches.
One is to adjust the values of the metrics required for success without changing other rules. This seems difficult here because there is not a terrifically fine granularity in VP locations, though perhaps one could imagine to win you must have both the instant win VP cities and a certain number of surrender VPs or some such.
Second is to add rules to slow down the Germans in this phase of the game, which is the proposal being discussed. Most of the proposals (reduce cards for the Germans, free fortify Sevastopol, etc.) have the unintended attribute of reducing the number of potentially advantageous strategies for the Germans and reducing the uncertainty for both sides. I think this is a problematic approach because it simple puts off the problem rather than solving it. German players only have to walk further down the decision tree to figure out optimal openings. Each card play is less agonizing, not more because good cards have fewer possible uses in pursuit of your recipe. Russian players may feel less on the ropes, but will have fewer meaningful choices because more situations become certain (now of course you'll keep that unit in Sevastopol and make a stand there). I know my enjoyment of NR would decrease significantly if I felt that the early years were becoming more rote and scripted
In my opinion games with fixed setup, inevitably result in initial recipes for success. However the best way to balance them is to tune the game so that it quickly becomes maximally uncertain.
Which brings me to the third approach, which is my preferred strategy for dealing with games where you have to motivate one side to strive for something that is a risk, add rules that maximize uncertainty even more, but not through cards or dice, but under player control. The canonical example of this is Napoleon's Triumph. The Allied player knows that Napoleon has set a trap (thanks to historical hindsight), yet his victory conditions require him to leave the high ground until the French player brings on his reinforcements, at which point the Allied initial victory conditions are almost impossible, but also irrelevant because now the French must go on the offensive to achieve their new victory conditions. In my experience (and the legions of rabid Simmons fans seem to agree) this uncertainty and motivation structure leads to almost infinite engaging re-playability.
NR could do something very literally like this, where the Russian player has stores of reinforcements on hand that he can tap at will to guarantee a slow down for the German recipe, but calling on them will trade against VP, or forced counter blows or something that shifts the tide. Of course NR could do any number of other things, but the idea would be to keep what ever X% the recipe for success is as more uncertain rather than better known. The German player would be less capable of constructing any ideal opening because he's not counting on die roll and card draw %s, but on the Russian player's risk tolerance and willingness to trade off the possibility of short term sudden death against longer term difficulty in beating back the Germans. Some kind of limited or constrained variable initial setup might even someday be considered as an other way to reduce certainty...
In any case I'm really grateful for the awesome game and I hope this dissenting opinion is taken in the right spirit. I really like the game and I really like it's simplicity. I appreciate all the work that's gone into it and gone into engaging with the community. I know only offer one gamer's opinion and I hope it's food for thought if nothing else.
I know only offer one gamer's opinion and I hope it's food for thought if nothing else.
Thanks four your great input, Matt!
For the few "play-balance" changes I'm looking into adding, here are my "Designer's" incentives:
- They have to make sense historically.
- They have to be "fun" (so do not lower either player enjoyment of the game!).
- Usually when I think a change is good, I will nonetheless lower it's effect on the game by half: so in fact most, if not all, changes have a small impact on the game and gameplay.
Hi Carl, how will all this tie back into the official game rules? Will you issue a new Living Rules version where the above suggested changes become part of the regular rules? Or will they all be in the optional rules section? Thanks!
Hi Carl, how will all this tie back into the official game rules? Will you issue a new Living Rules version where the above suggested changes become part of the regular rules? Or will they all be in the optional rules section? Thanks!
Good question. I cannot do the changes myself as the GMT rules were made with a very old "InDesign" version that is not compatible with my Mac computer. So I'll send the changes to the good people at GMT and they will integrate then in a new version of the "Living Rules". with the changes being in easily identifiable blue-coloured fonts.
Those will not be in the optional rules section (but for rule 15.11 Variable Card initiative).
BTW I have seen, to my surprise, that the great majority of players are not using any of the current numerous (and IMHO very cool) optional rules: Lesson learned for my future games. NR2 and NR3 already sport little of them, and I'll lower the amount even more. Hey, why bother?
As others have noted there are a lot of subtleties in your game, So if one sits down with a bit of experience and is showing another player the game for the first time, you tend to eschew optional rules.
It's not that they aren't good rules, its a matter of the "RAF" - "rule absorption factor" - many others will say lets set those aside and get started at least that has been my experience... Think about Counter blows and the impact of Supply on Placement - very key issues to understand vs. say use of Cadres or Local Air Support. Just from my last game, my opponent and I have had several emails especially concerning Sevastopol/Supply/Placement which I (yes it was my bad) managed to get all wrong much to my detriment as the Germans.
I would tend to leave in such rules unless they add more development time than they are worth. Players should discover - as I have - that using these rules add a lot. It is only now - after several plays that I feel more comfortable with them.
BTW: have you received different feedback on optional rules from those using Vassal (and not relying on f2f play)?
Hi Carl, how will all this tie back into the official game rules? Will you issue a new Living Rules version where the above suggested changes become part of the regular rules? Or will they all be in the optional rules section? Thanks!
Good question. I cannot do the changes myself as the GMT rules were made with a very old "InDesign" version that is not compatible with my Mac computer. So I'll send the changes to the good people at GMT and they will integrate then in a new version of the "Living Rules". with the changes being in easily identifiable blue-coloured fonts.
Those will not be in the optional rules section (but for rule 15.11 Variable Card initiative).
BTW I have seen, to my surprise, that the great majority of players are not using any of the current numerous (and IMHO very cool) optional rules: Lesson learned for my future games. NR2 and NR3 already sport little of them, and I'll lower the amount even more. Hey, why bother?
We do tend to use most, if not all, of the optional rules. They indeed add a lot. Sometimes we leave out one or two in certain scenarios in which we think they are either not historically accurate (at that stage of the war) or that they favor a side we think doesn't need any extra help (at that time of the war).
But yes, I agree. The optional rules add a lot! The extra support, abteilungen, the Russian marker symbolizing partisan activity..
I can see the point of one of the previous posters, though, that when you play for the first time, the standard rules are already enough of a challenge to fully understand and grasp (like you said, not really a difficult game to play, but a hard one to master!).
nice to see that those Optionals are getting used. I tried to design them to allow players to indeed "customize" parts of the game they don't like, not just as pure "chrome".
Usually when I play wargames I do tend to use most optionals, too.
I just sent an email to my tonight's opponent and suggested that we use the all optional rules except the No Surrender, the Joker and Faster Reorganization but will let him weigh in on final choices.
We will also use variable weather (as I think of that as Optional though it is the default rule).
I just sent an email to my tonight's opponent and suggested that we use the all optional rules except the No Surrender, the Joker and Faster Reorganization but will let him weigh in on final choices.
We will also use variable weather (as I think of that as Optional though it is the default rule).
These are indeed the optional rules we don't usually use either.
Well, the only Optional Rule that got into play was local Air Support. It did not change much but you got to think about the odds a bit. All the Fortress, Detachment and Reserves never made it into play!!
We played twice with both going to T3 SD for the Germans. The 1st game was tainted by two things: my Russian opponent managed to forget to detrain his unit from Moscow on T2 and I managed, incorrectly, to Entrain/Detrain the 2nd Army on T2.
2nd game only went slightly better for the Russians with the Germans winning with the 2nd Panzer moving into Moscow using the Heinz Guderian card.
Since these games went so quickly, it is apparent that (1) cards can win a game (for the Germans) in the early go and (2) the Russian can ill afford a single misplaced unit in the 1st few turns.
Oddly, we discussed using the No Surrender rule and decided not to.
[The discussion wandered into what Sudden Death that would have meant historically? Some truce with the Germans holding the Tiger-by-the-Tail? While acceding to a truce/peace, the political and philosophical differences were way too much to reconcile. The Germans would have had to have enormous numbers of troops and how long would any "peace" lasted? I somehow doubt the Russians would have surrendered the entire country and even if they did how would have the Germans managed it - their "uber-race" mentality would have turned Russia into a full fledged asymmetric war. Could make for some interesting "what-if games...]
We want to give the Summer '42 scenario a go to see what that is like next. And use the Optional Rules.
I think Matt D had some valid points, but more I look on these changes, more I realize that they are not impacting the game that much as it might look on the first glance, nor they add much in complexity.
I'm happy with the way rule 7.4 ended up to be.
When can we expect new Living rules to be uploaded?
Btw there is still few typos in the errata, like Heinz Guardian card is #37, not 27, and Sevastopol says Sebastopol. Minor stuff...
Armor bonus icon in the rulebook is bit misplaced... Just letting you know, there is many OCD gamers out there
The Living rules will be ready when GMT have time to correct them. Do not know for sure right now, plus we are still testing all the changes. It's a "work in Progress for at least a few weeks.
What does OCD means? (sorry I am French-Speaking and do not know all the English game Acronyms)
Well, I have changed it again: It was too finicky. And I'm trying a different stacking rule for the Soviets (more realistic and better for game-play IMHO).
[8.4.1] Stacking Limits: The Axis may stack up to two units per hex. The Soviets can have only one unit per hex until initiative Shifts on Turn 12: at that time they can stack one "Tank" unit with any other unit but Fortifications; and then in 1945 they can stack any two units per hex.
[7.4] The Two-Front War: The Turn after the Initiative Changes to the Soviets (so starting on Turn 13), and for the rest of the game, the Axis player cannot discard cards to Improve (7.1) and Replace (7.9) units during turns with a RED GAME EVENT. (Ex: "Italy Invaded, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge) Put the "Initiative" marker (Soviet Face Up) in the next future turn track box sporting a Red Game Event, as a reminder.
DESIGN NOTE: Starting in the Middle of 1943, the Western Allies menace was becoming very serious, forcing the Germans to divert more and more military units and reinforcements away from the Russian Front.
I think the previous version of 7.4 was better, just because it was easier to remember, this adds level of fiddly which is not needed. It also scripts the game more. If you think about it, if the rule is like that German player will have incentive to stockpile cards in between red events (so he can have 6 and therefore maximum potential for replacements), and Russian will try attack with more force just one turn before red event cause they will know that Germans are in a bind and that they can't improve on the following turn. If the rule stays as before, level of randomness is present, as Russians are never sure how much Germans can replace/improve.
As for the stacking rule change, that also adds bit of fiddly more than necessary. If the rule stay as it is, Russian supreme firepower has to be spread around instead concentrated so it gives German easier job in defending at the moment when their units are already at disadvantage. This new option will give chance to Russians to spearhead the Germans and once they break the front Germans are going to have very hard time in stopping them, once Russians steal the city behind enemy lines, Strategic reserve as it is right now is a killer advantage.
The last 5.0 version of the rules was good enough in a sense that it made few subtle changes, but not much. And if you are asking me (and many people here already enjoy the game as is) I would leave it at that. As you probably know yourself the designer knows that he achieved perfection, not when there is nothing else to add, but when there is nothing else to take away (too much cIV).
once Russians steal the city behind enemy lines, Strategic reserve as it is right now is a killer advantage.
Not really, as you cannot use a just-captured city to detrain a unit.
[9.2] Detraining During the player’s Detraining Phase (at the end of his turn), he may bring none, any or all of his units in the Rail Movement Box back onto the map. (Units in the Rail Movement Box can remain there indefinitely.) When “Detrained,” each unit is placed in either:
• A friendly City hex that can trace a Overland Supply Path (even in an Enemy ZOC), or • Any hex that is not an Enemy Controlled City, Adjacent to one, or in an EZOC, and can trace an Overland Supply Path of three hexes maximum (i.e., no more than two intervening hexes) to a friendly Supplied City or friendly map edge. You may not trace to a City hex that was just captured this player- turn, through an enemy-controlled city, or use an Alternate Supply Source.
Yes I liked it, but a lot of people did not think so. Thus I'm trying something different. The Jury is still out.
The goal was to tone down the effect. I do not mind the scripting, there is already many events scripted on the turn track. And it will be easy to remember as a counter is used for that purpose on the turn track.
Mind you, I might drop this completely. this is still a "Work in Progress". and I might yet again find something different to try. Mwahahaha!
Am I missing something? 7.2.3. "On this turn" - WHAT turn?
Weather: pretty sure You mean two column shift during LONG WINTER turns, right? So why is it under Snow Turns. BTW, I really don't like the rule and don't see enough historical support for it if it is to stay in effect every loong winter turn. In my opinion this one should be considered only in 41'.
Am I missing something? 7.2.3. "On this turn" - WHAT turn?
Weather: pretty sure You mean two column shift during LONG WINTER turns, right? So why is it under Snow Turns. BTW, I really don't like the rule and don't see enough historical support for it if it is to stay in effect every loong winter turn. In my opinion this one should be considered only in 41'.
It's a "design for effect" thing.
The bonus is to be on snow turns only. The soviets did major successfull offensives each and every snow turn historically. And I do have the feeling this VERY SMALL extra bonus is warranted.
I prefer keeping it for every snow turn instead of adding another exception in the rules. I stived from the start to keep the game simple compared to most "heady" wargames.
once Russians steal the city behind enemy lines, Strategic reserve as it is right now is a killer advantage.
Not really, as you cannot use a just-captured city to detrain a unit.
[9.2] Detraining During the player’s Detraining Phase (at the end of his turn), he may bring none, any or all of his units in the Rail Movement Box back onto the map. (Units in the Rail Movement Box can remain there indefinitely.) When “Detrained,” each unit is placed in either:
• A friendly City hex that can trace a Overland Supply Path (even in an Enemy ZOC), or • Any hex that is not an Enemy Controlled City, Adjacent to one, or in an EZOC, and can trace an Overland Supply Path of three hexes maximum (i.e., no more than two intervening hexes) to a friendly Supplied City or friendly map edge. You may not trace to a City hex that was just captured this player- turn, through an enemy-controlled city, or use an Alternate Supply Source.
I fully understand this, but let's look about what I have in mind. Russians have Leningrad, Germans control Riga-Minsk-Kiev-Odessa line (they often can't afford to garrison units in all of these cities but most likely Riga). Russians have one of their infantry armies in Strategic Reserve. At the end of German detrain phase they unload their unit 2 hexes from Riga. On their turn they just walk into Riga, take one VP there. Entrain then their Tank unit (with 4MPs), maybe even one more infantry and detrain it in Riga at then end of the turn. In the mean time Infantry #1 is again in SR. Next German turn Russians unload their SR 2 hexes from Minsk take Minsk, move tank unit from Riga to Minsk to secure it.... You can steal entire line fairly easy. If Germans fall back to try defend this then Smolensk will open up for SR unload from either Kalinin, Tula or Moscow. Allowing Russians to stack 2 units give them a mobile task force which can easily defend newly captured cities, and Germans won't be able to mount attack at 3:1 that easy anymore to try to take those cities back.
Ok, my 2 cents. First of all, this is the best game I bought in maybe 4 years: great work Carl! I am not an expert of the NR, 3-4 games f2f and some more solo try/study sessions. Just today I finished a solo try of the game with V5.0 and I enjoied them and their effect. Regarding the V6.0:
- Weather effects: I fell that the change in weather effects are good: I had a couple of VERY long winters and that was really good luck for the Soviet; better get the shock boost in snow, only one turn but with the added effect of a better exploitation of the eventual success.
- Rule 7.4 : I don't like the proposed changes, not at all. I prefer the V5.0, with more uncertainty: I think it's a logical and easy to remember rule (you can't play the event? than you cannot replace, too) with good side effects (to replace units you must forfait good useful events insted of dead cards). More luck involved? A little more yes, but it's a game with dice rolls... I really don't like the certainty in replacement at will/no replacement at all binding them to a specific turn: I'm sure it can and will be abused in awful ways, and... I don't like it (I alrady said this?)!
- Special stacking limit: frankly I don't know, I'll try it (I almost always play the Soviet, so it will be a pleasure). By the way, I'm not 100% sure of what you mean: one tank (and only one) per turn or every tank can stack with a non-fortress unit? The latter a powerful help, indeed.
Then the German player deserved what was coming: I mean he had one full turn to cover Riga, and he Still left the front line up north empty, allowing the Soviets to just waltz right in?
The Cities on the board represent the road and rail net hubs. You must keep control of these, especially if they are on the front line.
plus you CANNOT detrain your units in Riga has you explained: again, you cannot use a just- captured city for purposes of detraining, and Leningrad is too far away, at 5 hexes.
- Rule 7.4 : I don't like the proposed changes, not at all. I prefer the V5.0, with more uncertainty: I think it's a logical and easy to remember rule (you can't play the event? than you cannot replace, too) with good side effects (to replace units you must forfait good useful events insted of dead cards). More luck involved? A little more yes, but it's a game with dice rolls... I really don't like the certainty in replacement at will/no replacement at all binding them to a specific turn: I'm sure it can and will be abused in awful ways, and... I don't like it (I alrady said this?)!
Right. Anyway my goal is to remove this rule entirely. With the New stacking rule IMHO I will be able to do this. If I put rule 7.4 in the game, it will DEFINITELY be an optional rule for now: it would take too much time to properly test IMHO. Let's see what happens after a year or playings or so.
luca marcolungo wrote:
- Special stacking limit: frankly I don't know, I'll try it (I almost always play the Soviet, so it will be a pleasure). By the way, I'm not 100% sure of what you mean: one tank (and only one) per turn or every tank can stack with a non-fortress unit? The latter a powerful help, indeed.
Each and every tank can stack with any other unit, but NOT with a fortress.
I like this rule very much, and this is why I "toned-down" rule 7.4.
Again: remember this is still a "work in Progress" and all the player input I get is welcomed and precious.
Maybe something like "the 1st and 2nd replacements discarding 1 card; 3rd and more 2 cards..." to show the difficulties as war progress...
Just wondering. Thank you for this game. Luca
You are most welcome! thanks you for buying it and commenting here.
As for the replacement rate, the German army did stay quite potent until the end of 1944 in the East, especially in terms of firepower. But the West Front did draw more and more resources, and the Soviets became more and more adept that the awful job of war and killing enemies. Mind you, they also had severe manpower problems towards the end of the war: looking at the pictures of both sides soldiers in 1945 it sometimes looks like a "war of the children".
But you can detrain in Riga! As per the rule you can detrain to:
• A friendly City hex that can trace a Overland Supply Path (even in an Enemy ZOC), or - Riga is friendly at that point, condition fulfilled.
• Any hex that is not an Enemy Controlled City (it is not), Adjacent to one (it is not), or in an EZOC (it is not), and can trace an Overland Supply Path of three hexes maximum (i.e., no more than two intervening hexes) to a friendly Supplied City or friendly map edge. You may not trace to a City hex that was just captured this player- turn, through an enemy-controlled city, or use an Alternate Supply Source.
The bold part imply that you can detrain in captured city, but you CANNOT detrain up to 2 hexes away from the new city. As it says, you can't trace to newly captured city. But since condition 1 is satisfied after SR capture during movement phase this is really hard to defend.
Anyways, I'm still against stacking for Russians in any form before 1945, it increases the Russian FP in average by 50%, this is huge not to have any impact.
But you can detrain in Riga! As per the rule you can detrain to:
• A friendly City hex that can trace a Overland Supply Path (even in an Enemy ZOC), or - Riga is friendly at that point, condition fulfilled.
• Any hex that is not an Enemy Controlled City (it is not), Adjacent to one (it is not), or in an EZOC (it is not), and can trace an Overland Supply Path of three hexes maximum (i.e., no more than two intervening hexes) to a friendly Supplied City or friendly map edge. You may not trace to a City hex that was just captured this player- turn, through an enemy-controlled city, or use an Alternate Supply Source.
The bold part imply that you can detrain in captured city, but you CANNOT detrain up to 2 hexes away from the new city. As it says, you can't trace to newly captured city. But since condition 1 is satisfied after SR capture during movement phase this is really hard to defend.
You CANNOT use a captured city as a reference point for detraining the turn it was captured. So the nearest city you can count your range from is Leningrad: too far away.
This is the design intent of the rule and the way I wanted it to work. If it seems to lead to some confusion then I'll reword it to make it more clear.
Like:
• You may not trace to, or detrain in, a City hex that was just captured this player-turn, through an enemy-controlled city, or use an Alternate Supply Source.
Thanks for helping me spot the errata error!
ahmedhadzi wrote:
Anyways, I'm still against stacking for Russians in any form before 1945, it increases the Russian FP in average by 50%, this is huge not to have any impact.
Have you tried it yet? How many games have you played that played through 1943-45? Give it a go and get back to me then.
Even if it would make their FP 50% better in a few attacks, given how the Combat Tables work, this will give them about a one-table shift on some. And other parts of the front will be weaker. And it works only for a few units in their arsenal (the Tank units).
ahmedhadzi wrote:
I hate to rain on your parade Carl
Way to cold for rain here in Canada. Let's call it some nice snow flurries. Perfect time for skiing!
Though on the one hand I really enjoy all the rule tweaking that is going on here, I suggest to leave a version of the rules up for say a couple of months so people can give it a try. To be honest, i don't really know whatto test anymore, as from week to week the rules seem to be changing.
Otherwise (still) the best Eastern front strategic game I own!
Though on the one hand I really enjoy all the rule tweaking that is going on here, I suggest to leave a version of the rules up for say a couple of months so people can give it a try. To be honest, i don't really know whatto test anymore, as from week to week the rules seem to be changing.
Otherwise (still) the best Eastern front strategic game I own!
The rules "brainstrom" is almost over. I'll make a final version probably today, and it will be almost identical to ver 6.0! And this last one will stay as is.
BTW, we tend to forget that in the historical context of our little wargames, the real-life participants only had one try to win their game, and often did not even know all the rules...
This I know, and I do that all the time! Only for a better historical simulation, of course...
LOL! You just gave me an idea... A game where you MUST start to play without knowing all the rules: You learn them as the game goes on. And both players do not have the same rules booklet either!
7.2.3. "On this turn" - WHAT TURN? Or am I missing something?
Oops...
[7.2.3] Free Soviet Fortress Unit “Build-Up”. On Turn 3, if the Sevastopol Regional unit is set-up in Sevastopol, it arrives on its red Fortress side.
it was a "cut and paste" error from this paragraph, on the next page of the proposed errata (I corrected it now, thanks!):
[13.5] Game Turn Effects
3 – Begin Soviet Fortifying: Starting on this turn, and for the remainder of the game, Soviet (one-step) Regional infantry units (only) that can trace a Supply Path (6.1) can be upgraded into (two-step) Fortified infantry units (7.5). On this turn if the Sebastopol Regional unit is set-up in Sevastopol, it arrives it arrives on its red Fortress side.
I am wondering if there is some way to create a vanilla No Retreat! without most of the chrome and special exceptions as a beginner's version. I think there are starting to be more and more special rules and exceptions that I like, but might be pulling the game away from introducing newer gamers, or more Euro Gamers, to wargaming.
I would like to keep seeing Carl tweek rules that he doesn't feel are quite right, but I would also like to see a playable version which people could jump right into without having too many fiddly rules to remember. The game itself is so clever and the components are so strong that I think this would make an excellent introduction to wargaming.
I am wondering if there is some way to create a vanilla No Retreat! without most of the chrome and special exceptions as a beginner's version. I think there are starting to be more and more special rules and exceptions that I like, but might be pulling the game away from introducing newer gamers, or more Euro Gamers, to wargaming.
I would like to keep seeing Carl tweek rules that he doesn't feel are quite right, but I would also like to see a playable version which people could jump right into without having too many fiddly rules to remember. The game itself is so clever and the components are so strong that I think this would make an excellent introduction to wargaming.
I am wondering if there is some way to create a vanilla No Retreat! without most of the chrome and special exceptions as a beginner's version. I think there are starting to be more and more special rules and exceptions that I like, but might be pulling the game away from introducing newer gamers, or more Euro Gamers, to wargaming.
I would like to keep seeing Carl tweek rules that he doesn't feel are quite right, but I would also like to see a playable version which people could jump right into without having too many fiddly rules to remember. The game itself is so clever and the components are so strong that I think this would make an excellent introduction to wargaming.
I don't really think the proposed rule changes make the game a lot more complicated, although indeed more scripted and some more things to remember (which are not on player aids etc.).However, had they been in the rules that come with the game, I wouldn't have thought they were difficult, it's just that we're "used" to something else now which causes some friction.
All in all, if the end result is yet better gameplay, then I have nothing against it!
I am wondering if there is some way to create a vanilla No Retreat! without most of the chrome and special exceptions as a beginner's version. I think there are starting to be more and more special rules and exceptions that I like, but might be pulling the game away from introducing newer gamers, or more Euro Gamers, to wargaming.
Well, believe it or not, this version of the game already exists... No Retreat!
It's the first VPG version, published in 2008.
Less cards, less counters, less rules, simpler combat tables, etc...
You could just download the basic rulebooks, charts and tables, print them, and use the lot with the new version of the components, using the same cards. Or you could buy the VPG version, too. Mwahahaha!
Though on the one hand I really enjoy all the rule tweaking that is going on here, I suggest to leave a version of the rules up for say a couple of months so people can give it a try. To be honest, i don't really know whatto test anymore, as from week to week the rules seem to be changing.
Otherwise (still) the best Eastern front strategic game I own!
The rules "brainstrom" is almost over. I'll make a final version probably today, and it will be almost identical to ver 6.0! And this last one will stay as is.
I guess because as yet they are still only "proposed" rule changes. Depending on whether they actually improve the game, they might either be changed back (partially) or definitively implemented.
Carl, is the 2nd edition exactly the same as the link you mentioned a few posts above to the Cosimworld website? If so, I don't need to print them out again. Thanks.
Carl, is the 2nd edition exactly the same as the link you mentioned a few posts above to the Cosimworld website? If so, I don't need to print them out again. Thanks.
Yes it's the same. There is still a few typos to correct (damn!). I'll get to it in the week-end.
I guess because as yet they are still only "proposed" rule changes. Depending on whether they actually improve the game, they might either be changed back (partially) or definitively implemented.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Carl.
Yes this is exact.
When I'm 100% satified with them i'll ask GMT to integrated them in the last version of the rulebook.
It should not be long, unless there is a major player revolt against the rules.
I guess because as yet they are still only "proposed" rule changes. Depending on whether they actually improve the game, they might either be changed back (partially) or definitively implemented.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Carl.
Yes this is exact.
When I'm 100% satified with them i'll ask GMT to integrated them in the last version of the rulebook.
It should not be long, unless there is a major player revolt against the rules.
I missed this earlier and then my attention was diverted by real life!
Rule 8.4.1 Stacking Limits
First a proposed wording change: In the red text I would replace "but" with "except". The last phrase should be its own sentence. "Beginning in 1945..."
My issue is the stacking rule which (only) prohibits stacking a) with Fortress units and b) by implication, stacking of two Infantry/Mechanized armies (Armor being the guys with oval symbols only). Perhaps case b) should be included in the rule as it is only there by implication. Wargamers being never finicky about rules...
Now the meat of the issue:
I read though all the comments in this thread (quickly, I might add) but saw no particular discussion of this change. I am surprised! This gives the Soviets a chance to make massive attack stacks - an 8-4 Armor with a 8-2 Front unit... Admittedly, the downside is that with few units, there are some exposure issues with your situation as the Soviets. Perhaps the upper end 4:1 and 5:1 in the Soviet CRT just doesn't make a lot of difference results wise but having two Armor units (with Tank Advance beginning in T11) allows any advance to be that much more dangerous to the Germans. Poking a single Armor forward 3 hexes is damn dangerous, if there is another unit that has its flanks, any surround is far less likely.
I am curious as to the shift from not allowing stacking at all until 1945 to two years earlier? If there is historical basis for the Soviets having this ability generally then fine. However, if they pulled it off at the start of say Operation Saturn, which seemed well planned, then it would be more of "The Soviets have the right Event card at the right time" situation...much the same as the Germans having a card that can make all the difference at the right time.
The Soviets have 5 Tank (Armor) units which, absent losses, can all be on board by T12 when the initiative shifts (not sure that the Kursk Mech unit can be educated the turn it arrives to make it into the 6th Tank Army or not; if not then, the next turn).
I have a game tomorrow night doing Operation Saturn and my Soviet opponent is working his way through Scenarios until he wins.
I am on the fence about introducing the altered rules (he is aware these are out there) until GMT makes an official release but am as above curious about a change of this magnitude.
I am curious as to the shift from not allowing stacking at all until 1945 to two years earlier? If there is historical basis for the Soviets having this ability generally then fine. However, if they pulled it off at the start of say Operation Saturn, which seemed well planned, then it would be more of "The Soviets have the right Event card at the right time" situation...much the same as the Germans having a card that can make all the difference at the right time.
The Soviets have 5 Tank (Armor) units which, absent losses, can all be on board by T12 when the initiative shifts (not sure that the Kursk Mech unit can be educated the turn it arrives to make it into the 6th Tank Army or not; if not then, the next turn).
Yes there is historical basis for this, look at actual historical maps! Especialyl since those tank unist are representing smaller, mobile, "elite" formations than the huge Soviet Infantry Fronts.
I should have thought about that rule in 2008!
BTW historically if you look at the scenarios, the Soviets indeed had those Tank Armies on the board by Turn 12.
In fact if I remember well i explaind this on BGG last week.
NOTE: There are two issues discussed below. The Tank stacking change is more important. The 10.6.2/13.1 rule issue I believe is a matter of poor wording...
First Issue:
My issue (in the prior post) wasn't the existence of the Tank Armies or that 5 of them were available by T11 (T12 the latest). They are in the counter mix.
The issue was the appearance of the ability to stack one Tank Army with another unit excepting a Fortress. This was not in your January 31 v5.0 changes but showed the first time in the February 7 Errata 2nd Edition (still posted on this page as I am typing this). With the Feb 7 post, you noted "...as a few changes are important namely in 8.4.1, 10.6.2 and 13.1". [NOTE: If perchance you mean literally 1 and only 1 of the 5 Tank armies may stack with another unit (exc. Forts) then 8.4.1 should read "...at that time they can stack a maximum of one of the Tank armies with another unit at any time; no other stacking may occur before 1945"]
There hasn't been discussion about this change (not in this thread anyway) about the stacking rule change (8.4.1). It is mentioned in ConsimWorld Forum but no particular discussion about it. How did the change arise?
Second Issue:
Now that I looked harder, the Feb 22 Errata 2nd Edition v2.0, posted above seems to have a potential conflict between 10.6.2 and 13.1.
10.6.2 Support Markers with respect to Shock markers states "It provides one shift to the right (two to the right for Soviets in Snow weather (not Long Winter, see 13.1))."
13.1 states (in part) During Snow Game Turns: • The German Player Uses the Soviet Combat Table for all his Attacks. • Shock markers are worth two Shifts in combat (also on Turn 5, even if Snow)[Implication here is that if T4 was Mud, T5 would be Snow instead of Long Winter]
However, under Long Winter Game Turns, there is no mention of the effect of Shock marker shifts. So why the reference in 10.6.2?
What does the parenthetical in 10.6.2 (not Long Winter, see 13.1) mean? One interpretation could mean Shock markers not worth 2 shifts or possibly none during Long Winter Turns excepting T5. I do not think that is what you meant but in the heat of battle, players will argue just such a point...
At the end of all of this, I'm not sure how Shock markers are treated on a Long Winter turn. My apologies if I missed the obvious!
`Do you really mean "ONE" tank unit or ANY tank unit can stack with any other unit type? I think you mean the latter, but the wording could be a bit ambiguous.
`Do you really mean "ONE" tank unit or ANY tank unit can stack with any other unit type? I think you mean the latter, but the wording could be a bit ambiguous.
`Do you really mean "ONE" tank unit or ANY tank unit can stack with any other unit type? I think you mean the latter, but the wording could be a bit ambiguous.
"Any" Tank unit.
I will add the change. Gasp.
I wouldn't really call it a change.It's just a clarification.
. Army group `North took Riga.
). By the way, I'm not 100% sure of what you mean: one tank (and only one) per turn or every tank can stack with a non-fortress unit? The latter a powerful help, indeed.
just such a point...