$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 116.7

7,093 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
44.7% of Goal | left

Support:

jon carter
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
First, I am loving the game. The breadth of strategic options, streamlined rules mechanics and individual unit-level flavor are great.

But I'm struck by two different choices in the design:

- allowing CVs, and more oddly BBs to add factors to land combat in adjacent areas when the size of these are hundreds of miles. No way that short bombardment would help the Axis capture Paris, for example. Or that th few dozen short range planes from British carriers would be meaningful affecting army-level combat

- I'm surprised there is no strategic movement of unlimited distance within friendly territory. In 4-6 months I would have thought that any land or air or naval units could relocate all the way across continental Europe/Russia or around the world by sea, for example.

Jon
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave LeLacheur
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Hi Jon,

Thanks for the kind words. Perhaps the aspect of the game I enjoy the most is its replayability. There's always that feeling of "If I just do it *this* way next time, I'll do what I needed to do..." ;-).

As for your questions:

1) CVs & BBs providing support on a Ground Attack. I understand your question. With land areas this large, there are times when the support may look odd. As with every design decision, we tried to tread the line between "really easy and intuitive" while not losing "historical and sensible". Clearly CVs and BBs provided critical ground support for some combats, notably (but not exclusively) invasions. While BBs can't shoot 100s of miles inland, they can shoot ~20 miles inland. As for CV aircraft, while they tended to operate close to short, sometimes they ranged pretty far indeed, farther than many 1 range land-based air units. We considered If-Then rules (If you are invading, then your CVs/BBs can support; if you are attacking from one coastal land area to an adjacent one, then your CVs/BBs can support) but in the end, we felt it added complexity where complexity was not affecting player's decision making. Since CVs and BBs are only adding 1 or 2 points, and even then only if they have managed to clear completely their sea area of enemy fighting units, the impact of CV/BB support is not typically very large in terms of Land Factors. For invasions especially against Islands, those 2 or 3 points of Land Factors they add are critical, and that's as it should be. When AG Center is about to maul into Paris in 1940, supported by Stukas and who knows what else, the fact that the AFA has a few extra points of support simply increases German attrition a little.

Long answer for a short question, but that's it: this rule is easier than a more detailed rule, and I felt that the gain in accuracy and impact on the game was not worth the extra complication.

2) Why can't you move your units farther during a Turn. We did playtest this actually for land units. If you wanted to house rule that you could move 1 land unit unlimited distance over friendly land areas as its first action in the turn, and add that the unit cannot then participate in a land area attack in the same phase, I wouldn't argue with that. It's reasonable. But you can perhaps see why it isn't included: too many If-Then's. If you already control all of the land areas ... if you don't attack later on. I hate to force players to include "memory" in their unit actions and avoid it wherever possible. You should, ideally, just be able to look at the map knowing nothing of what has gone before, and play the game. A longer strat move is reasonable, but it is not (imo) reasonable that an army that hopped a rail from Vladivostok to Warsaw should also be able to attack Berlin on the same turn. So a limit was needed, imo.

In truth, land unit movement rates are generous, imo. (If you were playing WiF, you would be hard-pressed to move around your units as feely as you can in Blitz!) There are only a few cases where you cannot move your land units exactly where you wish. Across all of Russia is a problem for the USSR; and redeploying from western to eastern Europe is a problem for Germany. In the end, having tried freer movement, we felt that it enhanced the game by not allowing it. Players had to make decisions on where to commit their armies without that safety net of "I can get it back next move if needed". The long-scale withdrawal of Blitz size units in the real war was pretty uncommon from what I have read and could infer from known offensives. (The best example I can think of in favor might be the Soviets blasting into Manchuria in August 1945 after having been attacking Berlin just 4 months earlier .. but even then, I'm not sure that the same forces were involved; they might have been different.) So the restriction was kept.

For air units we also tested unlimited rebasing along a friendly path. Again, you can justify this, but I felt that the game was a lot poorer for it. Poor Japan never knew what hit her. The USA would tenaciously hold onto a few bases, and then when ready, POW, 3 or 4 air units would miraculously appear (with all of their supplies!) ready to pulverize the IJN. While air units can rebase pretty freely, I think Blitz found the correct level at 3x printed values. 2 range planes can get where they need to quickly, but (as with land units for USSR & Germany) the main actors who need to make decisions on where to commit their air forces in their far-flung battles, the USA and AFA / Germany to a lesser extent, need to make good strategic decisions, and plan ahead, to make the most of their air assets. It's good to reward players who plan ahead effectively. That's what this game is all about.

For naval units, the same as air units apply. For those multi-ocean navies (USA, AFA, and potentially Japan), their modern naval units are all range 2 (or more), and with a rebase you can get pretty far. And if you rebase again during your Blitz phase, you can pretty much get anywhere around the globe in one turn.

Phew! Good questions!

Cheers,
Dave L.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jon carter
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
Thanks for the extensive response. The premise of keeping things on the side of playability and punishing not planning ahead are things I agree with.

Jon
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Mr Lelacheur, I ran into a situation that got me thinking about this thread, a more detailed problem (I think).

In brief, a CV can be committed to any kind of land combat (factory, ground, port attacks) and will then participate in an air combat in that land area along with regular air and/or other CV units.

Now, a BB unit can also be committed to a ground attack but will not have to take part in an air combat if there is one. It seems a bit odd to me, that a large fleet (that I must assume include both BB's or at least CA's, and CV's, the US Pacific Fleet comes to mind) cannot "just" bombard, when a smaller fleet (without CV's) can? I see the point of a simple design but can see myself using a house rule wherein a CV is voluntarily involved in air combat before a ground attack.

Are my assumptions correct here (not necessarily my interest in a house rule, of course)?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave LeLacheur
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Hi Bjorn,

Your understanding of the rules appears to be correct. For CV Fleets, at least 50% (and sometimes it is closer to 100%) of their power comes from their aircraft. I suppose one could let them bombard at half strength without using air power in an Air Round.

Cheers,
Dave L.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.