Bob Gibson
United States
San Diego
California
-
Just to understand the overlaping use between FG's (Field General) using a most extreme case as an example:
The FG on the left receives a Firefight card. Thus, he is able to select four units in either of the two left flange sections.
The FG in the center receives a Recon in Force card allowing him to order 1 unit in one section of his two sections as well as 1 unit in one of the two sections on the left and right flanks. In effect, he is moving two of the other FG's pieces on the left and right flanks.
Finally, the CO gambles and decides to give the FG on the right flank a General Advance card, even with the knowledge that he will only be able to replace two of the three cards. The FG on the right, thus moves 2 units in one of his two sections as well as 2 units in other sections of the other FG's.
Is this an example of correct Overlord playing procedures?
-
Oliver Graf
Germany
Weissenthurm
[Ø]
-
Recon in Force: The FG who receives the card orders one unit in each of his two sections.
Firefight: The FG orders 4 of his units not in Close Combat in any of his two sections.
General Advance: The FG who receives this card orders 2 units in each of his two sections.
As you can see no field general orders units in sections of other field generals. The Overlord board consists of 6 sections, each FG controls two of them.
-
Oliver Graf
Germany
Weissenthurm
[Ø]
-
As my cards are from Operation Overlord, I also looked up the definition in the old Overlord rules, p. 5:
Quote:
Recon in Force: Order 1 unit in each of the sections under the command of the receiving Field General (i.e. a total of 2 units when playing a double-board scenario). A Field General receiving a Recon in Force card may not be given any other Command card during the same turn.
General Advance: Order 2 units in each of the sections under the command of the receiving Field General (i.e. a total of 4 units when playing a double-board scenario). A Field General receiving a General Advance card may not be given any other Command card during the same turn.
-
René Christensen
Denmark
Solroed Strand
-
I fail to see the point of 8 players in this game.
-
Oliver Graf
Germany
Weissenthurm
[Ø]
-
Slotracer wrote: I fail to see the point of 8 players in this game.
Yes, I can't see me playing it with 7 friends either.
-
Stig Morten
Norway
Kvernaland
-
lydon wrote: Slotracer wrote: I fail to see the point of 8 players in this game. Yes, I can't see me playing it with 7 friends either.
I'm playing it with 7 others tomorrow night, and it's fun.
But it works just as well 2-player.
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
Slotracer wrote: I fail to see the point of 8 players in this game.
Have you tried it with 8? Maybe you should then you can pass judgement.
I have played this over Vassal with 8 and it was tremendous. I am not sure the same intensity would be present in a face-to-facex4 game, but with the communication rules being enforced - CinC can only speak to ONE FG per turn - was very frustrating and most likely representative of real command behind the lines.
As CinC, I would have a great plan for the turn, communicate that to a FG, who in turn explained it to the other 2 and then watch in horror as the plan wasn't followed and the battle not won this round either. I would curse, and threaten court martial, and have to try again the next turn hoping the other side was just as incompetent.
And it was some of the most fun I have had with this game.
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
Bob.Gibson wrote: Just to understand the overlaping use between FG's (Field General) using a most extreme case as an example:
The FG on the left receives a Firefight card. Thus, he is able to select four units in either of the two left flange sections.
The FG in the center receives a Recon in Force card allowing him to order 1 unit in one section of his two sections as well as 1 unit in one of the two sections on the left and right flanks. In effect, he is moving two of the other FG's pieces on the left and right flanks.
Finally, the CO gambles and decides to give the FG on the right flank a General Advance card, even with the knowledge that he will only be able to replace two of the three cards. The FG on the right, thus moves 2 units in one of his two sections as well as 2 units in other sections of the other FG's.
Is this an example of correct Overlord playing procedures?
Close, but as Oliver pointed out, a couple of incorrect moves.
Firefight allows 4 total in either or both of that FG's two sections.
RiF allows 1 each in that FG's 2 sections, not the other FGs' sections.
But the rest is correct and the intent of the OL rules. Alternatively, 1 card could have been held back from any of the FGs and they could have opted to roll a die to see if they get to order a unit. But in general, I find it better to go ahead and play cards every turn if it will be effective.
-
Oliver Graf
Germany
Weissenthurm
[Ø]
-
ColtsFan76 wrote: Bob.Gibson wrote: Finally, the CO gambles and decides to give the FG on the right flank a General Advance card, even with the knowledge that he will only be able to replace two of the three cards. The FG on the right, thus moves 2 units in one of his two sections as well as 2 units in other sections of the other FG's.
Is this an example of correct Overlord playing procedures? But the rest is correct and the intent of the OL rules. Alternatively, 1 card could have been held back from any of the FGs and they could have opted to roll a die to see if they get to order a unit. But in general, I find it better to go ahead and play cards every turn if it will be effective.
I think you only refer to playing a third card, not to General Advance allowing a FG to order units in another FGs sections, right?
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
lydon wrote: ColtsFan76 wrote: Bob.Gibson wrote: Finally, the CO gambles and decides to give the FG on the right flank a General Advance card, even with the knowledge that he will only be able to replace two of the three cards. The FG on the right, thus moves 2 units in one of his two sections as well as 2 units in other sections of the other FG's.
Is this an example of correct Overlord playing procedures? But the rest is correct and the intent of the OL rules. Alternatively, 1 card could have been held back from any of the FGs and they could have opted to roll a die to see if they get to order a unit. But in general, I find it better to go ahead and play cards every turn if it will be effective. I think you only refer to playing a third card, not to General Advance allowing a FG to order units in another FGs sections, right?
Guessed I missed that. I read it as 2 in each of his sections. So yeah, this was wrong as well - he gets 2 in each of his own sections.
Yeah, I meant that he can opt to play a 3rd card or not. But he could have skipped any FG, not just the "last" one.
-
Stig Morten
Norway
Kvernaland
-
ColtsFan76 wrote: but with the communication rules being enforced
I really like these rules and we observe them even if we are just 2 players per side.
CinC holds the cards and the other player plays all FG's with all communication rules in place.
I like both roles for the added challenge they present and the confusion in the ordering when you as the FG don't know what card you get next turn.
-
-
The time I could assemble three quarters of a soccer team in my appartement just to play a board game is over since 2 decades. At the moment Overlord and expansions are just sitting on my shelves because of this impractical 8 persons recommendation. Before I start to sell it is it possible to play with the usual 2 players too?
-
Stig Morten
Norway
Kvernaland
-
enpeze wrote: The time I could assemble three quarters of a soccer team in my appartement just to play a board game is over since 2 decades. At the moment Overlord and expansions are just sitting on my shelves because of this impractical 8 persons recommendation. Before I start to sell it is it possible to play with the usual 2 players too?
Absolutely possible to play as a 2-player game.
-
Peter Pariseau
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
-
enpeze wrote: The time I could assemble three quarters of a soccer team in my appartement just to play a board game is over since 2 decades. At the moment Overlord and expansions are just sitting on my shelves because of this impractical 8 persons recommendation. Before I start to sell it is it possible to play with the usual 2 players too?
I love playing Overlord 2-player.
-
david reed
United States
paradise
California
-
ad79 wrote: enpeze wrote: The time I could assemble three quarters of a soccer team in my appartement just to play a board game is over since 2 decades. At the moment Overlord and expansions are just sitting on my shelves because of this impractical 8 persons recommendation. Before I start to sell it is it possible to play with the usual 2 players too? Absolutely possible to play as a 2-player game.
And, for me, it's enjoyable played solo. I just finisted 3 scenarios; Hedgerow Hell, Tigers in the Snow, and Market garden using Operation Overlord rules. Had to court-martial myself twice when playing the Americans. But that beats the alternative...I was shot once by the German High Command and as the Russian general...I just disappeared...Haven't been heard from since.
-
david reed
United States
paradise
California
-
All three of Oliver Graf's answers are correct, contrary to some responses that followed the original question.
In particular, the Tactics card 'Firefight' must be given to a Field General and he then chooses to activate four units from his two sections to fire. Field Generals never usurp command of other FG's units.
-
|
|
