Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Anzio: Operation Shingle» Forums » Rules

Subject: Starting the Campaign.. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alessandro Trovato
Italy
Rome
ITALY
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Few more clarifications...

1) Example in 12.43, what about if the attack is to hex 1209 from 1208?
Will there be 2 final Defensive Symbols available for the defender?

2) In which case 12 additional Commands could be available as the track on the map shows? Unused CPs are dropped at the end of the turn. Looking at Scenario #6 6 CPs is the maximum you can get at once.

3) 10.8 No Contact Movement - how is managed 1/2 SP on the track? Flipping the marker as a reminder? If only 0.5 SP remain at the end of the turn how are they halved?

TIA,

Alex
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Murray
United Kingdom
Driffield
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Alex, I am away at the moment so sorry for the brief reply.

1.Yes. One shield from the river and one from the village.

2. Sorry Alex I am not understanding your point, what is your question?

3. 14.2 at the end of a turn any fractions of SPs are rounded up. This donejust to keep everything simple.

Good luck with the campaign.

Regards David
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessandro Trovato
Italy
Rome
ITALY
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TrotskyTrotsky wrote:


2. Sorry Alex I am not understanding your point, what is your question?


Simply.. why there are 12 boxes in the Additional Commands track? The maximum number of Additional CPs one side can have is 6. The fact that there are 12 boxes make me suspect i am missing or misunderstanding some rule. Unspent CPs are lost at the end of the turn as well as unspent Additional Commands are lost at the end of the Phase so they can never add up to reach values higher than 6.

A new one:

10.41: this is probably a problem of phrasing not in mother tongue. Which unit is suffering the TCC for Attrition? The one changing frontage or enemy units adjacent to a unit changing Frontage? I would go for the first one even if the phrase make me think the latter at first read.

Thanks a lot for your patience,

Alex
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessandro Trovato
Italy
Rome
ITALY
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

UP whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Murray
United Kingdom
Driffield
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Alessandro, I only check BBG once or twice a week, sorry for the delay

The twelve boxes are for additional hypothetical scenarios, there are some in the new issue of Paper Wars.

The second one, you are correct it is the moving unit.

How goes the campaign? Please post your view of the game, negative or positive.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessandro Trovato
Italy
Rome
ITALY
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks David.

Firstly, I am playing Solo. I am a true-solitaire collector but for some titles I make an exception and go back to the split personality method

I think I have all the Anzio titles around, it's where I live and the locations mean something more than VPs Objectives

February 3rd is going to start, I played already Scenario #1 and #2.

I confess to have contrasted feeling so far. I love many things of this design and is very "immersive" (very important aspect IMO) but I have a problem with CPs. I copy&paste the comment I posted here on BGG so far:

"While it is ok in "game" terms (resource management) I have to better understand the simulation aspect of CPs. Is it normal that units remain stuck for days in the middle of nowhere between the beaches and the frontline just because I have no enough CPs to spend also for them? Once they landed and ordered to reach the front at few KMs of distance what should prevent them to do it? Supply? They just landed and we are talking really of few KMs. This is just an example.
Moreover the system seems to make exponential the stalemate situations characteristic of Anzio, once a frontline is established there is really few to do for both side, chances to get some significant change of the tactical situation are really really low."

And the situation now confirms this stalemate effect. The frontline is stable since days more or less along the Canal.
It's almost impossible for a side to make an attack that results in a ratio greater that +1 or +2 (alternative CRT, but i tried also the normal one with same results), usually attacker exits weakened enough to make it impossible to make another attack on that part of the front.
Only two hexes changed control since the first "rush to the canal" turns.
Maybe the possibility to use more than one asset in a Combat would help... or to call Army assets using OA not CPs.... dunno

With only 2 CPs there are so many options that remain unused every turn... Again this great in terms of challenging resource management but the playability and re-playability of the game suffers a little.




I start from the assumption that it's me to not "getting the point" yet and that the design is simulating at the best the real campaign but I wonder how can the Allied make 400 VPs if playing against a sentient counterpart that just have to close the gap along the canal. Once I thought the game is actually simulating too much Lucas approach frustrating by rules what could have gone differently

Just free thoughts, David, while fully immersed in a great game that I am craving to dedicate a little of time every day to.

BTW, the German side could be a good target to implement an AI for a Solitaire variant, or expansion

Ciao,

Alex
1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Murray
United Kingdom
Driffield
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Alex, thanks for posting your thoughts – I always find peoples take on my games interesting.

There is more posted about this game over at consimworld, with some AARs – including a major allied victory

[url]http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?7@@.1dd51284/256
[/url]


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessandro Trovato
Italy
Rome
ITALY
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Situation at start of February 18th.



I have to correct some an early comment:

Actually Allied are close to a Major Victory without any particular effort or breakthrough. They established a line providing a constant of 13-15 points each turn. Keep it for 28 turns and you win. As said before keeping the front line is so far what this try of the game was all about for both side. Now I realize the "German don't be shy" suggestion but beside a raid on the weak right flank with reinforcements coming from Southern Sector I don't think there were real opportunities to break the Allied frontline. So I have to reverse the pervious comment: difficult to think about a German Victory if facing a sensient Allied player

Other comments:

1) Mid game i went short of 6/7 and 8/9 PCC chits, it is a serious problem now to keep track of the unit strength. Also higher-end TCC are starting to be a problem now.

2) I was so frustrated with the CP management that last 2 turns I started to try the following: Army Assets can be activated with a Division as usually are non-indipendent units. So the 2 SP cost and 1 OA, plus their own SP cost. This allows a more integrated attack, an artillery preparation to be used as Army Asset Attack (1 OA spent) before the attack or during the Combat (Army asset bonus). It is balanced by the fact to not have the extra unit activated often partecipating in the same attack... and all with the same CP spent. Seems to work good to me and finally I can see more Asset use mk out there. I am going to try for Major Operation the possibility to activate one Indipendent plus an Army Asset.

3) In general IMHO the combat system seems still unbalanced in favour of the defender. This results in few opportunity to make something different than skirmish here and there along the frontline.

Still 13 days to go.




1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Murray
United Kingdom
Driffield
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for your comments.
 
 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.