Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Stalingrad» Forums » Rules

Subject: A Question About the 1974 Rules. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
James D. Williams
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I wonder if the following rule occurs in the 1974 Edition.

1963 Edition: Instructions: Page 3: Left Column: "Attacking": #7:
"A unit's attack factor is always the same as that printed on its counter regardless of the terrain it is on."

By way of excuse, I would like to send BGG my 2016 Tribute rather than invest in an "alledged" 1974 AH Stalingrad on Ebay.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
shake Not many of their games from that "era" allowed an 'Attacker'-advantage of which increased this, while Gettysburg did contain "advanced" Terrain incidence FOR gaining such then. ALSO: even "hidden deployment with advanced" implementations.
cool
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James D. Williams
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
A "foolish presumption" that Stalingrad was like D-Day is offered as an explanation for the "historical" misunderstanding of the Exchange rule in Stalingrad.
I, however, believe the presumption was entirely reasonable given the lack of clarity in the original rule and the Common [to D-Day and Stalingrad] full-page "Standard" Combat Resolution Table.
My inquiry is to establish if the 1974 Edition Rules made a greater stride beyond the evident re-writing of the Exchange rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
George Brinton wrote:
A "foolish presumption" that Stalingrad was like D-Day is offered as an explanation for the "historical" misunderstanding of the Exchange rule in Stalingrad.
I, however, believe the presumption was entirely reasonable given the lack of clarity in the original rule and the Common [to D-Day and Stalingrad] full-page "Standard" Combat Resolution Table.
My inquiry is to establish if the 1974 Edition Rules made a greater stride beyond the evident re-writing of the Exchange rule.
Well, this one lone guy also produced this same year with: The Russian Campaign; along with many another that AH further produced. cool
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James D. Williams
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
After reading the 1963 rules again...
The language of the Rule is sufficient to "justify"...

Exchange losses for the attacker are calculated on the Attack factors of the Defender... And, that the Defender's attack factors (used in calculating the Attacker's losses in an Exchange) are doubled if the defender is doubled (...on account of "defensive position").

Also, the idea that Thomas N. Shaw originally intended "EX at attack" for the 1963 Ed. is supported.

The 1961 D-Day version:
Thanks to Lee Trowbridge:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1625620/exchange-rule-1961a
 
 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.