$5.00
$15.00
$30.00
$20.00
Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Victory in Europe» Forums » General

Subject: I hate to post another post on this subject but... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
could we please have an update on if, and if so, when rules version 1.2 will finally be posted.

As unfortunately many other games I own ViE has just been lying on the shelf, although this is actually one that I'm dying to play again. It's just that I'm not sure which rules have changed if any, and more importantly, I have too many doubts about gameplay as I believe the rulebook isn't clear enough on far too many issues, several issues that may and will come up during play aren't addressed at all and an extended " how to play " booklet, or perhaps even better a video would be extremely beneficial as well.

I believe this game is a potential gem; the components are awesome, I really like the combat system, it's fast playing compared to a game of say Axis and Allies or Europe Engulfed, but it really, really needs a final and more self-explanatory rule set. At the very least, please keep us in the loop on any developments towards that end. They were promised to us by January 2016 or so and by now it's Mid-August.
11 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Daffin
United Kingdom
Ledbury
Herefordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
boersma8 wrote:
could we please have an update on if, and if so, when rules version 1.2 will finally be posted.

As unfortunately many other games I own ViE has just been lying on the shelf, although this is actually one that I'm dying to play again. It's just that I'm not sure which rules have changed if any, and more importantly, I have too many doubts about gameplay as I believe the rulebook isn't clear enough on far too many issues, several issues that may and will come up during play aren't addressed at all and an extended " how to play " booklet, or perhaps even better a video would be extremely beneficial as well.

I believe this game is a potential gem; the components are awesome, I really like the combat system, it's fast playing compared to a game of say Axis and Allies or Europe Engulfed, but it really, really needs a final and more self-explanatory rule set. At the very least, please keep us in the loop on any developments towards that end. They were promised to us by January 2016 or so and by now it's Mid-August.


I second this request. I also believe there's a great grand strategy game lying beneath a muddled rules set and disjointed number of rules postings here on BGG.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Well it just so happens that I discovered Tom Dalgliesh sitting all by himself in the Columbia Games booth at Gen Con, and asked him this exact question!

In a nut shell, he said he's still working on it. He knows it's a point of significant interest and so is trying to make sure he's not going to have to do it again. Thusly I got the feeling that he's waiting on some final input from a few play testers.

But just getting to that answer took about 15 minutes of conversation, as we diverged into discussing what was wrong with the original rules in the first place, plus he shared his frustration that he feels players are looking for this game to be more than what it's meant to be. Personally, I think that frustration is a factor. He always intended the game to be a sandbox-style game where the possibilities of the war are wide-open, and that the image printed on a force counter doesn't necessarily mean that the counter represents that weapon, etc. We also discussed the difficulty of trying to achieve play balance between two sides in a wargame, where there was no balance between those same sides in real life.

Thusly my take was that he's trying to find that balance between adding the level of detail that we've all been clamoring for - which in his mind is taking the game in a more detailed-oriented direction than he intended - vs still trying to keep the game a little more abstract, simple and burden free.

So when is he going to find that balance and pump out the next edition of the rulebook? To be honest, I never got to that follow-up question. After having 15 minutes of one-on-one time with him, discussing rulebooks and game design in general, several more attendees filtered into the booth wanting to actually buy something, so I left it at that.

Bottom Line: He's still working the new edition and I got the feeling that he does care and is trying to get it right.

13 
 Thumb up
7.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:

Well it just so happens that I discovered Tom Dalgliesh sitting all by himself in the Columbia Games booth at Gen Con, and asked him this exact question!

In a nut shell, he said he's still working on it. He knows it's a point of significant interest and so is trying to make sure he's not going to have to do it again. Thusly I got the feeling that he's waiting on some final input from a few play testers.

But just getting to that answer took about 15 minutes of conversation, as we diverged into discussing what was wrong with the original rules in the first place, plus he shared his frustration that he feels players are looking for this game to be more than what it's meant to be. Personally, I think that frustration is a factor. He always intended the game to be a sandbox-style game where the possibilities of the war are wide-open, and that the image printed on a force counter doesn't necessarily mean that the counter represents that weapon, etc. We also discussed the difficulty of trying to achieve play balance between two sides in a wargame, where there was no balance between those same sides in real life.

Thusly my take was that he's trying to find that balance between adding the level of detail that we've all been clamoring for - which in his mind is taking the game in a more detailed-oriented direction than he intended - vs still trying to keep the game a little more abstract, simple and burden free.

So when is he going to find that balance and pump out the next edition of the rulebook? To be honest, I never got to that follow-up question. After having 15 minutes of one-on-one time with him, discussing rulebooks and game design in general, several more attendees filtered into the booth wanting to actually buy something, so I left it at that.

Bottom Line: He's still working the new edition and I got the feeling that he does care and is trying to get it right.



Well, speaking for myself I like all the aspects you're referring to when paraphrasing Tom. It's just that the rules are mostly unclear for me, issues are not addressed at all and indeed there are a few wacky things such as the battleships eliminating lots of pips with ease. Even if that's an entire invasion fleet (which it often isn't) that's a bit too much. Moreover, and more importantly, it seems to unbalance certain (important) battles (invasion of Belgium and the like). A lot of these issues have perhaps been addressed by now in numerous posts here on BGG, but they're all over the place. The problem with that is that I also play lots of other games and then when revisiting the game after a prolonged period of time of not playing it, I need to go over lots of posts on BGG to figure out/ remind me of the rules again. Too many things (like with the starting cards) are just implied, not clearly written. Perhaps for those who own similar games by Columbia they are, but that really is NOT what is written...And that's the main thing, too often too many things are open to interpretation. So again, a really clear and detailed instructional video would be of priceless use, at least to me (and I DO own lots of other wargames, but other than with a game called Singapore 1942, I've never had this many problems with a rule book, so I guess it's not just me...

As for balancing, I've never actually gotten far enough in the game to be able to make a well-informed statement on that. I've also always started with the 1941 scenario, but without exception ran into so many rules issues and question that I invariably gave up after a few turns.

Other than the battleships issue, there's the fighter issue, should or shouldn't they get a bonus when attacking an area without enemy air? Well, I guess there's something to say for both. From my (fairly limited) experience and from what I've read here on BGG session reports, it seems quite difficult to dislodge a defender, so as far as that's concerned, I would say yes, but others say that makes divebombers useless...

The paratroopers issue; no easy solution, but they shouldn't be easily used each and every turn, I believe. That just feels wrong...

I do believe units should retain their original movement value when making a blitz attack combined with only being able to regroup to friendly controlled territory; it just seems more historically accurate and intuitive and I do believe that's how Ron's been playing it lately.

The sea regrouping rules I just don't really seem to get and they seem needlessly complicated to me. I like Ron's suggestion in another thread which was basically that they need to be able to move back to a friendly port within range after a battle or perhaps it was at the end of a turn.

Other than that, I really, really like the game and would just love to get it back onto the table!

Oh, and please include factory and resource totals for the scenarios beyond 1939.
5 
 Thumb up
6.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Barry, that might be the best post on BGG this year. Please do not hold me to that as my memory is failing rapidly, but I thought it was great.

I have not been able to play this game three times because my potential opponents either wanted more detail or did not like the open-ended nature of it. "Too much like Axis and Allies with blocks" and "Not enough A World at War". Then there was the guy who will NOT stack blocks.

Expectations are a tough thing to meet.
5 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

martimer wrote:
Barry, that might be the best post on BGG this year.

Well, shucks. Though I can think of perhaps a few other posts that would better deserve that distinction!

Anyway, I forgot to mention in my reply above, that Tom was most gracious about the entire subject. Like most designers who struggle with walking that fine line between producing a concise, short rulebook vs one that is detailed and long, he's no exception here.

I got the feeling that his original goal was for this game to be a wargame for a modern audience. For those of you who're also boardgamers, you know that one of the characteristics of a "modern" boardgame necessitates a rulebook that is as brief as possible. Generations today are being raised with shorter attention spans, which bleeds into a demand/expectation for short rulebooks. How many times have we heard lately, of rulebooks being praised only for their brevity? Detailed rulebooks - which usually offer greater clarity - seem to be scorned (presumably for being a waste of words and insulting to the modern game player's intelligence, I guess).

Anyway, back to Tom... it was my impression that he was indeed struggling with this. He didn't want to make ViE just another grognard's wargame with detailed, complex rules that he feared would scare many of his [as I perceived] intended target audience away. So he's trying to keep the rulebook from being a beast (my word) that might end up intimidating potential players. I think this explains why the new edition is taking him so long to churn out. He's struggling with finding a balance that works for him.

So me of course, being a person who thrives on clarity - no matter what it takes to achieve it - asked him what he thinks about the system that Fantasy Flight uses to produce their rulebooks. For those who may not know, FFG puts two rulebooks into most of their games today.

One of the rulebooks is relatively short (perhaps 8-10 pages) and serves as the, "Let's Get Started & Here's What You Need to Know" set of rules. It's never intimidating, is usually an easy read, and is typically sufficient at providing new players everything they need to know to at least get a game going and make it through a few turns. This is the rulebook that newcomers can leaf through without that, "Oh, Crap!" feeling.

Then there's the 2nd, more detailed and complete rulebook which contains not only the same rules as found in the first, but expands on them greatly with triple the pages, a lot more detail, definitions, and examples. This is the book that stays in the box until you need to pull it out for the occasional edge case, etc. (Ha! But of course, it's the only one I use - I gotta have that clarity from the very start)!

So anyway, given his proclivity toward keeping rulebooks short, yet considering how much ViE has been stymied for that very reason, we talked about whether or not he might consider using the same system as FFG for his rulebooks in the future. But at that point was when some other people walked into the booth and I read some, "saved by the bell" body language coming from Tom. So I left it at that.

Again, I never got the feeling that he's ducking out on finishing the new edition ViE rulebook. But he is trying to get it right so that it makes us happy while at the same time being what he wants it to be.

Finally... Besides wanting the new edition of the rules to enjoy the game more, I'm also holding off on updating my tables and charts file (here: VE Tables, Charts, & Probabilities) until the new version is published.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I'm sure that if we were being kept in the loop on a more regular basis and this communication were initiated by the company itself, most people would be a lot more forgiving and understanding.

Also, as I said above, an instructional VIDEO, appealing to the needs and desires of the " modern" generation, might -to some degree- replace the issue of a much expanded rule book.It would have to be a detailed video, though, in which all stages of play are being addressed step by step and explained along the way. For example, the video found here in the video section dealing with a battle in France, doesn't really tell me how to play. But maybe that's just me...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Torbjörn Rander
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess I would like to chime in here and second Willem, pretty much verbatim. I managed to play the game twice, both times we ended up improvising many things that are not explicitly stated in the rule-book, which, in those cases, took _way_ too long.

I don't mind the combat or naval bombardment, or any tactical/strategic issues at all to be honest, since those are design decisions, and if you don't like them, you can simply play another game. What bugs me is the rule book format and the clarity of it.

As a pretty direct comparison, there is Triumph and Tragedy, which I've played three times now, and which, at no point, got bogged down in trying to find a rule or disentangling ambiguous rule statements. Since these games are quite similar in many aspects, I don't really see a reason why the rule book of ViE couldn't also be clear in the first place. I do realize that writing rules for clarity is something very different from designing a game and its mechanics, but considering the clarity of many other CG games, I don't think this should be an issue.

I'm very excited for the new rules, because I also think this can be a potentially awesome game... but the wait is gruelling.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Draker
United States
McLean
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
hobnob wrote:
I managed to play the game twice, both times we ended up improvising many things that are not explicitly stated in the rule-book, which, in those cases, took _way_ too long.


We are working on it but most of the effort on 1.2 is focused on a couple rules tweaks to simplify and improve things. I keep reading this complaint about "unclear rules" but it would be helpful if people would give us specific examples of where you don't understand the rules.

Most questions I have answered on BGG I felt were clear in the 1.1 rules. No need to wait for 1.2 to enjoy the game and people are free to make some house rule changes for things that bother them, such as reducing effect of shore bombardment. I have played dozens of games in the past few months using just a couple changes and the games were fun.

For Prezcon Winter, Summer, and WBC we played with:

--remove air superiority bonus for fighters and return to land units as secondary targets (this makes dive bombers useful)

--regrouping only allowed to friendly controlled areas

--blitz exploit can use full movement of units that start phase with leader, but still only one new battle per leader.

There are some other minor rules changes being considered but they do not have a major impact on game play. Thanks to Barry for his feedback on the discussion with Tom. I don't know about doing a video, but I will put together a detailed playbook once 1.2 is finished (still could be months away). Help me though by giving me some specific examples of where you find the rules unclear. Thanks!
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:
I got the feeling that his original goal was for this game to be a wargame for a modern audience. For those of you who're also boardgamers, you know that one of the characteristics of a "modern" boardgame necessitates a rulebook that is as brief as possible. Generations today are being raised with shorter attention spans, which bleeds into a demand/expectation for short rulebooks. How many times have we heard lately, of rulebooks being praised only for their brevity? Detailed rulebooks - which usually offer greater clarity - seem to be scorned (presumably for being a waste of words and insulting to the modern game player's intelligence, I guess).
Having been scolded THIS WEEK about this, I will mention that "the problem" is not short attention spans, but too many demands on our time and too many choices. Also, as mentioned in another post in this thread, people learn by video instruction now - Reading is not a lost art it is just not involved enough to hold the attention (again, not the span) of today's audience.

So remember folks, at least those of you still reading this post, ;-), it is not about today's audience not being smart, it is about them not being smart enough to focus on THIS hobby because there are too many other hobbies that they seem to think might be more fun. As if clicky-buttony video games or, god help us, exercise were actually more fun than sitting at a table for hours on end pushing units around and rolling some dice (six-siders only!). And note that I still think that if you cannot read (a rule book, or text book, or something more than 32 pages) you have an attention span issue. ;-)

I do like the idea of the split rulebook - mechanics in one (hey they are pretty simple, except for those pesky invasions) and politics in the other.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul H
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ron D wrote:
it would be helpful if people would give us specific examples of where you don't understand the rules.

...

Help me though by giving me some specific examples of where you find the rules unclear. Thanks!


Ok, I will jump into the pool here. Could you please outline the battle process? Here is a link that gives you a very specific scenario to consider. You weighed in earlier on the thread but it soon became very complex and died quietly on the vine. So, a clear step-by-step covering a combined arms invasion (by sea and/or air) would be nice.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

martimer wrote:
...I will mention that "the problem" is not short attention spans, but too many demands on our time and too many choices. Also, as mentioned in another post in this thread, people learn by video instruction now - Reading is not a lost art it is just not involved enough to hold the attention (again, not the span) of today's audience.

So remember folks, at least those of you still reading this post, ;-), it is not about today's audience not being smart, it is about them not being smart enough to focus on THIS hobby because there are too many other hobbies that they seem to think might be more fun. As if clicky-buttony video games or, god help us, exercise were actually more fun than sitting at a table for hours on end pushing units around and rolling some dice (six-siders only!). And note that I still think that if you cannot read (a rule book, or text book, or something more than 32 pages) you have an attention span issue. ;-)

MArtin,

All very true. But personally, I find that watching a video takes far more time than reading a rulebook. Though the instructional videos certainly have their use when the rulebook has me stymied. In that case then, the instructional video comes to the rescue!

But, only if the videographer knows what he's doing! Believe it or not, I started watching an instructional video a few weeks ago for a very popular game, where the guy doing the video warned, “I’m pretty tired, I haven’t actually played the game, I just got it yesterday, there may be some mistakes…”. I have to admit that he's a stand-up guy for providing the warning, but given that he was billing it as an instructional video, to watch any more after that would be a waste of my time.

Though again, at least he provided the warning. Many people out there post instructional videos without a clear understanding of the rules. So not only would you invest 30 minutes of your valuable time watching a video (whereas reading the rulebook may've taken the same time or less), but you risk being taught wrong. So definitely stick with the videos with a good reputation, such as Rodney, etc.


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Draker
United States
McLean
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
muaddib1 wrote:
Ron D wrote:
it would be helpful if people would give us specific examples of where you don't understand the rules.

...

Help me though by giving me some specific examples of where you find the rules unclear. Thanks!


Ok, I will jump into the pool here. Could you please outline the battle process? Here is a link that gives you a very specific scenario to consider. You weighed in earlier on the thread but it soon became very complex and died quietly on the vine. So, a clear step-by-step covering a combined arms invasion (by sea and/or air) would be nice.


Thanks Paul and will do. This is the kind of feedback I was looking for.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:
All very true. But personally, I find that watching a video takes far more time than reading a rulebook. Though the instructional videos certainly have their use when the rulebook has me stymied. In that case then, the instructional video comes to the rescue!
I think it depends on the person. Some people learn "visually" and some people do not learn at all. Anyone who can watch a video once and learn the game has my respect. I find video learning useless as I NEED to learn where things are in the rules as much as learning the rules so I can reference them later. I have never found a video that I can easily use as a reference later.

My "biggest problem" with the video instruction method is that I have never heard a video reviewer that I can listen to for more than a few minutes at most! Not the end of the world and there are some really smart people out there.

Different methods for different folks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Torbjörn Rander
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ron D wrote:

We are working on it but most of the effort on 1.2 is focused on a couple rules tweaks to simplify and improve things. I keep reading this complaint about "unclear rules" but it would be helpful if people would give us specific examples of where you don't understand the rules.

Most questions I have answered on BGG I felt were clear in the 1.1 rules. No need to wait for 1.2 to enjoy the game and people are free to make some house rule changes for things that bother them, such as reducing effect of shore bombardment. I have played dozens of games in the past few months using just a couple changes and the games were fun.


Thank you for the reply, I think it's very good to know that you're looking for specific feedback, as it helps us help you help us, kinda. First, let me reiterate that I don't really mind the game design decisions regarding regarding shore bombardments etc., and would happily play with them as they are in 1.1.

For me, the problem is mainly with clarity of the rules. Just comparing the rule books of ViE and T&T, I notice that the ViE 1.1 rules are 9 pages, plus variants, plus gazetteer. The T&T rules are 20 pages, without any extra information. The print in the T&T rule book is slightly larger, but not much, the number of mechanics is also similar, but different. Since I really have no problem with the T&T rules, it leads me to think that one issue is just the information density/brevity of the ViE rules; in the T&T rule book, for example, each page has one or more separate highlight boxes that indicate especially important rules, exceptions, and even some very basic things (e.g. which are the playable factions). When just reading the rules straight up, I get the feeling that the T&T rules have all things very specifically covered, whereas the ViE rules demand more implicit knowledge of history, militaria and/or block games on the part of the reader in order to deduce what's meant by certain rules.

A very specific example of this is the definition of terms used in the rules and in the game; last time we played, one of the players was challenging a lot of the rules we used in the first playthrough based on the fact that the term "Army" is, somewhat surprisingly, never defined in the ViE rules. Nevertheless, the Terms "Army", "Army unit" and "Army group" occur frequently therein. The player challenging the terminology that we agreed on for our first playthrough (armies = ground units, which I assume is what is implicitly meant by the term in game) was arguing that an "Army" contains multiple units, and thus that, for example, air units stacked with ground units would constitute an army. This was a discussion that took about 30 minutes before the player grudgingly conceded the point, but also lost most of his interest in playing the game due to him feeling that we arbitrarily overruled him. In contrast, in T&T, such definitions are very clear and unambiguous, probably in part because they're allowed to take up more space.

I am sure that this is not the only ambiguity, I remember that the first time we played (was a while ago now), there were a lot of discussion regarding sequencing when performing naval bombardments/invasions/combinations thereof, and with target types for the various units. I'm not entirely sure this is super helpful, but I think the following would, for example, really benefit the rules:

* Improve on definitions and consistency throughout (see above example)
* Re-work general information structure and the order information is presented (example: §3.2 Commands. Second and third sentences are "The number (top-left) on cards is Commands (CM). They may not be saved.". The information that you cannot save commands come before any description of what you can do with commands; to me, for example, it seems logical to put this information at the end of §3.2 since saving commands would be the potentially last thing you could do with them).
* Allow the rules to take up more page space.
* Use of more examples of play/highlights in the rules to clarify tricky things.

I guess that's what I can say from only two playthroughs, I'd need to convince my group to give it another go to be able to offer more comprehensive feedback, which might take some time. Anyhow, I hope this helps to give you some idea what I think many players are frustrated by.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Draker
United States
McLean
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
hobnob wrote:
For me, the problem is mainly with clarity of the rules. Just comparing the rule books of ViE and T&T, I notice that the ViE 1.1 rules are 9 pages, plus variants, plus gazetteer. The T&T rules are 20 pages, without any extra information. The print in the T&T rule book is slightly larger, but not much, the number of mechanics is also similar, but different. Since I really have no problem with the T&T rules, it leads me to think that one issue is just the information density/brevity of the ViE rules; in the T&T rule book, for example, each page has one or more separate highlight boxes that indicate especially important rules, exceptions, and even some very basic things (e.g. which are the playable factions). When just reading the rules straight up, I get the feeling that the T&T rules have all things very specifically covered, whereas the ViE rules demand more implicit knowledge of history, militaria and/or block games on the part of the reader in order to deduce what's meant by certain rules.


Thank you for the great feedback. I doubt Columbia will expand the rules by much, but certainly we can define armies. You were correct that land/ground/armies are all interchangeable. There are three basic classes or air, land, and sea units with some sub categories within each. I would have thought this statement in the rules (4.5 Stacking, pg 5)...

EXAMPLE: In clear terrain, a player
can have 3 army units, plus 1 leader, 1
air unit, and 1 naval unit. Both players
can have this many units for a battle.

...would have cleared up the issue your gaming partner raised about armies being lots of different units.

Columbia's philosophy has always been to focus on what you can do and less on what you can't do. I like their approach, and maybe because I have played nearly all of their games, the rules seem clear to me and intuitive. I love TnT and the rules are well done, but even there they have had 248 posts on rules questions. TnT's playbook probably reduced the potential for even more questions by clarifying rules and mechanics. I will do one up for VE when 1.2 is final.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I will go over rules 1.1. again some time next week and post what I find unclear about them. In a general sense, I agree with a previous poster that the order is not always very intuitive (haven't had any problems determining what an army was, but I guess that was just an example). I also feel they need some more (extended) examples in places. For instance, an entire combat sequence, including a blitz combat and regroup with illustrations. Also for a sea invasion with and without a sea battle preceding it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul H
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ron D wrote:
This is the kind of feedback I was looking for.


So to continue the discussion which you may want to start a folder for...

I would like to have the rules clearly define friendly, enemy, contested, neutral spaces for both land and sea. This becomes critical in the West vs Italy situation that plagues many DoW decisions.

Also here, here, here and here are some open questions from the rules forum I have come across that were left hanging or would be cool to have officially answered in the new version.

There are probably lots of others that you have already answered but would be good to answer in version 1.2 so you do not find yourself covering the same ground with each new version.

This was based on a quick search. As your part-time job recently has been knocking these out, I am sure you have others.

Finally, I love this game! Looking forward to the new rules and the resulting praise for the system.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Ron D wrote:
There are three basic classes or air, land, and sea units with some sub categories within each. I would have thought this statement in the rules (4.5 Stacking, pg 5)...

EXAMPLE: In clear terrain, a player
can have 3 army units, plus 1 leader, 1
air unit, and 1 naval unit. Both players
can have this many units for a battle.

...would have cleared up the issue your gaming partner raised about armies being lots of different units.

Ron,

Thank you so much for being involved like this!

Now, to use your illustration which I quoted, as an example of what I think some of us are talking about... it's counter-intuitive to have to look to a paragraph under a rule that defines stacking, to find the definitions of the different types of units represented in the game.
It's almost as if the player is excepted to realize this:
"Hmmm... I wonder what exactly an Army is? What can it consist of? Well of course, I'll look at the stacking rule to learn that."

That wouldn't occur to me, anyway. And just so that I can be comfortable that we're agreeing on what you're saying through your illustration... the paragraph you cited tells me that leaders, air units, and naval units are NOT considered part of an Army. That's how I've always read that paragraph.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Draker
United States
McLean
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the comments and suggestions guys. I'll try my best to ensure they are incorporated.

To answer your question Barry, I was merely highlighting one example in the rules that clearly shows air and naval units are not armies. Under the units types section (2.6 pg 4), the rules do list types of units that are armies clearly define Leaders as army type units with a special capabilities, but I agree that we should be more explicit upfront in describing the different types of units and defining armies.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marten Tjaart Raadsveld
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I do agree with Ron that the rules are in general clear. Indeed most of the questions posted on this forum are in the rules, version 1.1. However, I do have to say that I am familiar with CG mechnics.

The biggest issues -according to my opponents and myself- are some 'holes': the much debated shore bombardment, fighters vs dive bombers and the para's. We've houseruled these. I do like the above rule chang3s and I hope to incorporate these in our next game.

I get the feeling that CG is overambitious (perfectionistic?) in its goals for rules version 1.2: namely fixing everything. There will always be unclarities and questions. What is clear for person X remains unclear for person Z.

We've been waiting for a long time for an update. It would be good to get an official clearing on the above mentioned issues. I also find it a bit unfair to the people who have supported this game from the beginning and have invested money in it. From Ron's comments I gather that there are a number of changes which have already been tested and approved. My advice to Tom and Ron would be to release version 1.2 including these approved changes. We gamers can continue to enjoy an excellent game and the immediate pressure for version 1.3 is gone. A win-win situation.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ralph kramden
msg tools
Here are a few specific examples to get everyone started (by the way, I played the other day and had fun. Some of my more recent harsh criticisms I have posted have been due the the fact that I "admire the system" so much that I am just frustrated by some of the unresolved issues...apologies to Ron):

(1) Sea invasions and Shore bombardment: I suspect that intuitively borrowing the way that such things work in other WWII games, combined with the fairly brief way naval invasions and shore bombardment are discussed in these rules, is causing more confusion than both Ron and many players realize. I believe the problem is that many players are having difficulty dissociating the forces that occupy the sea zone(s) from which an invasion (or a shore bombardment) originate, and the land area in which a sea invasion is occurring. Realizing (tell me if I misinterpret this Ron) the absolute distinction between these two things, within this game system causes players to fail to see just how vulnerable, for example, England is to sea invasion. What seems like an overly complex set of requirements to invade is actually much more liberal than most, say, Third Reich gamers realize((1) any and all sea zones through which the invasion comes must be friendly at the start of the turn, (2) the friendly ships which are in these sea zones must not move this turn). Where the confusion arises is that once these conditions are met, you simply move your invasion force (1 infantry unit, one air unit, one leader, 1 airborne, and one naval unit) to the enemy land area, and your invasion force is now "on land." The only enemy forces that can now oppose them are the enemy forces in the "land zone itself, any air in range, and any enemy fleet "already" in port. Many players intuitively (and incorrectly )think that subsequent naval actions to the sea area from which the naval invasion took place will affect the invasion itself. They do not. Thus any naval engagements "at sea" that will affect a naval invasion actually occur the "turn before" a naval invasion. Thus a chess-like battle between England and Germany ensues, with the English needing to ensure that no turn ends with the Germans possessing an unbroken chain of sea zones to any area on England. Otherwise the Germans get to walk in. One error that seems to occur, is that while the (1 ship) that can participate in a naval invasion would get to fight, any other naval unit (1 only) would need to pay an additional 1 CM to utilize shore bombardment (or would shore bombardment even be able to affect the invasion battle Ron?) Shore bombardment appears to function much like an air raid in 1.1., requiring an a separate command point. So to summarize, ships in sea zones are in sea zones, and forces from a sea invasion (including the 1 ship that you are allowed to include) are moved to the LAND area. These forces are now separate, and do not interact anymore until combat is over. Indeed, the ship that is included in the invasion, I suspect, cannot participate in any sea combat that might occur in the sea zone from which the invasion came, it can only participate in the land invasion combat. We really need some clarification on sea invasions, bombardment, and how land and sea forces interact or do not interact. P.S. When you say the sea zone must be friendly at the "start of the turn," do you mean the start of the game turn, or the start of the player's turn conducting the invasion? (I had a player recently challenge me on this one).

(2) one Russian tactic that is a bit disruptive is to place cheap Russian air units in crucial front line areas (I also use the cav) and then leave an area between this space and my actual powerful russian reserve forces. This is not always cost effective, but can sometimes be a very unrealistic way of causing an entire arm of the German army to stop and fight a battle when they should be able to move on. No, the air cannot hold the area, but they do cause the army to stop until the combat phase. Since you don't want to wreck fog of war, I suggest that when battles are fought, when it is revealed that "only air" (or for that matter only naval) is present in a land hex, the attacking army gets a "free" blitz once the fighter/naval is forced to leave.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
ralph123 wrote:
Here are a few specific examples to get everyone started (by the way, I played the other day and had fun. Some of my more recent harsh criticisms I have posted have been due the the fact that I "admire the system" so much that I am just frustrated by some of the unresolved issues...apologies to Ron):

(1) Sea invasions and Shore bombardment: I suspect that intuitively borrowing the way that such things work in other WWII games, combined with the fairly brief way naval invasions and shore bombardment are discussed in these rules, is causing more confusion than both Ron and many players realize. I believe the problem is that many players are having difficulty dissociating the forces that occupy the sea zone(s) from which an invasion (or a shore bombardment) originate, and the land area in which a sea invasion is occurring. Realizing (tell me if I misinterpret this Ron) the absolute distinction between these two things, within this game system causes players to fail to see just how vulnerable, for example, England is to sea invasion. What seems like an overly complex set of requirements to invade is actually much more liberal than most, say, Third Reich gamers realize((1) any and all sea zones through which the invasion comes must be friendly at the start of the turn, (2) the friendly ships which are in these sea zones must not move this turn). Where the confusion arises is that once these conditions are met, you simply move your invasion force (1 infantry unit, one air unit, one leader, 1 airborne, and one naval unit) to the enemy land area, and your invasion force is now "on land." The only enemy forces that can now oppose them are the enemy forces in the "land zone itself, any air in range, and any enemy fleet "already" in port. Many players intuitively (and incorrectly )think that subsequent naval actions to the sea area from which the naval invasion took place will affect the invasion itself. They do not. Thus any naval engagements "at sea" that will affect a naval invasion actually occur the "turn before" a naval invasion. Thus a chess-like battle between England and Germany ensues, with the English needing to ensure that no turn ends with the Germans possessing an unbroken chain of sea zones to any area on England. Otherwise the Germans get to walk in. One error that seems to occur, is that while the (1 ship) that can participate in a naval invasion would get to fight, any other naval unit (1 only) would need to pay an additional 1 CM to utilize shore bombardment (or would shore bombardment even be able to affect the invasion battle Ron?) Shore bombardment appears to function much like an air raid in 1.1., requiring an a separate command point. So to summarize, ships in sea zones are in sea zones, and forces from a sea invasion (including the 1 ship that you are allowed to include) are moved to the LAND area. These forces are now separate, and do not interact anymore until combat is over. Indeed, the ship that is included in the invasion, I suspect, cannot participate in any sea combat that might occur in the sea zone from which the invasion came, it can only participate in the land invasion combat. We really need some clarification on sea invasions, bombardment, and how land and sea forces interact or do not interact. P.S. When you say the sea zone must be friendly at the "start of the turn," do you mean the start of the game turn, or the start of the player's turn conducting the invasion? (I had a player recently challenge me on this one).

(2) one Russian tactic that is a bit disruptive is to place cheap Russian air units in crucial front line areas (I also use the cav) and then leave an area between this space and my actual powerful russian reserve forces. This is not always cost effective, but can sometimes be a very unrealistic way of causing an entire arm of the German army to stop and fight a battle when they should be able to move on. No, the air cannot hold the area, but they do cause the army to stop until the combat phase. Since you don't want to wreck fog of war, I suggest that when battles are fought, when it is revealed that "only air" (or for that matter only naval) is present in a land hex, the attacking army gets a "free" blitz once the fighter/naval is forced to leave.



As i was saying some exended examples, e.g. of a sea invasion, along with illustrations, would come in very handy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
OK, as promised and mentioned above, I've compiled a whole list of questions I had after reading rules v. 1.1 twice and playing the first campaign turn, of which you can find an account here:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1623963/vie-1939-game-t...

Please note that some of these questions may have already been answered somewhere here on BGG. Some aren't rules questions per se, but should be considered remarks or suggestions.

Introduction p.1

The introduction already seems to include some rules, which is quite exceptional. For instance, it reads "---The Soviets may attack Finland and occupy the Baltic States, Eastern Poland and Bessarabia".

Multiple Q: What if the Poles and/or Romanians placed (a) unit(s) in Eastern Poland and Bessarabia respectively? I assume the Soviets would have to pay the associated CM cost in such a case, although perhaps should Warsaw fall because of a German attack, the Polish unit would be removed automatically? Then again, I believe it's player 1's prerogative to decide the order the battles are fought in (except for player 1 raids). In this particular case, I would say, assuming I won the initiative as the Germans, I would have the Russians resolve the attack(s) on eastern Poland (and Bessarabia) first. Also, what is the timing of occupying these areas above? During the movement phase or after Warsaw, in the case of Poland has fallen, or completely at the end of all combat?

Card phase (p.1)

Should be better explained. I suggest something along the following lines be added: In the campaign game the Axis and Allies/ Soviets each randomly draw four cards for that specific year at the start of each year. In 1939 each side draws only two. The controlling player examines them and chooses the order these cards are played in and keeps them hidden from his opponent until the applicable card phase. The number of cards played per year varies when playing any of the post '39 scenarios. Cards affecting winter combat can only be played on winter turns. Also, an event indicated on a card which cannot be played for whatever reason is ignored, but the CM applies as normal.

The words above in bold I've added for emphasis. Some of these things I seem to remember reading here on BGG or were directly communicated to me by Ron, but I didn't see them anywhere clearly written in the rules themselves. Based on the text as written it wasn't clear to me that all cards were drawn at the same time. I thought only 1 per season from the available 6 (39) or 8 (all other years). It makes a huge difference when you actually get to decide about the order!

Move phase (p.1)


This actually happens a lot in rules 1.1, and although perhaps not entirely unavoidable, it makes the rules more difficult to read. What I'm referring to is the fact that in this particular case the term "unpinned units" is used whereas it hasn't yet been explained what that is. A glossary completely at the beginning of the rules might address that or at the very least a paragraph reference of where this concept is explained in more detail. As I said, if this were the only time it happened, it wouldn't be a big deal, but it's far from an exception rather almost more the rule...(For example, reinforcing, air and naval raids, leaders, double defence etc.).

1.62 Norwegian leads (p.3)

Must the land areas mentioned be friendly or the adjacent sea zones or both? By now I believe the ships can actually move "over land", but this idea seems so strange intuitively (probably also because of the fact that in most other games I play, land areas are off-limits to naval units other than being in port). Of course, the ships are considered to be very near the coast and in case of a battle taking place this would easily distinguish any ships taking part in a land battle and any taking place in a sea battle. Nevertheless explicitly stating that naval units can enter land areas would be useful, IMHO, for the reasons stated above.

If I get it correctly, the in game effect of the Norwegian leads is that normally a naval unit located in a land area must first move out to sea and can then move to a land area adjacent to the original one, whereas rule 1.62 allows for direct "land-to land" movement of naval units between the associated areas as long as they are all friendly, correct?

1.9 (p.3)Lake Supply

What is meant by imported and exported pp's? Is one supposed to keep track which pp's were spent on which units??

2.6 Unit types (p.4)

BB ==> "Britain and Germany have one BC each. OK, but there's no separate unit type shown. Does this mean they essentially function as battleships? E.g. they cannot be rebuilt and they can shore bombard?

panzer/ tank armies ==> Why the exception for the British 8th and American 3rd armies? As their units actually do show tank symbols, I'm wondering why they weren't either just given an infantry illustration or alternatively allowed to simply be tank units (e.g. being allowed to benefit from cards increasing the fp of your tank units). Not a big deal, but just somewhat unnecessarily confusing, just like the fact that Luxembourg is on the map, but it isn't actually a separate area. My personal choice would have been to incorporate it into Belgium and call the area Belgium and Luxembourg...

Cavalry ==> The unit type is not shown. It is, however, mentioned that they are neither infantry nor tanks. So in which ways are they different? Other than the info shown on the unit itself, is the only important aspect that they can neither benefit from cards giving bonuses to your infantry nor to your tanks?

Airborne units

BTW, upon reflecting on the rules regarding airborne units, I guess it's not so much of a problem as people make it out to be (guilty as charged!

A. They are an air target prior to being dropped, meaning that if the enemy has fighters in the area they are likely to suffer some hits.

B. They typically only have two steps

C. They cannot be rebuilt

Therefore I can't actually envision that they would be greatly overused. At the very least they would have to go in at full strength anyway (you'd want them to have an impact and you wouldn't want a single step to be easily eliminated), you'd have to make sure the area doesn't contain enemy fighters (sending in some air reconnaissance of your own might help, I suppose on a prior turn)and you wouldn't be able to rebuild them.

The only thing that is somewhat of a shame is that you can't recreate the invasion of Crete as they have to accompany army units in the attack, or vice-versa, actually. However, I can see why they did that. At this scale it doesn't make sense to have an AB unit drop way behind the front and seizing control of key areas (to retreat to, capitals etc.). A (house) rule might be that they can attack islands on their own as long as these consist of a single territory. Then Crete, Malta and others would be legitimate targets, but London would not, nor should it be!

BTW, if AB units are the only ground units left, can they control an enemy area? Can they interdict enemy supply?

3.1 (p.5). Game years

When it comes to card play, it's explained better than in the introduction on page 1, but personally still not as clearly as I believe it should be.

3.4 Winter

I Suggest to start the paragraph by saying: "When playing the campaign game..."

3.41 (Winter) movement

Does this only apply to the movement phase or does it also mean no blitzing or regrouping? This is a pretty important question, I suppose.

3.42 (Winter) firepower

Shouldn't naval units and anti-aircraft fire be excluded from this? This leads to weird situations that subs and cruisers are, in specific circumstances, as powerful as BB's in winter. AA would of course not drop below one against air (primary target), so I guess that wouldn't make any real in game difference. Also, shouldn't the Soviets be less affected than the Germans? Of course in a sense they already are as many of their units are D1 anyway, meaning that they relatively become more powerful since the Germans become weaker, but still...Maybe I'm overlooking something here?


4.3 Pinning

Does this also apply to naval and air units? (in both ground and naval battles?)

Also, player 1 and "defender" may be one and the same, depending on player 2 moves, right? ( A player 1 "non-combat move" followed up by a player two move engaging those units would make player 1 the defender...). What does this mean for pinning? Who then decides which units are pinned, if any?

Are units only pinned for the duration of the move phase or does it also prevent them from retreating? In a more general sense, whenever movement is affected, does this apply to the move phase only or also to e.g. blitzing, regrouping and retreating? E.g. can units still blitz and regroup in winter turns?

5.4 Targeting

"D1 units cannot fire on secondary targets", I take it the same applies to A1, B1 and C1 units?

5.61 Blitzing

"The defender can blitz exploit after a victory as well" (just above the note saying IMPORTANT).

OK, does this mean they can do so during player 1's turn? This is just a single line which can easily be "missed", but the game implications seem immense and the tactical possibilities endless. An illustrated example here would have been priceless, IMHO. This is actually true for a lot of what I've been writing here. I think many rules questions may have been cleared up by illustrated examples. On many occasions have I read rules for many a game thinking I didn't quite get it, but having it cleared up beyond a doubt with a well-timed and explained example.

Also, please explain in detail using the "new rule", i.e. where units retain their initial movement values but may only regroup to friendly territories (makes sense). I also remember Ron wrote to me once, he'd been using a rule in which units could be activated for blitz movement that were either in the same area or ADJACENT to a friendly leader. I didn't get the idea this is the case with the rule currently being used (that is, they still have to be in the same area as the leader, right?). I kind of liked that idea, as currently many units capable of blitzing tend to be so weakened during regular combat that having them engage in another one by exploiting, is pure suicide...I may be wrong, though as my experience is fairly limited....

A blitz exploit does not require an additional CM, right?

5.7 Army retreats

So units may overstack (at a -1 stepp loss), but does that mean border limits for retreating may also be ignored as long as you're willing to take a -1 step loss each time?

5.8 Army regroups

"The victor in a battle ...". OK, so this means that player 2 can also do this in between [pending] battle resolutions?. Also make sure to remove the word vacant from the next version of the rules as this no longer applies...Leaders do not expend a step for a regroup, correct?

6.1 Air movement

According to the example the medium bomber appears to have flown 8 spaces either way, the way I read it (2x4 is also 8; or could it fly up to 16 when not attacking?)

6.11 Air stacking

I suggest adding that these limits apply per side, so each side could have e.g. an air unit and a leader in any given battle...

6.13 Strategic air moves

Suggestion: Add: Remember, a strategic move, whether army, naval or air costs 1 CM each.

6.22 Landing air

"within range" Does this mean again using the printed movement value on the block or whatever is left of it after having flown into combat?

7.2 Naval movement

May subs move through an enemy occupied coastal LAND area?? If so, must their next move be to an adjacent sea zone?

7.24 Copy-paste mistake. The phrase "Air and naval units" should be deleted. Please correct this for version 1.2

7.26 Naval strategic moves

What's the difference between a naval strategic move and a double move (7.2)? Is it that a double move does not need to end in a friendly port, but rather that it may end in a sea or ocean zone instead?

7.31 Shore bombardment

"A naval unit may..." I thought only battleships could perform shore bombardments?

Also, I assume naval raids cost 1 CM as normal?

7.4 Naval retreats and regroups

What exactly is a naval regroup and in which ways does it differ from an army regroup, if any?

7.6 Amphibious retreats/ regroups

Does this only apply to naval units? How do AMPHIBIOUS retreats/ regroups differ from NAVAL retreats/ regroups?

Again, here an illustration would speak volumes...

"Victors may regroup to friendly ports". Does regroup here mean move to one friendly adjacent space as it does for armies?

7.71 Grammatical error: "the USA player can voluntarily reducing..." Reducing should read reduce.

7.72 Resource convoys

What about French convoy points after a French surrender. Do they go to Britain [immediately]? It only says said Convoy points are reduced by 1...


8.6 Supply attrition


What's the point in mentioning the bit about units defending capitals? I guess I'm missing something here?


10.5 Soviet/ Italian diplomacy


How do you mark whether a nation is a German or Italian ally? Who gets any attached resource points?

11.2 Resources

Who gets conquered minor resources? Axis ==> Germany or Italy? Allies ==> Britain/ France or the USA? Let's say France conquers the Rhineland, do the resource points still go to Britain? And what about a combined force?

11.31 Factories

"Factory steps cannot be built that exceed city value or resources supply". Ok, so if I get that correctly, that means that once I have an equal number of factories and available resources, I would first have to increase my resources before I could build additional factories or factory steps. Also, when resources are taken from me and I should have more factories than available resources, I do not lose any factories or factory steps, but the excess steps cannot produce, correct?

11.5 Minor pp's

I take it the British player controls Poland on turn 1? Should Poland miraculously survive the German/ (Soviet) attack, could the British add steps to any remaining Polish units? (probably not as I guess they cannot be supplied from London?)

GAZETTEER

In general, what I've noticed is that the gazetteer provides a mixture of rules and historical flavor text. I would stick to just the rules and, if you feel it's necessary (it's certainly interesting), you could add a separate page with historical notes. Now it can be at times somewhat confusing. For instance, when I read the text printed at Hungary I see : "..with close ties to Germany and Italy...". Of course that's historically accurate, but in the game Hungary may end up joining the Allies or Soviets. For those perhaps slightly less aware of the era and each country's role in it, this may be confusing.It's just one example, the gazetteer is full of similar ones.

Iran/ Iraq: Why does only the Axis count it as resource income when historically the Allies controlled Iran and used its resources? The flavor text even emphasizes the fact that the Allies used the oil for the war in the Pacific (the rule is of course clear enough, just wondering...). perhaps it is because the Allies didn't suffer from any major resource shortages whereas the Axis did and was in desperate need for additional ones?

Soviet Union:

I still don't seem to get the Urals rules very well.

"Urals resources are always restricted to the Urals to support a maximum of two factory 4 pp".

Does this mean two factories with a maximum capacity of 4 steps each?

Does it also mean that effectively the Soviet player needs to spend his Urals pp's separately from the other ones so he won't accidentally spend Urals pp's elsewhere?

"PPs in the Urals can only be used to build new units in the Urals, or to add steps to units already in the Urals".

When can they start building A units there B start adding steps to existing units there and C build factories or add factory steps? Right from the start of the campaign or until at war? The 1939 OOB says "Urals resources are ignored until at war". It would be handy to also put that in the rules themselves. Does "ignored" mean that they aren't counted for the resource total of the USSR until at war [ when determining the number of available pp's) or also that they can't use them to build new units or add steps to units in the Urals?

"Britain and France may not enter SU territory and vice versa"

I reckon this also applies to the USA? I assume minor aligned neutrals are allowed?

"Convoy pp's...forfeit if they are blocked from reaching Moscow"

Can convoy points be traced to the Urals after Moscow has fallen or are they lost until Moscow is retaken?

It's explicitly mentioned the SU may attack Finland. How about other neutral minors? I assume they may also attack it if it's aligned with Germany, but that this would constitute a DoW. If it's Allied controlled, it's off-limits to the SU, right?

Italy:

Missing word: supply line traced FROM Rome to Berlin.

Poland:

SU may occupy Eastern Poland, but if Germany does not attack/defeat Poland, Poland will freely join the Soviet Union? This seems very far-fetched. At the very least I would add the phrase "and if the Soviet Union has not attacked or occupied any Polish territory so far".

Also, "gives the Soviets control of the three Polish units" What if two or more have already been destroyed, but the Germans have somehow failed to conquer Warsaw? Is the Soviet player allowed to replace them at full strength or at strength 1?


Cards:

Axis cards

Axis '39

Attack by U-47 (U-boats +2F one battle). Does this include an attack against a(n) unprotected convoy?

Axis '41

Desert War. Is it enough to have a single Italian unit in the battle to qual.ify as an italian event?

Axis '42

Liberation army. When steps are added by this card (or similar ones) does the standard rule still apply that each unit can only have a single step added to it each production phase?

Axis '44

Sea of Mud. If the Axis choose some rear area, this seems to have no adverse effect. Wouldn't it make more sense if this were a Soviet card and the effect could be used AGAINST the Axis in an original Russian territory of the Soviet player's choice? Also, does it apply to the movement phase, blitzing or to both?

Atlantic wall. Does it need to be a coastal area in France?

Axis '45

Demolition. Does it also apply to frozen rivers?

Allied cards

Allies '42

Germany first. If say Norway is aligned to the Allies, can it be shipped directly to a Norwegian port? Or must it go to Britain?

Allies '43

French resistance (and similar cards).

Is the effect of this card restricted to army units? Or can it also be applied to leaders, air and naval units, if desired?

Allies '44

1000 bomber raid. Does the card have to be applied to an air raid or can it be part of a regular battle? (I guess the word "raid" confuses me here...)

Allies '45

Remagen (and many others). Stupid question perhaps, but does attack/ retreat mean attack AND retreat or attack OR retreat?


Miscellaneous questions:


* Are naval bases somehow separate areas or part of a larger area? (e.g. the Sevastopol fortress is to be set up in Sevastopol, not in Crimea). Does the fortress and any naval unit in Sevastopol assist in the defense of Crimea? Does it take an extra move from Crimea to Sevastopol?

* Border limits only apply when entering battles, retreating or regrouping, right? (have this from a direct correspondence from Ron). Does entering a vacant enemy-controlled area constitute a "battle" or does a battle mean that battle dice are rolled?

* The way I read it army units must stop when entering mountain terrain whether or not it is friendly? SM's would be an exception to this, i assume?

* Must an enemy [army unit] stop when entering a vacant hostile area?

* May naval units stay out at sea indefinitely? ( the drawback of course being they can't have steps added to them, as this is done in friendly ports).

* Retreats: Is it allowed for just some units in a battle to retreat while others fight on, so a partial retreat? May e.g. air units retreat while ground units fight on?

* Are air units also subject to a -1 step loss when retreating on round 1?

* Can naval units retreat through sea zones containing only enemy air units?

* Does it cost two mp's to retreat from an Ocean zone?

* 7.4 says that surface ships cannot retreat through borders used by the enemy to reinforce or attack. Does this mean "in the same battle" or "during any battle this turn"?

* I take it this may also mean that a ship may deliberately take a detour to deny the enemy retreat borders while moving into combat? (makes sense, could be some escort ships left behind exactly for that purpose...)

* Do units stay in the same sea zone the battle occurred in when they can neither retreat nor regroup but they were not destroyed?

* What happens when arriving reinforcements lead to overstacking? (because e.g. you suffered far fewer casualties than expected)?

* Are there any restrictions to which neutral majors or minors Britain and France may attack? (Since e.g Italy may not until at war)

OK, that's it!

Please note that I'm not suggesting that none of my questions are actually in the rules. All I'm saying is that I still have doubts regarding these points, sometimes minor, sometimes major...As I said before, clear and well-timed illustrations would probably also have sufficed to clear up 80% of what's here...

Finally, this post is by no means intended as criticism of the game nor of its designers. What's more, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think this is a great game for many reasons; after all, if I thought it was just so-so, I certainly wouldn't devote so much time and effort to posting this and other threads about it. I just want to play the game right and if this leads to a better version of the rules, at the very least a better understanding of them by yours truly, and perhaps a somewhat speedier release of rules version 1.2 (-;, then I'll be more than happy!

Thanks to CG for creating this great game and I hope I (as well as perhaps many others) will soon be able to enjoy it to its full potential!







9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Draker
United States
McLean
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
OK, as promised and mentioned above, I've compiled a whole list of questions I had after reading rules v. 1.1 twice and playing the first campaign turn, of which you can find an account here:


Wow, this is quite the list. Thank you for compiling such an exhaustive list of questions and ambiguities. Do you want 1.1 answers or can you wait for 1.2 and my playbook. I'm hopeful that it won't be too much longer.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.