$15.00
$20.00
$5.00
Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Paths of Glory» Forums » Rules

Subject: QUESTION ABOUT OPTIONAL RULES 5.7 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Gilbert Collins
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmb
What is the general consensus about these optional rules? My gut feeling is that I don't think they are necessary and it is 'tampering' with the designers original intent.

Especially the sections titled CP Victory Point Space Changes and AP Victory point changes. Where is "Koblenz" and "Aachen"???

By removing the VP spaces the whole Middle East game changes. Why do that?

For my part, I'm glad that these are optional. I don't like them.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John David Galt
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
The Historical Variant in the rules has been mostly replaced by the version the Boardgame Players Association uses at WBC. The newest version I've found is this one from 2013.

BPA considers it more balanced than the regular game. I disagree and think it's an easy win for the Central Powers.

But I do recommend optional rule 4.2.4, which prevents a "dance of death" in eastern Poland in the first few turns.

Koblenz and Aachen are where the German 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Armies begin the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Woodham
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The WBC rules are way better in every way, and almost perfectly balanced.

Otherwise, the optimal move is for the Germans to entrench behind the Rhine and never play the Western front.

With the WBC rules, there's some incentive to push Westwards, additional incentive to topple the Czar, and an incentive to bring the US in.

The game is pretty predictable and tilted in the AP's favour without the historical scenario's fixes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Gregorio
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
>By removing the VP spaces the whole Middle East game changes. Why do that?
> BPA considers it more balanced than the regular game. I disagree and think it's an easy win for the Central Powers.

The BPA actually had nothing to do with coming up with the scenario, it was the result of the GMs and "expert players" ten years ago deciding that the default out of the box victory conditions were incentivizing some very odd play and strategies. (The BPA sponsors these events but all the actual game/tournament decisions are in the hands of the players and GMs.)

Some example of ahistorical strategies, which predated my involvement in the game, included:

* Defend the Rhine - Germans would withdraw relatively early to a three space line (Essen/Frankfurt/Mannheim) and could win the game on that line at the end of the game.
* NE Freakshow - huge VP incentive for both sides to bulk up massively in the NE and spend a lot of time and energy there, often with no impact.
* Italian "Crushed Ice" strategies - The CP could often get a jump on Italy; GE armies would swarm in before the AP could get ready. Again, the CP could win the game in a sideshow theatre because of the large numbers of VPs in Italy.

I'm not sure what constitutes an "easy" win for the Allies but, until recently, the consensus in organized competition was that the AP had the edge as evidenced by VPs being given to the CP via the bidding for sides process.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Vomkrieg
New Zealand
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I picked up an old 2nd hand 2nd edition copy recently.

With the help of coloured pencils, I redid my map to fit this scenario.

I have no regrets
 
 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.