Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Memoir '44» Forums » Variants

Subject: Fire and Movement rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Gustavo Motta
Brazil
Araranguá
Santa Catarina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In Memoir´44, the Infantry and Tanks can Attack, Move and Attack, or only Move. When a unit Attack or Move and Attack, the number of dices is same.

I propose the following:
Infantry and Tanks can Move and Attack or Attack and Move.


In true, I was thinking something more:
When the unit shoots moving, the player rolls -1 dice.

My idea was to add that "-1 dice" to defensive capacity of the attacked terrain, but as in the game the defensive capacity are not cumulative, this only serve to attack units in open field.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Taylor-Smith
Canada
Okotoks
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It would allow an attacker to destroy a defending unit on a objective medal AND capture the same medal during the same turn without having to close to close combat range first. I don't think that's a good thing game wise. Also fire and retire might dominate gameplay with the -1.

Memoir'44 is more an operational level game (units represent platoons to even divisions) than a tactical level game (individual tanks and men). Game being the keyword. The move/fire sequence in the rulebook allows the general/player to respond (sometimes) to the other sides movement/engagements. If fire then move was allowed 'front lines' would be wiped out before reinforcement moves could be arranged. Divisions don't get wiped out in a few minutes.

The turn sequence isn't simultaneous or pre-plotted/simultaneous. Thus the 'if you do that/I'll do this' gameplay problem has to be artificially taken care of in the turn sequence. Richard Borg does this by not allowing fire then move. It's been a tricky problem for years in wargame design. Ambush sort of allows 'fire then move' but requires certain actions beforehand to be taken by the opposing player.

I'd suggest trying it first as a tactic card of your own design rather than a general and universal change to the gameturn sequence.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil McDonald
England
Staffordshire
UK
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thumbs down
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nolan Cluff

California
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm with the crowd, here. I don't think turn sequence is a problem for this level of game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clexton27
United States
Forest
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You are always welcome to HOUSERULE it any way you like with your friends,
nevertheless, this old dog likes it the way it is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustavo Motta
Brazil
Araranguá
Santa Catarina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
flapjackmachine wrote:
It would allow an attacker to destroy a defending unit on a objective medal AND capture the same medal during the same turn without having to close to close combat range first.


Good point. When I suggested this variant I thought about "fire and retreat" and not "fire and advance". For this there are the assaults, course,

Therefore it's good to join a forum where people participate in a positive way. After all, it is easier to criticize than be creative.
1 
 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.