Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

We Must Tell the Emperor» Forums » Variants

Subject: Guarding the Frontiers...Provide me some feedback. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
tim woodley
Canada
flag msg tools
mb


Hello All,

I was just about to embark on a game of WMTTE and had an idea for
a new rule variant. Let me know what you think!

The standard rule:If an Allied front is knocked-out, it will go to
the Forces Not in Play Box. It must make a dr greater than its BV to
activate again, and for each successive attempt, it will add 1 to the
die roll.

My variant:This basic rule remains the same, however, if a force
is attempting to re-enter play, you may deduct one action from your
allowance and you may then subtract either/or/both an Oil point and
an Army-Navy point from your current total in order to impose either
a -1 or -2 drm from the Allied reactivation roll. In essense, you
are committing additional resources to interdict the enemy force on
the frontier.

Is this a fair counterbalance to the challenges facing the Japanese
player, or would it tip the balance too much in favour of a Japanese
military victory?

Thank you,
Tim.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Tim, are you mainly thinking of this variant to help Japan towards a Military Victory?

Also, I presume the variant would be inacted before the Allied Front's entry roll (not as a reaction afterwards), and also is good for a single roll only (i.e., the player would have to recommit an Action and addtional Army-Navy and/or Oil for the next possible attempt)?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
tim woodley
Canada
flag msg tools
mb


Hi Steve,

Yes, it would be a pre-emptive interdiction type action.

You can commit one action and as much as 1 Oil and 1 Army/Navy to
attempt interdiction on one enemy front, who will continue to get
their +1 modifier per turn, so it may only serve to offset the opposing
side's increasing command and control capabilities

If you wanted to use the action say for two different fronts that
were attempting re-activation on the same turn, you could, if you
had enough actions and resources, make that committment, but no more
than 1 action and 2 resources per enemy front.

Maybe this type of action can only be attempted after the Early War
epoch as Japan's situation becomes increasingly desperate.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Kennedy
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
What's the point of this? Make Military Victory easier? If that's the case, I'd suggest you become a more skilled player. The point is Military Victory is supposed to be very hard because Japan's ability to do so was historically very unlikely.

I'd also point out, the ability of Japan to project military force into these areas -- Australia, India, US -- is extremely limited. Logistically, there are clear limits on what Japan can do.

Besides, this variant just creates a layer of complexity. WMTTE is very elegant as a design. Frankly, you just need to up your game and achieve a Military Victory the old-fashioned hard way. Just keep at it instead of coming up with ways to make it easier.

Good luck.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Kennedy
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
taskforce7 wrote:
...Maybe this type of action can only be attempted after the Early War epoch as Japan's situation becomes increasingly desperate.
By the by, Japan's situation is desperate from the get-go. The sooner you come to grips with this, the better prepared you will be psychologically to achieve Military Victory.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tim, if I were going to implement this "What if?" variant I would mandate that Japan spend both an Oil and an Army-Navy for the +1 drm. This would reflect both extended logistics and projection of military power in an attempt to keep the Allies at bay.

Probably more of a desperate gamble for the empire as the bleeding off of resources can have both short and long term consequences, but in certain situations maybe worth a shot.

In any event, an interesting "What if?" thought you have here; if you do try it, please let us know how it goes.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
tim woodley
Canada
flag msg tools
mb


Hi Steve,(and David),

Thank you for the feedback. I thought this notion may illicit some
strong reaction, but that's what I was looking for. Maybe the +1
option is the better way to go.

Playing within the game's framework is how I've always (hitherto)
approached WMTTE. Doing this has secured me a few survival victories
and a few games when I've had two fronts knocked-out and was pursuing
that elusive third knock-out. Eseentially, I won't be satisfied with
my performance until I score 3 knock-outs or hold the Empire's enemies
far enough at bay to negotiate a peace settlement.

Still thinking of a way to tweak the system that will maintain the
balance between risk and reward.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
taskforce7 wrote:
...balance between risk and reward.


Understood - risk vs. reward was one of the prime considerations when the design was undergoing development and playtesting. It's a very delicate balance, but that doesn't meant that certain variants can't be tried out to put a new slant on things.

Good luck!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Kennedy
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Instead of interjecting ahistorical options to make it easier to win the game, I'd suggest you give some thought to strategy.

Knocking out the Brits and MacArthur isn't that difficult. The challenge is how to get that final knockout. It won't be Nimitz because he gets a steady stream of action points. Thus, your attention must focus on China. If you haven't been laying the groundwork for this since Pearl Harbor, it is tough to catch up. So in the Early War, you have to be working this front, too. The temptation is to focus elsewhere. But, temptation is the mistress of misfortune in SoS games. Yes, you can knockout the Brits and Mac on the cheap and you must. Don't be seduced by Oil either. You need to be in position in China already when the second knockout blow has been delivered.

Frankly, I wish their were a viable Nimitz/carrier-hunting option in the Early War. It would give Japan another Military Victory option. As it stands now, there is only a single path to Military Victory -- Brits>Mac>China. If you were presenting variants to address this, then I would be interested. As it stands, I think Steve and the VPG team did a masterful job.

Which leads me back to my original question, which you ignored -- why? The game ain't broke. You just need to think more about how to win. Jigging the rules with ahistorical options isn't the way of a Bushido warrior. It also isn't that satisfying either.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Graham-Leigh
United Kingdom
Westbury
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why "ahistorical"? It looks a perfectly reasonable idea to me - the Japanese invest extra resources in finishing off Australia or India. They had plans for both but didn't make the required resources available; this option considers what might have happened if they had done.

I've now managed a couple of military victories but they do take a lot of luck as well as careful planning. Adding an extra risky option gives the player yet another thing to think about, which has to be good.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
tim woodley
Canada
flag msg tools
mb

Thank you all for the input.

Kudos to John GL on his military victory. This prize has still
eluded me.

As David says, I'm pretty sure Nimitz has to be left out of the
equation when planning a military victory...China however can be a
tough nut to crack. This leaves McArthur and Wavell as the 2 primary
targets for knock-outs. Getting number three will require some advance
planning and a little luck.

David, elaborate on your carrier-hunting option please.

Thank you,
Tim.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HitchKennedy wrote:
Frankly, I wish their were a viable Nimitz/carrier-hunting option in the Early War.


The early 1942 US strategy of isolated hit-and-run carrier raids was quite effective and pretty much precluded Japan from knocking out the American CV fleet. This only magnified the results of the Pearl Harbor attack, which of course failed to find a single US carrier.

The game abstracts the US pre-Coral Sea/Midway naval tactics as Nimitz 'advances' and then player can react by committing actions and resources to keep the American carriers at bay.

Japan is also trying to maintain her perimeter against the Allies, including the Central Pacific.

David, if you have a variant in mind I'd love to hear it!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A fantastic resource for this subject matter is The First Team: Pacific Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway by John Lundstrom.

The book is extremely detailed, but it provides some wonderful insights and places the reader right in the thick of the action. Highly recommended.

More info here:

http://www.amazon.com/First-Team-Pacific-Combat-Harbor/dp/15...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Kennedy
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
John GL wrote:
Why "ahistorical"? It looks a perfectly reasonable idea to me - the Japanese invest extra resources in finishing off Australia or India. They had plans for both but didn't make the required resources available; this option considers what might have happened if they had done.

I took it for historic fact that Japan did not possess the ability to project military power of strategic significance into these areas. Hence, my characterization of the variant as ahistoric. I didn't think the characterization was controversial. I figured the design team constructed the front tracks for this reason.

History aside, I've yet to hear why the variant is a good idea from a game standpoint. If it didn't alter game outcomes and merely enhanced play (i.e. victory percentages remained the same), that would be significant. I'd like to see that data. But, it layers on a unique mechanic and seems like design/rule creep for very limited purposes. Again, I'm looking for a convincing rationale and getting none.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Kennedy
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
taskforce7 wrote:
David, elaborate on your carrier-hunting option please.

This goes back a few years. The thread is quite long. But the essential variant is quite simple. I liked it very much because it was enormous fun and gave the Japanese a reason (albeit, highly irrational) to pursue Nimitz early on. But, testing showed it had zero impact on game outcomes. Check it out.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/610113/no-midway
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Kennedy
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
taskforce7 wrote:
...China however can be a
tough nut to crack.

Actually, China is not that tough. You just have to work it during Early War while you pursue the Brits and Mac. You can't pivot to it and "catch-up".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HitchKennedy wrote:
But, testing showed it had zero impact on game outcomes.


One has to wonder the impact on US strategy (including the Battle of Midway) if the Yorktown had been lost at Coral Sea, in addition to the Lexington (the Japanese actually thought they had sunk 2 CV's at Coral Sea).

Lexington afire
3 
 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.