Author Topic: A couple of rules ideas  (Read 13926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bobsalt

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
A couple of rules ideas
« on: June 13, 2007, 08:50:20 AM »
I want to start by saying that this game is one of the best games I’ve ever played. I’ve only gotten to play it twice, but we had a blast both times. We did run into a few odd situations in our games that wouldn’t have happened in real life, though, and these rules suggestions below are an attempt to address a couple of them. I don’t know if these ideas have any merit, or if they were already tried and discarded as part of the design process, but I thought I’d go ahead and post them here for consideration/discussion by those who have more experience with the game than I do. At any rate, here they are:

1) Sea Patrol

Planes may patrol a sea zone. During the Air Unit Movement, a plane may be moved into a sea zone within its range and be declared to be patrolling that sea zone. The aircraft remains in its designated sea zone “on patrol” until the beginning of the owning player’s next Initial Strategic Phase unless it engages in combat.

This unit may engage any enemy ships that attempt to move into or through this sea zone. If combat occurs, any planes adjacent to this sea zone may fly to reinforce this battle (see Air Interception/Defensive Air Support). If the patrolling plane engages in combat, it must land at the conclusion of that battle per the normal aircraft rules. An aircraft on patrol may fly defensive air support (only) in adjacent sea zone (if it has the range); it must land at the conclusion of combat per the normal aircraft rules. Other than engaging in combat in the sea zone it is patrolling or flying defensive air support in an adjacent sea zone, an aircraft on Sea Patrol may not take any other action until it has been landed at the start of the owning players’ Initial Strategic Phase.

COMMENT: As I said, I’ve only played two games so far, and although the game is great, we have run into a few odd situations that wouldn’t have happened in real life. One of them is the situation where ships will go right through a sea zone containing an island with enemy aircraft based there. In real life these ships would have been engaged by the aircraft; in the game the ships are allowed to move through unmolested. This is especially unrealistic in the case of strategic movement; you simply couldn’t run supply lines through areas that were within the operational radius of an enemy airbase. This is the reason why the Americans neutralized Japanese island airbases as they advanced across the Pacific (and a reason the Japanese had those bases there in the first place). By allowing aircraft to intercept enemy shipping, I believe it might give the Japanese player an incentive to fortify the islands with aircraft as was done historically, which would force the American player to have to deal with them. Another possibility to try with this is to say that an enemy aircraft patrolling a sea zone prevents supply from being traced through that sea zone.

2) Admirals

A fleet of 5 combat ships or fewer may deploy in a sea zone as normal; fleets consisting of more than 5 combat ships must be commanded by an Admiral. Admirals cost 1 point and take 1 turn to build. With an Admiral, a fleet may consist of up to 10 combat ships. Fleets larger than 10 ships may be deployed, but each combat ship in a sea zone over the limit of 10 requires the expenditure of one production point each. This represents the strain created by trying to keep a large force properly supplied. The check for stacking is made at the end of the movement phase, and payment of production points for any over-stacked ships is made at that time.

COMMENT: This is the other big thing we’ve seen in our games – Japan and the US end up with one big fleet each and have a big Jutland-style Throw Down. While a battle involving 90% - 100% of each side’s fleet could have happened, in reality both sides had enough strategic interests that they had to be dispersed into smaller fleets in order to accomplish all their goals. As it is, it looks like deploying smaller naval forces is just asking to have them all get whacked. In the game system I don’t think there is any way to give players an incentive to deploy in smaller groups, so I thought perhaps giving a disincentive for recreating the Spanish Armada by having to pay production points for the privilege might be effective.

I didn’t want to suggest a flat stacking limit, since there might be valid reasons for creating a vast armada, but I’d like to see doing this as an option, and not as a matter of course. The production point required for each over-stacked ship make sense to me – trying to supply a naval force larger than a certain number of ships would begin to overtax the supply system at some point.

Frankly, I don’t know if this is a good idea or not. I haven’t played the game enough to know if our experience is unique or common to everyone. The numbers I threw out for how many ships could end their movement in the same place is completely arbitrary; the numbers 5 and 10 “felt” right. Playtesting (if this idea is considered to have merit) might show these numbers need to be adjusted. 

Anyway, those are my ideas. Any comments, suggestions, threats, etc. are welcome.
"Peace through superior firepower"

Bobsalt

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2007, 01:49:08 AM »
Another thought - to be historically accurate, shouldn't the US be able send transports across the Pacific Blue Line? The US did send reinforcements to their holdings prior to the commencement of war with Japan.
"Peace through superior firepower"

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2007, 10:40:38 AM »
Hi Bob!

sorry it took me a little while to reply.  I agree with your observations from your first post and I think there are a few ways to address it.  One of the suggestions that I think sounds like it may work best is to replace sea zone ownership with ZOCs (Zones of control) which planes and ships exert into surrounding sea zones. 

Instead of ony moving through controlled sea zones, ships may move strategically anywhere (as long as they don't start in or enter enemy ZOCs)  Ships have to move tactically if they enter enemy ZOCs and may have to stop if enemy air units wish to react.

The ZOC rules also tends to spread naval units out a bit more (to prevent the enemy from strategically moving around you - one will want to screen their sea zones with either ships or planes to protect their rear) - so you get a bit of your "admiral soultion" by implementing it.

Enemy ZOCs also block supply.  From what I have seen of it so far - it seems to work pretty well and it addressing some of these issues you have identified - i will get the complete rules ideas around ZOCs and post them - but it looks promising.

With respect to the US and the blue line - I think the blue line is cleverly placed enough to allow the US to reach all of their Pacific posessions and not have to cross it.

cheers,
Mark



Bobsalt

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2007, 02:15:05 AM »
Your ZOC idea sounds like it might do the trick. I'll look forward to seeing the rules for that.

Regarding the Blue Line, for most of the US territories in the Pacific I agree with you, but I was specifically thinking of the Philippines. The US was sending reinforcements there up to the outbreak of hostilities (for what little good that it did them). As it is, the US player cannot do likewise.
"Peace through superior firepower"

General Joe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2007, 02:22:07 PM »
  Hi, I am one of the main play testers of the game ! 
 
  You can make it to the phillipines wihtout crossing the blue line !
We have play tested ZOC's in the game and they work but a little more complex. 
   

Bobsalt

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2007, 02:34:28 PM »
  Hi, I am one of the main play testers of the game ! 
 
  You can make it to the phillipines wihtout crossing the blue line !
We have play tested ZOC's in the game and they work but a little more complex. 
   
Well, that's what I get for trying to post something from memory without looking at the map. I just pulled my map out and you're quite correct - the position of the blue line does indeed allow you to reinforce the Philippines. No one tried to do that in the two games we've played, and I for some reason thought it was because of where the line was. Oh well - never mind.
"Peace through superior firepower"

Godleader

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2008, 12:46:44 PM »
A little rules for germany. If germany defend our home territory i gain two or tree infantry free for the VOLKSTRUM unit. Not a big quantity for the bad quality of this units.

Bobsalt

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2008, 02:01:33 PM »
A little rules for germany. If germany defend our home territory i gain two or tree infantry free for the VOLKSTRUM unit. Not a big quantity for the bad quality of this units.
Are these regular infantry? I thought of trying to come up with Volkstrum or Russian conscripts, but it's hard to come up with anything under the current infantry.

Mark/John - is there anything like these units in your prototype d-12 game - like maybe the National Effort rules in World in Flames?
"Peace through superior firepower"

Godleader

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2008, 02:54:48 AM »
Normal infantry but one or two max represant the bad quality of this unit, not the number. The military power of the totality of the Volkstrum  in this game  represent  one or two infantry unit.

John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2008, 07:46:36 AM »
Currently - there are no rules for "free units" in the prototype game. There are, however,  differing strength infantry units. Players' call whether they want to build them or not... ;)

John

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2008, 06:57:13 AM »
Sorry I have not chimed in on the forum in a while - I have been away travelling.

As for Volksturm units or British Home Guard formations - we ultimately decided not to have these units represented in the game only because it addede another layer of complexity.  If you want your home territories defended, leave an infantry unit there to defend it - no freebees for players who get caught off guard - they need to defend their home turf too.

Now, for players who want to illustrate these home defence units, I don't have a problem with you adding an optional rule that allows a couple infantry units to pop up the first time each German territory is attacked or the first time a British home territory is attacked to represent the volksturm and the home guard.  One could also come up with an optional rule for Soviet partisans that pop up in vacant enemy owned Soviet territory too I would think.

But, I am not sure if it is a good rule for the standard game.

Mark

Bobsalt

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2008, 08:46:29 AM »
I’m undecided on this, and could go either way. On the Russian Front, a rule that you have to garrison each territory with an enemy infantry popping up there if you don’t the way it works with Japan in China makes a certain amount of sense considering how much havoc Soviet partisans caused and how much effort and resources Germany continually had to expend in suppressing them. On the other hand, I also can see the opportunity for abuse here. On the other hand, it could be argued that not having a garrison in an income producing territory causes the income to be lost is a reflection of partisan activity.

As an idea to try and reflect partisan activity my suggestion would be that not only does an un-garrisoned income territory not produce any income, but that you also cannot trace supply through a territory that doesn’t contain at least one ground unit as a garrison. This doesn’t create the opportunity for abuse that placing a free infantry would create, but does give a player an incentive to have troops sitting in territories that, while are not at a given moment very useful in game terms, would in real life have garrison troops.

As to Home Guards or Volkstrum units (or even Russian conscripts), I tend to agree with Mark. I personally agree with the idea that if someone doesn’t protect himself he pretty much deserves whatever happens because of it.

I also see problems working Volkstrum into the game in a historical fashion, at least as the game is currently set up With infantry already having combat factors of 1 offense/2 defense there isn’t really any room to lessen their combat effectiveness sufficiently to be as comparatively less effective as they would need to mirror the historical differences between them and regular infantry. I liked the way that World in Flames handled them – their Volkstrum had less effective stats and were cheaper than regular infantry. In the new game using the d-12 system, if the new infantry are 2 offense/ 3 or 4 defense you could make Volkstrum a 1 offense/2 or 3 defense, and make them cheaper as well. If this route were taken I would say that once Germany makes the decision to build them that they have some sort of penalty restricting how many regular infantry or Panzergrenadiers they can build. In WiF, once you start building Volkstrum you can’t go back and build any regular infantry. I think that’s a bit much, but I do think there should be some sort of penalty.

For Russian conscripts or British Home Guards, you could make them the same stats as the Volkstrum but not limit (at least, in production capacity) the building of other infantry units. My reasoning for this is that though Britain is trying to build up defensively (presumably any such units would be built in the early war when Sea Lion is a possibility), they didn’t have the desperation that Germany had in organizing Volkstrum; the Russians, though as (or more) desperate, had the manpower available to send untrained men into the meat grinder while still being able to raise and train large numbers of regular troops.
"Peace through superior firepower"

John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2008, 01:44:50 PM »
One quick note: In the current game - you ONLY collect income for occupying enemy territories. If you have no ground unit in the territory - you do not collect income...

Bobsalt

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2008, 04:12:43 AM »
One quick note: In the current game - you ONLY collect income for occupying enemy territories. If you have no ground unit in the territory - you do not collect income...
John,

I know this. What I was suggesting is that in addition to the rule where you do not get income from unoccupied enemy territories was that you also could not trace supply through unoccupied territories. Combined I think these two rules would simulate the effect of partisan activities within the scope of the game without actually adding physical units to the game.
"Peace through superior firepower"

John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: A couple of rules ideas
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2008, 06:56:49 AM »
Makes sense.

John