Welcome to our discussion forum!
You are not logged in.
I have readjusted the Allied Tank Corps card, in accordance to the recent discussion on this forum.
Also, I have noticed that a later change on the "Everyone into Battle" card did not appear on the site version of the card/rules , so I updated both.
It makes the event permanently cancel or prevent the French War Weariness/Mutiny effects. It's important.
Well I liked the inclusion of Germany in the Tank Corps, simply because otherwise the Allies won't play Landships and no Tanks will appear at all (the ability to use it with French as well as British helps a bit here). You changed it back because of the difficult terrain in Alsace. But the change also affects opearations in the North and east of the Rhine, should the allies get that far. Maybe you could only exclude Verdun, Nancy and Mulhouse. If not by name, with a "this effect cannot be used against mountain or intact enemy fort spaces." (the mountains clause excludes operations in Grenoble and Belfort, but I think that is probably a good thing!)
The card can only be played on clear spaces, so Mountain and Forests are excluded. Nancy and Verdun are in France, so it can be played against these spaces; And indeed, had they been captured, I think they would be primary targets for Allied counter-attacks. Forts are no real hindrance for tanks, I mean they can't prevent capture of the surrounding area -and then of course, they 'll need to be successfully besieged.
The Rhine obstacle/rough terrain is a consistent argument (and in the North, although it is unlikely the Allies should ever get there, the densely urbanised Ruhr basin is no better suited for Tank operations). I like the idea that it encourages an historically plausible axis of Allied counter-attacks.
I still think it's a very minor detail, that will never make much difference. However, as I expressed earlier, I try to change as little as possible from the original version, unless there is a very good reason. When an original feature of the rules or cards seems reasonably justified, I'd rather keep it;
I don't think that it makes the Tank card less valid, to the point of not even being played. Its variant version is reinforced (double use FR/BR, column shifts instead of trench negation) and is, I believe, the key of Allied hopes for successful counter-attacks later in the war. If the Allied player has managed to get rid of most of his events, the deck can get quite thin, and guarantee a good rotation of the card.
I meant Strasbourg and Metz. No, you're probably right enough.
In my normal games the allies have occasionally threatened Essen and Frankfurt. The other changes in this variant would probably make that less likely though.
I'd also consider making Yanks and Tanks dependent on prior play of Landships. I don't think the Americans brought tanks with them, so the tanks referred to are presumably British (or French).
Well, I like to see the +2 drm of Yanks and Tanks as not only tanks (never massively used in the American Army) but as a conglomerate of endless ammunition, fresh troops enthusiasm, air cover and armoured support; so I wouldn't make it strictly dependent on Landships. In addition, not playing Landships means that mass production of viable prototypes is not achieved (therefore not permitting the use of a potent recyclable tank card), but it doesn't necessarily mean there aren't enough available to justify a one-off drm card... a bit like like the Achtung Panzer optional card (which in this particular case is absurd, considering the perfectly negligible number of German tanks produced -unless it's some sort of "what-if" for Panzer fetishists... (hey, why "ACHTUNG Panzer" anyway, it's meant to be directed against ALLIES!)
Again, while your point is perfectly sensible, I think leaving it the way it is doesn't hurt common sense either, and thus I would apply my "minimum changes" policy here too...
does this policy include "minimum changes of mind"
as mentioned in the other thread, i believe your initial call was a valid point and a good variant. No reason in my mind why you should change back again
Well, the idea is whenever the original version makes sense, abstain from changing it. Sometimes something that looked like a mistake ends up sounding right after a proper justification.
I want the keep the changes to aspects that I feel I can easily defend using basic common sense.
Another argument for the original version is that the urge to develop new weapons (tanks) arose because of the stalemate of trench warfare. Consistent military successes, like pushing back to Germans into Germany, obtained through conventional doctrine would have very possibly discarded the whole tank project, or given it such marginal priority that it would not have led to the large armoured formations represented by the Allied Tank Corps card.