Le Banquet des GÚnÚraux

Welcome to our discussion forum!

You are not logged in.

#1 2007-05-26 19:42:21

The Guru
-
Registered: 2007-03-07
Posts: 743

Reported discussion with Matthew Barratt, from BoardGameGeek

...Also should the 2MP for a second enemy space apply to spaces that were enemy controlled at the beginning of your impulse to prevent one unit from moving in and converting control so that a second unit can zip through?

You're right. In fact I meant it that way, but the rule does not specifically state it. I'll rephrase.

9.5.3.5 M.E.F. INVASION
Normally a corps can't SR to a port if it is not on a port (eg Adana to MEF4 to Basra) this rule could be clearer as to whether such an SR is allowed as part of an evacuation. Can an evacuation even take place if an advance has caused the "Beachhead-to-Nowhere" marker to be temporarily removed from the game?
If the Turks have captured the beachhead can the Allies still invoke this rule for 4 SR points with the sole effect of removing the "Beachhead-to-Nowhere" marker? If not, is there any way of avoiding a 1 VP hit every British MO turn for the rest of the game?

Also did some rephrasing to clarify. Evacuation can be played even if the marker is not on the map. Corps not on the Beachhead location cannot redeploy to a Port, they must be destroyed instead -but note that if they are not on the Beachhead, and drawing supply from it, it means that the space adjacent to Beachhead is Allied-controlled, and thus there is no threat of VP penalty. My idea of not removing the "Beachhead-to-Nowhere" marker even if all Allied units are destroyed, or even the the location is CP controlled, was to prevent the Allies from "benefiting" from the total extermination of the MEF. The Marker represents a residual Beachhead.

In one game I played the MEF landed at MEF4 and linked up with British corps coming from Egypt, but was then chased back to Aleppo by the Turkish armies. It appears that in those circumstances I would have to lose the MEF to avoid the possibility of giving the CP VPs, which wouldn't have felt right.

I've rephrased so that you only need to lose the MEF if it draws supply from the Beachhead.

9.5.5 FRENCH MUTINY
If, when ?─˙French War Weariness?─¨ has been played as an event, the French don't attack on an MO turn do they lose a VP as well as triggering the mutiny?

Sure.

...if any FR unit not stacked with a US unit attacks a space in or adjacent to France or Belgium, add 1 VP for the turn (not for each attack). Additionally, no French units may be Strategically Redeployed out of France while French Mutiny is in effect.' These effects occur regardless of what the MO roll was, right?

Yes. French Mutiny, once in effect, is no longer linked to MO rolls.
Note that (on a recent update), "Everyone into Battle" now terminates French War Weariness/Mutiny.

9.5.6 ?─˙KAISERSCHLACHT?─¨ COMBAT CARDS
Does forcing these cards to be played in order make it difficult for the CP to play them all? If so, a possible alternative would be to have three identical cards, with whichever one was played first having the Michel effect, the second having the Blucher effect and the third the Friedensturm effect.

It makes it more difficult indeed, appropriately requiring some timing, and deck management (possibly keeping a Kaiserschlacht card in hand for a couple of turns). The good aspect of it is that they tend to be played quite late in the game, when the deck is thin, but then in close succession, which is what I wanted. You may not always end up playing the 3, but that's ok in my opinion, as their full combination is a quite beefed up representation of the historical ones.

11.1.9 RESTRICTIONS
Should the race to the sea restrictions also be lifted if the British or French draw the German's attention to the coast by deploying too many troops there?

If a non-Belgian unit occupies a coastal space it may be attacked regardless of 11.1.9 and the attack will instantly and permanently lift the restrictions. See variant 11.1.9 restrictions.

12.5 RETREATS
I like the requirement for the attacker to advance in order for the defenders to retreat. but should the attacker have to advance twice in order to push the defenders back a second space? Also as the defender I would prefer if I could still choose to retreat under these circumstances, but since I don't get the choice against a victorious but flipped attacker it would seem illogical to allow the choice here.

My idea was to prevent unrealistic"one-space wide no-man's land". You can always use Ops to disengage. See the rationale of the rule for further detail.

Not sure about the lack of a requirement to for the Russians to attack AH.

The War Plan penalties are there to force the players to do something that they would otherwise avoid, because it would be counter-productive. Attacking the AH is productive, not doing it contains its own penalty, because the Russian will fail to exploit an advantage.

Given the requirement for an advance into Tannenburg I would move the 2 armies in southern Poland north to cover 2nd army's supply line and/or atack with it in Tannenburg. Even without your rule change it is something that I do occasionally, with the changes it is something that I would almost always do.

It's a good idea, but it can be dangerous, specially if the "Guns of August" AH initial assault was successful.

Should the Russian war plan be fulfilled by moving in and out on the sixth impulse? I would phrase it 'The WP is implemented if the Russian 2nd army (or any corps resulting from its reduction) ends an impulse (or the turn?) in Tannenberg, or made at least one attack into Tannenberg and was not permitted to advance.'

In fact the rule says "The WP is implemented if the Russian 2nd army (or any corps resulting from its reduction) controls Tannenberg at the end of the turn, or made at least one attack into Tannenberg and was not permitted to advance." By control I meant occupied, I'll rephrase it so it's clearer.

I realise that I am in a minority on this, but my philosophy is that early on each op not spent either defending France or making threats that the Germans can't ignore reduces the amount of luck that an aggressive German needs in order to take Paris; and in my book the only thing the Russians can do early on that is guaranteed to get the German attention is to set up a drive on Berlin.
On the other hand this philosophy comes from the standard game only. Possibly trench zeroes are a sufficient benefit to the French defense that an undistracted German is so unlikely to take Paris that the Allies are free to press home there advantage against the Austrians without worrying too much what the Germans are going to do to France.

The TrenchOs help the French indeed, by not making them dependent on lucky entrechment rolls. But mostly, the Marne counter-offensive as it is replicated in the variant rules is a powerful stopper: the Schlieffen War Plan will lead the Germans into Ch?óteau-Thierry, where the French can set up an ambush optimised by timely use of the "Joffre vs Moltke" (which will give them the BEF's assistance).
I am not sure that the Germans can utterly ignore an AH collapse in Galicia. Russians bursting through the Carpathians can be disastrous to the CP cause, and might ultimately require redeployment of German units anyway. And then, the Ops points used on the AH to react are Ops points the German won't use against the French.
The push towards Berlin through Prussia is a viable option too, but the Germans can counter it relatively easily (for example, a SR of 2 corps from the reserve on the 8th Army, and one reduced from the map into Danzig will give the Germans a 12-14 flank attack against Tannenberg (possibly automatic and/or +1 drm depending on Combat Cards available).
Crisis in the North can be very temporary, the Germans have resources to deal with it. On the contrary, damage done to AH units has longer term impact.


"It is well that war is so terrible - lest we should grow too fond of it." General Lee.

Offline

 

#2 2007-05-26 22:25:20

Philip Thomas
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2007-05-16
Posts: 45
Website

Re: Reported discussion with Matthew Barratt, from BoardGameGeek

Yeah, a first action round attack on Tarnopol is still going to be a standard move for the allies on turn 1 I think, without any encouragement from War Plans. Besides, as I pointed out on the forum that was originally posted, the Russian War Plans for Galicia were not of a detailed or specific nature. Nor were they under pressure to attack Austria, while they were under pressure to attack Germany.

Offline

 

#3 2007-05-26 22:42:28

The Guru
-
Registered: 2007-03-07
Posts: 743

Re: Reported discussion with Matthew Barratt, from BoardGameGeek

I don't expect the AH "Guns of August" attack to prevent Russian offensive action against Tarnopol, to the contrary! It is historical. However, action in the Tarnow/Ivangorod might discourage the Russians from redeploying too easily to the Prussian front, which is also my intention.
You're right about the Russian war objectives, that's one of the reason why I finally gave up Russian War Plan directives against AH.


"It is well that war is so terrible - lest we should grow too fond of it." General Lee.

Offline

 

#4 2007-05-26 22:51:03

Philip Thomas
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2007-05-16
Posts: 45
Website

Re: Reported discussion with Matthew Barratt, from BoardGameGeek

Sorry, that was what I was saying: if the Central Powers play Guns of August the Allies will likely respond in Galicia, as they do now. One minor change in attitudes might be that some players who currently favour not trying to flank Tarnopol as Russia can soak up more casualties than Austria would switch to flank attacks given Russia will have taken casualties at Ivangorod and is likely to take them in Prussia.

Offline

 

#5 2007-05-27 23:11:10

The Guru
-
Registered: 2007-03-07
Posts: 743

Re: Reported discussion with Matthew Barratt, from BoardGameGeek

DISCUSSION WITH MATTHEW BARRATT


If I recall correctly the actual Schlieffen plan had the German armies attacking Paris from the North and West. However that would involve going through Amiens which is a Race for the Sea space and, more importantly would cut Belgium and Picardy off from the rest of France, something which the Schlieffen plan wouldn't have done. Therefore any inclusion of this variant of the plan would require map changes.

The Schlieffen Plan (in fact what we call the Schlieffen Plan was but one of Schlieffen's many "Denkschriften" and contingency plans. It should be called the Moltke Plan) was very theoretical. The overoptimistic pincer movement through Amiens was immediately discarded as infeasible as soon as the Germans realised (already when moving through Belgium) the extent of the strain on their supply lines, not mentioning the impossibility of guarding such overstretched flanks against French counter-attacks.

GREAT BRITAIN
"No more than one British Corps (including the AUS Corps but not including the BEF, CND or PT Corps) may use Reserve Box SR or SR by sea to or from the Near East Map."

Should this be per turn?

Of course. It was accidentally deleted when I did some rephrasing.

ITALY
As written if the Allies move multiple non-Italian corps into Italy in response to an Austrian incursion then once the Austrians are forced out of Italy all but one of the non-Italian corps will be out of supply. I would suggest that "When the AP are in Total War and no non-Italian corps occupies or traces supply through a space in Italy, only one non-Italian corps may end movement/SR in a space in Italy, or trace supply through a space in Italy, unless a CP unit occupies a space in Italy or Everyone into battle has been played as an event." be changed to "When the AP are in Total War and no non-Italian corps occupies or traces supply through a space in Italy, only one non-Italian corps may end movement/SR in a space in Italy, or in a space that can only trace supply through Italy, unless a CP unit occupies a space in Italy or Everyone into battle has been played as an event."

Does the rule for when Italy is partially occupied mean that I can't move a stack of IT1, FRc, FRc from one Italian space to another?

Very pertinent remark. Definitely needs reformulation. What about this?

When the AP are in Limited War and no CP unit occupies a space in Italy, no non-Italian AP unit other than those starting the Action Round in Italy, or in a space tracing supply exclusively through Italy, may end Movement/SR in such spaces.

When the AP are in Total War and no CP unit occupies a space in Italy and ?─˙Everyone into battle" has not been played as an event, one non-Italian corps may end movement/SR in a space in Italy or in a space tracing supply exclusively through Italy if there were none in such spaces at the beginning of the Action Round;
Otherwise, no non-Italian AP unit other than those starting the Action Round in Italy, or in a space tracing supply exclusively through Italy, may end Movement/SR in such spaces.


If Germans are to be kept out of Italy while the two nations are not at war with each other then the Italians should also be kept out of Germany (yes it can happen)

They are. See Italy's specific rules: "Italian units may not end movement/SR/advance after combat out of Italy, Austro-Hungary, Serbia, Albania or Montenegro."


Turkish units may not end movement/SR in Serbia, Albania or Romania."
So moving from Sofia to Sarajevo is allowed?

Sharp... I'll specify!


"It is well that war is so terrible - lest we should grow too fond of it." General Lee.

Offline

 

#6 2007-05-28 10:43:47

Philip Thomas
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2007-05-16
Posts: 45
Website

Re: Reported discussion with Matthew Barratt, from BoardGameGeek

[q]If Guns of August is not played, normal rules apply and MOs are rolled normally. I'll specify.[/q]

Hence MOs are rolled after the decision not to play Guns of August: but presumably before the German player actually plays his first card.

Now, there is no problem with most of the MOs. But the BR MO is an issue. With the BEF at reduced strength, if a BR MO is rolled and it closes with the Germans, the Germans could (with some lucky rolling) destroy both it and its replacement Corps by an immediate counterattack, leaving the Allied player unable to fulfill the MO.

Offline

 

#7 2007-05-28 19:56:49

The Guru
-
Registered: 2007-03-07
Posts: 743

Re: Reported discussion with Matthew Barratt, from BoardGameGeek

If Guns of August is not played, normal rules apply and MOs are rolled normally. I'll specify.

Hence MOs are rolled after the decision not to play Guns of August: but presumably before the German player actually plays his first card.

Now, there is no problem with most of the MOs. But the BR MO is an issue. With the BEF at reduced strength, if a BR MO is rolled and it closes with the Germans, the Germans could (with some lucky rolling) destroy both it and its replacement Corps by an immediate counterattack, leaving the Allied player unable to fulfill the MO.


"It is well that war is so terrible - lest we should grow too fond of it." General Lee.

Offline

 

#8 2007-05-28 20:05:16

The Guru
-
Registered: 2007-03-07
Posts: 743

Re: Reported discussion with Matthew Barratt, from BoardGameGeek

Good point. I must admit that the "No GoA" scenario was explored rather theoretically, as we never really playtested it; I didn't particularly want to encourage it anyway.
However, one thing I don't want to do is touch the core structure of the PoG rules, such as the sequence of play, and so rolling MOs after the first action round does not seem acceptable.
I think the better solution is to cancel MOs rolls on turn 1 all the same.
The historical MOs are dealt with in the variant rules, and the No GoA scenario is so hypothetical that there are no particular historical guidelines to follow, so cancelling the MOs is neither better nor worse than keeping them.
On top of that, as you correctly point out, a BR MO on turn 1 could be very detrimental to the first turns balance of forces on the Western front, and not particularly intuitive as history goes.


"It is well that war is so terrible - lest we should grow too fond of it." General Lee.

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
Designed by Applejuice Overdose
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson