Welcome to our discussion forum!
You are not logged in.
Yes, of course. I took AH Offensive in its larger meaning.
The point of the rule was to give opportunities for desperate attacks such as the Battle of the Piave River, fought between 15-22 June 1918, prompted by German demands - now that the Russians had withdrawn from the war. It was intended as a belated follow-up to the spectacularly successful combined German/Austro-Hungarian offensive at Caporetto the previous autumn.
Thanks again for your sharp and unforgiving supervision. That is the only true test for the coherence of a set of rules.
This is a very powerful card. It basically does to Austria what the Russian Capitulation sequence up to (but not including) Brest-Litovsk does to Russia.
However, I'm not quarreling with that, it may well be that the various other changes favour the Central Powers and so balance the card out.
I'm wondering whether you mean for the additional CP requirement for attacking Austrian units to be lifted for all Austrian units on AH(IT) turns. This means that, when it is an AH (IT) turn, Austrian offensives in the Balkans and Russia become easier to mount...
the wording could instead read "for attacks on Italian units in AH(IT) turns"...
Last edited by Philip Thomas (2007-05-23 20:26:19)
You're right, I only chose the current formulation out of simplicity, considering that the AH would probably not be in a position where they would abuse from the lifting of the penalties. The rules structure was another reason.
Indeed, although it makes sense, your correction poses a "technical"problem. When Attack markers are placed, you don't determine who they're going to attack, or even if they're going to attack. That's only decided later.
So your idea would need attack markers to be placed by pre-assigning it to a attack against Italian forces, which would create an unwelcome exception and would need "remembering", which is against the rules policy.