Simple "Combat Commander" house rule

[Young Grasshopper]

I have one remaining blank card in my custom card deck accessory due out soon, here’s what I’m thinking…

The Combat Commander Card

At the beginning of the game, place national roundels on the “Combat Commander Card” using the chart below…

Germany = 4
Soviet Union =2
Japan = 2
United States = 4
China = 1
United Kingdom = 2
Italy = 2
ANZAC = 1
France = 1

During their Combat Movement Phase, players may take one roundel from the combat commander card and assign it to one battle of their choice. In the Resolve Combat Phase, a commander allows the attacker to re-roll one die of their choice for a better result, this re-roll must happen immediately. During the Non-Combat Movement Phase, assigned combat commanders are removed from the game whether or not they were used in battle.

[CWO Marc]

Sounds like a fun card to play.  Perhaps it should, however, have a different name for a couple of reasons.  First, “High Commander” isn’t (as far as I know) a real military term; the closest equivalents are “Supreme Commander” (for a top-level person) and “High Command” (for a top-level collective staff organization, as in “The German High Command”).  Second, people and staffs at the highest levels of command deal with strategy and operations, not with battlefield combat, so a card that affects combat should use a combat-oriented term (like tactician).  Maybe something along the lines of “Genius Tactician”.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

Is that in any type of combat or in a regular battle?
I could see killing a lot of bombers in a game with that card on a strategic bombing raid.

I do like that idea, it reminds me of the ninja in Shogun. I would only want to use it in ground combat though. Killing ships or planes seems like too powerful a weapon.

Ignore this post it no longer makes sense

[Young Grasshopper]

Sorry, had a better, simpler idea and modified the original first post…

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

Sounds like a fun card to play.  Perhaps it should, however, have a different name for a couple of reasons.  First, “High Commander” isn’t (as far as I know) a real military term; the closest equivalents are “Supreme Commander” (for a top-level person) and “High Command” (for a top-level collective staff organization, as in “The German High Command”).  Second, people and staffs at the highest levels of command deal with strategy and operations, not with battlefield combat, so a card that affects combat should use a combat-oriented term (like tactician).  Maybe something along the lines of “Genius Tactician”.

I think I like Combat Commander.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

That sounds like a much better option. Who among us wouldn’t want to have the option of re-rolling one bad dice?

I still like the idea of having a dice roll at the beginning of the turn and giving the winner some type of advantage for that one round. Maybe using some sort of token that the player puts in front of themselves during that round to remind everyone who owns that round. It’s just a matter of figuring out what that advantage would be.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

I think I like Combat Commander.

Yes, that has a nice ring to it.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

Another idea for that last card might be a “Bad Weather Event”. Like your original post all nations would roll the dice and the winner would get the card. At the beginning of the turn the winning player assigns that card to one territory. For the duration of the turn no units can move into or out of that territory. You shouldn’t be able to place that card in the same territory 2 turns in a row.

I think you would want to exclude capital territories though because that would prevent players from placing their units there, not to mention saving them from capture as well. Maybe others would feel differently about that.

The Combat Commander idea is really good though. Perhaps if you had yet another card this would be an idea for how to use it.

[Young Grasshopper]

Yet another change… I keep finding loopholes when defenders have them, so only attacking nations may use them (one per turn).

[Imperious Leader]

allies have 11, axis have 8… to balance you need to give Germany 2 more and Japan 1 more.

some of them need to be only on sea battles…Admirals

[Young Grasshopper]

@Imperious:

allies have 11, axis have 8… to balance you need to give Germany 2 more and Japan 1 more.

some of them need to be only on sea battles…Admirals

Giving the Allies 3 more was on purpose, spitting them up into different military arms complicates things.

[General 6 Stars]

I’m with IL. I have Japan with 2 naval commanders and US with 1 naval commander.

[Young Grasshopper]

@SS:

I’m with IL. I have Japan with 2 naval commanders and US with 1 naval commander.

But you can use them in any battle you choose, so you can have 2 Admirals, or 2 Generals… why can’t we rewrite history like the game proposes?

[General 6 Stars]

Ok. Sounds good . Didn’t know they were for sea battles too .

[Young Grasshopper]

@SS:

Ok. Sounds good . Didn’t know they were for sea battles too .

Cheers.

[Imperious Leader]

but the allies basically get 3 more re-rolls every turn. that imbalances the game.

Imagine games where the allies get 3 re- rolls every turn. what?

maybe soviets -1 general, Germany plus 1, Japan +1, will balance out.

Most of the Soviets were purged anyway

[Young Grasshopper]

@Imperious:

but the allies basically get 3 more re-rolls every turn. that imbalances the game.

Imagine games where the allies get 3 re- rolls every turn. what?

maybe soviets -1 general, Germany plus 1, Japan +1, will balance out.

Most of the Soviets were purged anyway

The beginning totals are for the entire game, not each round.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

But you can use them in any battle you choose, so you can have 2 Admirals, or 2 Generals… why can’t we rewrite history like the game proposes?

Admirals and Generals are collectively known as Flag Officers, at least in some nations, so you could use that single term for both categories.