That would certainly be more conservative. But I guess from my perspective, it just seems more interesting to go all the way with it, and then see what sort of play patterns emerge.
One of the criticisms of the game is that it moves rather slowly, and after hours of planning and building up to a crescendo, there is this kind of anticlimax, where the end is too predictible. Players can see it coming before it arrives, and this is often at the point when people have become somewhat fatigued. Many games end by concession before the war has really been decided, or more frequently the player with less endurance goes into “hurry up” mode and just starts doing reckless things to force a conclusion. I’m not saying that everyone shares this view, or thinks that something needs doing to address it, but I think many have encountered the kind of drag on pacing that I’m referring to.
I don’t know if move 3 is the answer, but it would certainly front load much of the action, and perhaps reduce the time requirements necessary to conclude an average game in a satisfying way.
The main advantage I see, is that it throws a totally new spin on the game. Not just on the opener, but on the midgame and the endgame as well. It’s also very simple to understand. There isn’t a whole bunch of new rules overhead you have to deal with, rather its more about puzzling through new strategies and seeing aspects of the gamemap in a new light. For a reset, it offers a pretty substantial change across the board for players to explore, while still retaining a familiar basic character at least in the broad strokes. It could be fun.
To Argo’s Q. I’m not sure if the play on sz50 would be scripted every game, but it certainly seems like a powerful move. There might be a better alternative I haven’t noticed yet, but right now, I think that’s the opening I would choose first time out.
:-D
ps. @Baron:
IMO, for 1942.2, it should be Move 3 NCMs but only Move 2 if doing Naval combat or amphibious landing.
Oddly enough, the G40 OOB set up seems to recommend it more than 1942.2 hehe, on account of sz 8. I guess I’m not totally opposed, I just think its rather tricky to force a separation between combat movement and non combat movement at different values. I don’t know if tripleA treats movement that way. Or if it would be too confusing for players to enforce and track face to face. But more than that, I think it would prevent or considerably nerf the exact sort of attack patterns that I’m most intrigued by at the moment.
Even a couple days ago, I wouldn’t have thought I’d be taking up the mantle of arguing for Move 3 ships, but now that I’ve been sitting with the idea, it’s really growing on me. To build on the earlier thought, what I really like about this M3 idea is that it allows you to project power from your core production region against the opponent’s core production regions, without first having to totally show your hand and telegraph your plans so far in advance. The move 2 puts a very hard limit on what can happen on a given turn OOB. But the question “where might they attack next?” at move 3, and you see a number of possible targets that emerge in a given turn.
Part of why I like the tandem rules, defenseless bombers and M3 together, is that it would be such a dramatic reset of the midgame, that players would have to actually play it out, before making major pronouncements on which side is favored. There would just be too many new play patterns to explore for the opener and the midgame to be settled so quickly. And the hope is that changes to the bomber, might be offset by changes to the ships movement, in a way that produces a rather different balance than what we see OOB.I think rather than designer intent at this point, I’m more interested in whether these changes can make the game feel more exciting (or even more historical) with the broader strategies one could employ, simply by enhancing the movement rate on the water, and making the stratB into a purely SBR oriented unit.
Ideally 1942.2 could serve as a dry run for G40.
The implementation is somewhat simpler in 1942.2, and it might not even require a unit set up change, or a change in turn order to get up off the ground.
I once made the argument that the solution to the center crush dilema might be less distance rather than more distance, but with the caveat that Russia be able to actually threaten an offensive vs Japan, so both sides are on an equal footing. (The designer’s solution was to add more distance between Japan and Moscow, the low value “buffer zone” idea.)
I would make a similar argument here. The solution to the Allied/American dilemma at sea might actually be less distance or less time (ie M3 for ships), but with the caveat that both sides have an equal chance to project power and threaten an offensive vs the other guy. In the Pacific this is exemplified by the naval ‘stare down’ between sz 60 and sz 56. Same deal on the Atlantic side with sz 11.
That way, instead of gaming the map for movement and turn order exploits (with plenty of breathing room, and “safe places” to hide in between), it’s more like trying to hold the opponent on guard (or in place) at all times, with threats to their core coastal defenses. Movements away from these defenses on any given turn, have to be measured against the possible danger posed by the other side. More like a cascade of trading pieces in chess (‘if you go there, then I’ll go here!’), rather than a strat that relies so much on numbers crunching, and both sides knowing where the battle is going to occur a full turn out.
Does that make sense?
