FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: COMMANDER

[Tall Paul]

Viracocha,

I RESPECT your opinion, as I do everyone’s.

I thought this discussion was how we could best use the commander units in our games, that might lead to their adoption as “normal” rules,…not just “house” rules.

I know that we can all help and learn from each other.  That is the great thing about this forum.  That and the fact that there are so many good players with a real understanding of the rules and their influences on the gameplay.

As for the “paratrooper drop” capability,…the US Set (including C-46 Commando planes and Airborne Infantry) that HBG is producing will hopefully be out VERY soon.

“Tall Paul”

[Razor]

Virachoca, my proposal is basically the same as Imperial Leaders house rule that was playtested for years in his playgroup, and I think they are good. I will look at your links at BGG later. Thanks  :-)

[Viracocha]

Paul -

If we’re talking a whole set of rules to encompass all the cool new minis/representations coming out… I agree that you’ve offered the one commander rule that is streamlined enough to be part of it.  I mean… we’re talking a lot of add on rules so the simpler the better - but I still don’t think there should be three types of commanders.  But having it one simple ability somewhat like the one you describe… yeah, my opinion that that is the way to go.  One stream lined rule.  But, I’d rather have it effect troop movement - personal opinion.  And you know what I’m talk in’ about in regard to the planes and the airborne… that would be a lot of doing to drop paratroopers.  Granted, historically it was a huge undertaking, but as far as translating that into the A&A game…

Good stuff this thread… I haven’t been participating this much on here for some time, just lurking in recent months.  I like reading everyone’s ideas on house rules, whether I would use them or not.  Its one of my favorite parts of this forum.  8-)

-V

[Guest]

Thanks to both of you for answering my question.  Your answers make the differences between your approaches clearer.  MY opinion (for what it’s worth) is that these commander units are a dumb idea all around.  The assault guns and trucks are cool, but it feels like people are trying to find a job for these commander guys when there really isn’t a need for them.

[Razor]

@Tall:

2.  The “Commander” units that we’re talking about would represent SPECIFIC leaders with SPECIFIC abilities, and have a certain RANGE.  We all agree that many wartime operations took specialists in their field to plan and execute,…such as Paratroop Drops, Large Amphibious Invasions, etc., etc.  And this is only a part of what the “Commander” units could represent.

I remember World in Flames had 58 different Leaders, who all had 4 to 5 different and person specific abilities, wich made more than 250 different options, and that was so messy to keep track of that WiF later abandoned the Leader rule. The Wif Leaders only got abilities after what they did in the real war, like Rommel could only commandeer tanks, but nothing else, and Sprague could retreat with an empty carrier, but never do surprice attacks, and Nagumo would always attack Pearl with a minus modifier. This kind of lame rules made the game historically correct scripted, but was not fun to play.

My group never finished a game with this Leader rules, because they was too complex and booged the game down, and p!ssed me and my buddies off. So I am against person specified rules, like Rommel can move 3 spaces and give 1 + modifiers to tanks that attack in forest during night and that kind of things. I want Leaders to be a generic piece, and all Leaders to have the same ability.

Posted pic of WiF Leaders as a warning  :wink:

[Viracocha]

@Vance:

Thanks to both of you for answering my question.  Your answers make the differences between your approaches clearer.  MY opinion (for what it’s worth) is that these commander units are a dumb idea all around.  The assault guns and trucks are cool, but it feels like people are trying to find a job for these commander guys when there really isn’t a need for them.

Eh eh eh  - straight up Vance, and I respect that.

Razor - Imp posted a lot of commander rules on this very thread…. but if they are part of some of the older ones he’s had on here for awhile, chances are I’m already familiar with them (some of his are incorporated into mine in the links above - including his nifty background for the page itself).   But offhand, not sure which ones you’re referring to.  Are there +/- 's involved?  Not a fan of adding anymore of those…

[Viracocha]

Yeah…. that’s waaaay too much leadership going on (WiF), lotta chiefs and not enough injuns as they used to say.  Gotta admit to liking the chits though… kinda cool looking on the board.

[Guest]

You both have creative and insightful ideas.  I just remember trying to teach myself to play Third Reich and i think it would a shame if A&A were to evolve into something so complex that no one can learn to play it.  I never did ever get to play third reich LOL

[Razor]

@Vance:

MY opinion (for what it’s worth) is that these commander units are a dumb idea all around.  The assault guns and trucks are cool, but it feels like people are trying to find a job for these commander guys when there really isn’t a need for them.

There is need for them, man.

The out of box rules come with two major flaws.

• Defenders are not allowed to retreat. Dunkirk is impossible to do in an A&A game.
  and
• Attackers are not allowed to do Blitzkrieg attack with breaktrogh and exploitation. Now Barbarossa is impossible to do.

This Leader house rule can fix that without departing too far from the current game playability.

• Defending units that are in a territory with a Leader unit, are allowed to retreat into any friendly adjoining territory after any round of combat are resolved. This kind of tactical retreats happened all the time during WWII and all other wars at any time in history. This is common. If you are a General, and you figure the battle is going bad, what do you do ? Fight to your army is utterly destroyed, or retreat to fight another day ?

• Attacking motorized units (tanks, mechs, selfpropelled artillery, fighters and tac’s) that start the attack toghether with a Leader unit, and the initial combat move is into an adjoining territory, may do a second legal move as a combat move into next enemy territory after the initial battle is won and the enemy destroyed, to represent the Breakthrough, and resolve a second battle there, representing the Exploitation. Or they may use their second move to non-combat move back to a friendly territory, representing the mobility and versatility of motorized units. Of course all leg moved units of this Battle Group are stuck in the first territory, where they was used as fodder for the Panzer Group.

Other friendly motorized units in adjoining territories are not allowed to join this special attack, since they are not committed to this Battle Group. If they were, that would mess up game balance too much.

[Guest]

OK so why not just allow motorized units to breakthrough or retreat without a commander?  Let them do it all the time.

[Razor]

@Vance:

OK so why not just allow motorized units to breakthrough or retreat without a commander?  Let them do it all the time.

Yes, but then we would not need the Commander piece, see ?

[Guest]

right.

[Imperious Leader]

I’m glad you’re not against me… and I like mine more - of course. eh eh eh Fair enough Razor, good times.  You play AA50th?  I have some house rules that have been ‘sealed down’ over time (unlike some of these for global that I’ve been throwing around…).

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/69861/expansion-rules

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/70044/aaa50-expansion-rules-tech-chart

LMFAO, you used one of my files for your grafics backround, the one i used for AARHE 4.0! LOL

[Viracocha]

Razor,

You proposed Commander rule(s) is the same as what I was proposing, but with the allowance of more units able to have the extra movement capabilities.  I am for applying more limitation, which accompanies the idea that the commander unit is not necessarily a general.  More like, field commanders.  Of which there were many.  Question concerning your commander general rule, when this retreat as a defender is made - do the attacking forces get a shot as they retreat?

Well, regardless, I’m going to try and give both versions a go.  Problem I foresee - and this is more my own problem though I’m sure others can relate, is that it does have potential to extend the game… and unfortunately, my games are usually limited to 2 days max.  Though usually 1 (albeit sunrise to sunset - or noon till some hour in the morning).  That’s where I see Paul’s rule a bit more applicable.  I’m talking global.  I think 50th for instance, could do with a little rule such as this (commander with a move troops variant) and it wouldn’t hurt game time overall, but global… it is already a really long game if we’re talking experienced players.  But again, it’s my own prob.

Looking forward to trying all of them though… as I believe all have their merits.

[Viracocha]

@Viracocha:

Razor - Imp posted a lot of commander rules on this very thread…. but if they are part of some of the older ones he’s had on here for awhile, chances are I’m already familiar with them (some of his are incorporated into mine in the links above - including his nifty background for the page itself).   But offhand, not sure which ones you’re referring to.  Are there +/- 's involved?  Not a fan of adding anymore of those…

“LMFAO, you used one of my files for your grafics backround, the one i used for AARHE 4.0! LOL”

I know - as you can see, I mentioned using that ‘graphics’ background earlier.  Not really sure why this is so funny… that’s kind of a goofy response but oh well.  You have any other backgrounds Imp?  I’d like to change it up in a future house rules booklet - because it looks like my global house rules will be a lot more than two pages… (and I lack the time to whip up my own backgrounds - or when I do have the time, I’m lazy  :| )

You’ll also notice some of your rules in there as well - you were the first (that I’m aware of) to have China go first (AA50th).  So you took a gander - whaddya reckon?  They’ve worked really well in balancing out the 50th - well, considering a game with tech. involved as well as NO’s.

[Razor]

@Vance:

right.

You still dont get it ?  :-o

We are piece junkies, the more the better  8-)

[Razor]

@Viracocha:

Question concerning your commander general rule, when this retreat as a defender is made - do the attacking forces get a shot as they retreat?

I think we should follow the official rules as close as possible. Then it will be:
COMBAT MOVE:

• Attacker rolls dice.

• Defender rolls dice.

• Remove all casualties.

• Attacker press continue combat or retreat.

• Defender with no Leader present must do combat.

• Defender with a Leader present press combat or retreat.

I think this is the simplest rule. Its like a defending sub must roll dice before it can submerge. I know there are other house rules out there with a different approach. Some houserules say the defender cant roll dice if they want to retreat the next round, and others tell you to split the defender. Let half the force defend and the other half retreat. I hate that kind of fantazy rules.

I think the most rational thing to do is to keep some link to the real world, and not lose touch with the reality.
In a real attack, the defenders will most likely shoot back. I cant imagine defenders put the rifle in the bag and start cleaning the camp when under fire, just because they plan to retreat the next day. So the most rational way will be, that both attackers and defenders fight one round of battle. Then, if one of the Leaders figure they will propably lose the fight, then that Leader call for retreat. Its better to fight another day than see your army utterly destroyed for nothing. This retreat will most likely happen during night or in a battlebreak, when the frontline divisions are killed, the units at the rear will start to withdraw.

[Viracocha]

@Razor:

@Viracocha:

Question concerning your commander general rule, when this retreat as a defender is made - do the attacking forces get a shot as they retreat?

I think we should follow the official rules as close as possible. Then it will be:
COMBAT MOVE:

• Attacker rolls dice.

• Defender rolls dice.

• Remove all casualties.

• Attacker press continue combat or retreat.

• Defender with no Leader present must do combat.

• Defender with a Leader present press combat or retreat.

I think this is the simplest rule. Its like a defending sub must roll dice before it can submerge. I know there are other house rules out there with a different approach. Some houserules say the defender cant roll dice if they want to retreat the next round, and others tell you to split the defender. Let half the force defend and the other half retreat. I hate that kind of fantazy rules.

I think the most rational thing to do is to keep some link to the real world, and not lose touch with the reality.
In a real attack, the defenders will most likely shoot back. I cant imagine defenders put the rifle in the bag and start cleaning the camp when under fire, just because they plan to retreat the next day. So the most rational way will be, that both attackers and defenders fight one round of battle. Then, if one of the Leaders figure they will propably lose the fight, then that Leader call for retreat. Its better to fight another day than see your army utterly destroyed for nothing. This retreat will most likely happen during night or in a battlebreak, when the frontline divisions are killed, the units at the rear will start to withdraw.

Yeah… I prefer the notion of keeping it as close to the original rules as possible.  I was just debating if a “opportunity shot” should be implemented, that is, when and attacker or defender opts to retreat, the opposing forces get one round of attack without suffering return fire.  I like the idea that pulling out does carry consequences, forces are always more exposed during a retreat.  But it would extend everything all the more… debating…

Yeah - I hear ya, I’m a total piece junkie. eh eh eh

[Razor]

@Viracocha:

Problem I foresee -  is that it does have potential to extend the game…

eh eh eh buddy, we dont know for sure before we have playtestet it some thousand times. I dont think defenders retreat will extend the game, because at some point the defender must stop and fight a last stand battle, usually in his capital. And I dont see how a bonus Breakthrough move will extend the game. Its far more logical that an extra move will shorten the game, since you get to the enemy capital faster.

What basically makes for a fast or slow game, is who you play with. Does your buddy need one hour for each turn the Goofy style, or is he a Speedy Gonzales lookalike ?
Also the play style make a differ. The more IPC’s you collect, the more pieces you purchase, the longer time to play. All the extra NO bonus income extend the game far more than a defender retreat rule or a Blitzkrieg rule.

When dealing with this issue, I also think the current official turn order extend the game more than a defender retreat rule. One player think, purchase, think, move, think, roll dice, think some more and finally place units, simultanesly with 7 others just wasting time. Now if Larry had listen to IL a few years ago, we would have an All Axis turn followed by an All Allied turn. That would make for fast play indeed.

[Viracocha]

Honestly, adding any house rules always extends a game, and they add up fast.  Though obviously it does depend on the players as well, *shrug I’ve been playing A&A since 1981/82, and even playing the first version can sometimes take certain people much longer than others… often times the more experienced the player the longer it will take.  :|