@Krieghund
Thanks heaps
Larry Harris: 2-Space-Movement & other ideas
-
Kim:
If you are playing as Larry and Krieg wrote it, you can’t move 2 spaces into a contested territory like it sounds is happening in Mesopotamia.
-
Kim:
If you are playing as Larry and Krieg wrote it, you can’t move 2 spaces into a contested territory like it sounds is happening in Mesopotamia.
Not sure what you are referring to, and I know this changed from the original proposal at some point to allow the 2nd move into contested territories (if you meet the requirements). You can move two spaces into a contested territory as the final destination to reinforce/attack as long as the territory you started in, and the first territory you moved through are both friendly when your turn started. From India the UK can get to Meso through Persia, as long as both India & Persia are friendly (UK or Russian controlled). The Turks can do the same moving from Const to a contested Meso, as long as both Const & Ank are in Turk control.
This would also work if say the Russians are contesting Meso with the Turks (no UK units in Meso). If the English are in control of India, and either the UK or Russia has control of Persia, the UK can move ground units from India through Persia to attack the Turks, or to reinforce the Russians.
-
Ah ok I didn’t realize it was changed.
-
I thought about something else that would be rare, but possible on Russia’s first turn if the Austrians don’t attack/contest the Romanians, or Ukrainian and Serbia is left contested. Romania as a minor aligned power (to Russia), and by rule it is considered a friendly territory (pg 11). The Russians could move from Ukrainian, through friendly Romania to attack/reinforce a contested Serbia by rule (although it could be a suiside mission). I don’t think you could take the newly activated Romanians into Serbia, with you, because they weren’t on the board when the Russians turn started. The one guy in our group has left Serbia contested A1 in every game he has played as Austria either by not taking in enough, or just bad dice, would like to spring that on him if it comes up LOL.
-
That’s a good point, and a loophole I think we need to plug. As with activating friendly neutrals in AA42, land units should have to stop upon entering an unmobilized aligned minor power’s territory.
-
I’m not sure it needs a fix, and the above scenario could very well be a suicide mission. Was also thinking on the Turks first turn they could also move from Const through friendly Bulgaria (as they activate it) to attack/reinforce a contested Romania or Serbia. I kinda like how these things could play out in the Balkans though, and think you should let it run for a while before making any changes (other then maybe reinforce that fact that you can’t move just activated troops, although the rules are clear that mobilizing these forces happens at the end of the movement phase, after all movement is complete).
It would be possible for the French to move through a friendly Belgium F1, to attack/reinforce a contested Holland, but I don’t see that as a potential problem either, and any of these moves would be in the first round of play for the most part.
-
Krieg,
The rule is worded correctly as it states clearly can only move ONE space into a hostile or Neutral territory. Romania is neutral at the start of the game I thought(as is Portugal, Belgium, etc.) much like AA 1940 neutrals so you could not move in two to activate it, nor move through it as the rule is written. At least that is how we interpetted it. Still might be helpful to clarifiy. maybe I’m wrong.
Von, in the original proposal, there was no movement of two territories into a contested battle, but further suggestions that this was a workable idea (particlarly how Krieg worded it) went forward.
Actully being able to move 2 areas into a contested area really made for some dynamic moves in our game we’re still playing. in one case, a decision to launch an attack that was 50/50 to end up controlled or contested was not made due to opponents large reserves sitting two areas away that could move in and counter attack unless the area was captured and controlled. Now you have to really consider who all could counter attack or throw in reserves if you are trying to make a stand.
Kim
-
Actually Kim, the territories that are in question aren’t by rule neutral territories (see page 12 of the rule book), they are “Minor Aligned Powers”. Furthermore these territories by rule (middle of page 11) fall under “Friendly” one of the four conditions that exist for the territories (although, after the optional Russian Rev Rule revision I guess there is now a 5th condition, shared).
I personally don’t think this is a loop hole though (although it wasn’t originally considered when the proposal emerged). In this game these territories are considered friendly, not neutrals, so is it worth the effort to make a change that would basically change the classification of these territories from friendly to neutral?
For the most part it really only effects the first round of play (maybe the second) as far as if you can pass through these friendly territories with the 2-move rule on the first turn. After that they are generally activated, and their status is subject to change like all other territories. Plus the destination territory would have to be contested as well for it to even happen. It isn’t much different then if Russia attacks, and takes control of neutral Persia R1 (making it friendly), and also contests Meso (which could happen). This would allow the UK to pass through the now friendly Persia, to attack Meso if they want too (friendly is friendly, doesn’t matter what happened before your turn, or if that’s the way the board is set-up at the start of the game).
-
Thanks for clearing that up Bill.
Probably only an issue if Austria avoids Romania turn one, which they might, so needs to be clarified. Thanks for pointing that situation out for us.
Kim
-
This actually happened in my first game using the SM suggestion; Austria had a huge stack in Poland, Germany had all its units on the western Front.
Then Russia railed its main stack into contested Serbia, threatening Vienna OR a massive reinforcement of Italy by attacking the Austians in Italy and defending Venice, the idea being to stop the Austrians there, leaving the main Austrian force trapped between staying within range of defending Vienna or overrunning lightly defended Russia.
Of course this was a SM after standard moves had activated Romania to create the corridor.
-
Situations like that might be why the SM proposal was tabled in favor of the new 2 space movement. I like how things have progressed.
-
I believe it is assumed the Zimmerman note is what is triggering American entry; under your rules, the US could plausibly be kept out of the war indefinitely. This would cause some serious balance issues…
Declaring USW should be something that you as Germany really have to consider,
and has to be worth bringing the mighty US earlier than R4 into war.I’ll go a step more realistic, the US shouldn’t be allowed to declare war until it has been hit by unrestricted sub warfare at least once, if not twice.
The Zimmermann Telegram was sent in anticipation that the resumption of unrestricted warfare would bring the US into the war anyway. The interception by the British might have brought the US in a few months earler than they would have come in with out it.
But the important thing to remember is that the note never would have been sent if the Germans were not looking to start up the unrestricted uboat campain for a second time.
-
The interception by the British might have brought the US in a few months earlier than they would have come in with out it.
Right it was the trigger for US entry in the war. The actual trigger. Since USW was also considered a second time and war did not occur, the Germans were hoping no war would be avoided a SECOND TIME.
and V1914 do not reply.
-
@Imperious:
The interception by the British might have brought the US in a few months earlier than they would have come in with out it.
Right it was the trigger for US entry in the war. The actual trigger. Since USW was also considered a second time and war did not occur, the Germans were hoping no war would be avoided a SECOND TIME.
Do we need to bring out the facts and historical sources again or should we just understand that the “source” of the above statement is what the author calls “common knowledge?”
-
Do we need to bring out the facts and historical sources again or should we just understand that the “source” of the above statement is what the author calls “common knowledge?”
and V1914 do not reply.
Another troll fail… :roll:
-
So because I did not follow your “order” I am a troll? You’re the one who clearly posted a baiting comment, while making a terrible historical argument that the evidence, as I showed you and everyone else months ago, does not support. But you can’t let it go because you MUST be right. :roll:
You can’t order me or anyone else around. If you wanted to do that, you shouldn’t have repeatedly abused your mod powers in the past. (Now you just settle for abusing members that stand up to your very poor arguments).
If you think that you can get away with posting absurd statements and then simply tell the person who proved those statements to be absurd months ago that he can’t post on them, you really need a reality check.
Just because people don’t always waste the time to argue with your exceptionally closed mind does not mean you are right.
-
So because I did not follow your “order” I am a troll? You’re the one who clearly posted a baiting comment, while making a terrible historical argument that the evidence, as I showed you and everyone else months ago, does not support. But you can’t let it go because you MUST be right. rolleyes
You can’t order me or anyone else around. If you wanted to do that, you shouldn’t have repeatedly abused your mod powers in the past. (Now you just settle for abusing members that stand up to your very poor arguments).
If you think that you can get away with posting absurd statements and then simply tell the person who proved those statements to be absurd months ago that he can’t post on them, you really need a reality check.
Just because people don’t always waste the time to argue with your exceptionally closed mind does not mean you are right.
Yet another Hijack and troll fail…LOL :roll:
Never learn
-
@Imperious:
Just because people don’t always waste the time to argue with your exceptionally closed mind does not mean you are right.
Yet another Hijack and troll fail…LOL :roll:
Never learn
WOW LMFAO.
You talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!
If you’re going to create a list of ppl that you don’t want to respond to your posts because they think you’re an A$$ then your going to need to type a lot more. Maybe as a MOD you just reserve that spot for whomever is the victim of the month, like a special parking space for the employee of the month.
-
@Imperious:
The interception by the British might have brought the US in a few months earlier than they would have come in with out it.
Right it was the trigger for US entry in the war. The actual trigger. Since USW was also considered a second time and war did not occur, the Germans were hoping no war would be avoided a SECOND TIME.
and V1914 do not reply.
IL as you know, at this point (1917) the Germans were in a stalemate, and on a backward slide (allies were gaining strength in France). The Germans wanted to cut supply to England, and reinforcements coming into France. They were going to resume unrestricted sub warfare to do so. They tried to entice Mexico into the war (Zimm Tele) because they believed that resuming unrestricted sub warfare would bring the Americans into the war. They wanted the Mexicans to tie down a good size portion of the US forces, to delay Americans involvement in Europe (as they strangled the UK). Again they only sent the Zimmerman Tele because they knew that resuming the sea fight would bring the US in (as it did).
The decision to declare war was already on the table when Wilson severed all relations to Germany on Feb 3rd 1917, in response to Germany resuming unrestricted sub warfare again resulting in more American lives lost. It is thought Wilson didn’t know about the Zim Tele at this time, as the Brits stalled in passing it on because they didn’t want the fact that they were reading US wire exposed (they used this time to set-up a cover story). It is thought that Wilson got word of the Zim Tele the end of Feb, but when released to the public many thought it a hoax (so public opinion was still mixed). Zimmerman himself set the record straight to the press twice, the later being Mar 29 1917. Congress DOW on April 6th. I agree that the timing of the Zim Tele might have been the straw that broke the camels back (added evidence), but by this point the writing was on the wall.
It was more like 2 prize fighters standing off waiting for the bell to ring, and when they meet in the center to shake hands (before the bell), one of them slaps the other in the face. This starts the fight a few seconds early, but it was going to happen anyway.
Sorry this is a bit lengthy and also off topic, but I guess I took the bait too LOL (I won’t continue this debate here, so I guess IL will probably get the last word so he will think he’s right)
-
Anyway for game play, and loosely based on history. Because there were multiple warnings from Wilson about unrestricted sub warfare throughout the years, and the Germans attacked all the waters around the United Kingdom I think that we should look at expanding the sz’s that can be attacked, and link the number of attacks to trigger early involvement of the US (but still have a fail safe for the US to come in on turn 4).
Proposal:
Have all the sz’s that surround the United Kingdom (plus sz2 off Canada) eligible for unrestricted sub warfare on the UKs collect income phase (these would be sz’s 2,3,4,7,8 & 9). Attacking these sz’s effects only the UK econ at this time until the US is at war (see later), at which time sz 2, 7 & 8 would also hit the US econ on their respective turn (sz’s 3,4 & 9 can only ever effect the UK econ)**Here’s the kicker, the Germans are allowed to successfully attack up to 3 UK sz’s before the US comes in. This could include 3 sz’s w/successful attacks on one turn by 4-5 subs, or subs attacking UK sz’s over multiple turns tallying up to 3 successful econ attacks, but no more then 3 successful attacks in total, or else you trigger the US. A successful attack is when the Germans attack a single sz (could be w/multiple subs), and it costs the UK IPC’s (at least one of their sub dice hit for that sz). A hit would be the same as the new rule, a roll of 3 or less (you tally all hits). If they attack a sz, and it doesn’t result in a loss of income, then that attack wouldn’t count towards the 3 that the Germans are allowed to perform (before they trigger the US). If at any time the Germans have performed more then 3 successful attacks on the UK econ it will allow the US to DOW on the very next US turn (if not already at war). In retrospect the Germans could attack more then 3 sz’s, and the US could still be left out (not enough successful strikes), but if the Germans screw up and attack 4-5 sz’s, and have more success then expected, it would draw the US into the war. As a fail safe (and just for sake of argument), the US receives a copy of the Zimmerman Telegraph at the beginning of their 4th turn and in light of the Germans attempt to bring the Mexicans into the war, and their intention to continue USW (which is in the letter) they can DOW at the beginning of turn 4.This will allow the Germans to make some early attacks on the UK econ, but the US only comes into the war early if they over do it (disregarding multiple US warnings).
Something else just to make subs more enticing for USW, and cruisers more valuable:
Only allow cruisers to attack subs. Because this game has no DD’s, allow cruisers to take on a larger role to fill that void. I wouldn’t go as far as saying a cruiser can stop a subs abilities (moving past enemy surface ships, or submerge), but if you attack a fleet containing enemy subs, only your cruisers can hit them (def still chooses casualties though). This would allow for more subs to survive after they submerge (a submerged sub can still be taken as a casualty in this game, but could face fewer shots). If a sub is in the attacking fleet, then all ships return fire, I wouldn’t want a lone BB not able to defend itself (but maybe you do?). Many have said that the allies forgo buying cruisers because BB’s are so cheap, and perform better (is true IMO), this could change things up a bit if the CP invest heavily in subs, and the allies start losing their starting cruisers.BTW on G4, if the Germans are able, it may behoove them to set up to make a 4th attack on the UK econ, and have that sz be one that can be double dipped (2, 7 or 8’) because the US will be coming in anyway. If you use the cruiser modification, the US might not be able to kill off your sub(s) because they only start w/1cruiser.
Suggested Topics
