Same Time Axis and Allies

[Little_Boot]

What I’m about to propose is a fairly radical change to the way Axis and Allies has been played since classic, but it’s something I came up with some time ago and I think it would be a really interesting way to play the game.

The idea came from a game that I played when I was younger, RISK 2, which was just a way for me to play board games by myself since nobody would play with me. :( Of course, there was traditional Risk that you could play vs. AI, but there was also a really intriguing setting, known as Same Time Risk. Same time risk was where you declared your attacks beforehand and then everyone’s moved were processed simultaneously. One day, I recalled this and thought it would be really interesting to try with Axis and Allies. It would actually make more sense since there was no ‘turn order’ in the real war, all armies were moving constantly.

The way I imagine it working is the turn sequence remains the same, but each country does each portion of the sequence simultaneously. So, first, all countries would purchase and repair units, and reveal their buys at the same time. This would be accomplished by having each player write their buys on a sheet of paper, and then show them to the table one at a time (but nobody would be able to change theirs once the first person shows their sheet).
Each of the phases would go the same way, with each player writing their moves on a sheet of paper, and showing them simultaneously.

This would create a bunch of different dynamics, and obviously would change game balance a bit, but I think it would definitely be cool to try. My game group doesn’t meet often enough to experiment with this any time soon (and I’m not sure I’d be able to convince them anyways), but if we do end up doing it I’ll report back on how it went.

[knp7765]

Well that would certainly add a new dynamic, particularly on the combat move.
For instance, a standard G1 move is for Germany to use their Luftwaffe and small navy to wipe out the Royal Navy. However, if both the UK and Germany make their combat moves at the same time, then Germany could send units to attack sea zones 110 and 111 but the UK ends up sending those ships somewhere else leaving Germany attacking nothing.

How would this work with naval units? Say one country wants to move some ships a certain direction but then an enemy country moves a warship in their way? So the first country would end up getting stopped by the 2nd country’s warship.

This sounds like an interesting experiment, but I’m just not sure how it would work.

[Black_Elk]

I’m with you Procas!

Check out the posts I made on page 2 of this thread…http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34581.15

I described my ideas for same time A&A based on my experience with RiskII. You might find some of the ideas useful and in line with your own. :)

This is a concept I am definitely interested in

[Little_Boot]

Black elk, you made a lot of great points about the way same time A&A would be played. I’m curious about your no retreating hangup, I think we could find a way around it.

As for ideas about how naval movement and air flight would work, I have some ideas about how to resolve those questions, but I will wait till I have longer to type up a lengthy post about it.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah the “attacker retreats” option was definitely the one that I had the hardest time with. Basically the problem is that, even though we are trying to simulate a same time simultaneous phase/round, where “everyone goes at once” the reality is that we still have to pause and run each combat individually. Its just the nature of the boardgame, and rolling dice to resolve combat, that you can’t really get around rolling the combats one at a time, but the situation we’re looking to avoid, is where players can exploit the “supposedly” arbitrary order in which these battles are conducted, to gain some advantage for their side. The order in which you run the actual battles is meant to be arbitrary, (as I recall in RiskII it went North to South, West to East across the map) but technically all these battles were interpreted as occurring “at once” hence the name same time.

In our assessment “attacker retreats” ran the risk of exploit, since the player who goes first in the order of battles get’s to see where everyone moved, where all the boarder clashes are occurring and whether it makes sense to retreat or not, before the other guy has the chance to do the same.

Another interesting case that could crop up, is when exactly this retreat occurs, if it is immediate then that opens up the exploit. But if it is delayed that could create a new problem, say for example that attacking units retreat to a territory that is itself attacked and conquered during the intervening delay period. This then requires players to track the retreats in addition to all the other stuff we are already asking them to track.Again there is probably a way we could create a balanced system for this, I just haven’t quite hit on it yet.  :-D

My thought is that, retreats should not be immediate, or at least, that any units which have just retreated from combat, should not participate in the defense of the territory into which they are retreating (if that territory was attacked during the initial attack round.) But if that is the case what to do with the retreating units? Auto kill them? That seems a bit weird. It might be interesting for the gameplay, providing an additional risk to the retreat, allowing for cut offs. This recalls to mind the early Total War games.

I don’t know if you guys remember playing Shogun Total War, or Medieval Total War, but in those games there was this phenomenon where you could “cut off” a retreating army, without even having to run a battle. The way you did it was to first force the enemy to retreat, and then in the same round capture all possible territories into which they could retreat. The army would then be “lost” or “ransomed.” In Medieval Total War especially, this was an exploit you could use to get your income up quickly, if you could cut off an army that had a king or heir at its head. We also need to keep in mind that this stuff has to work on a physical board to be viable. So the question comes up, how do you choose which same time battles occur in what order? Having a standard order or one set way to determine the order in which to run the individual boarder clashes or battles seems to defeat the purpose of the same time concept. Ideally you should be able to run these combats in any order, and not have the order itself affect the outcome in any individual battle. Does that make sense? I guess my hang up was figuring out a way to incorporate attacker retreats that didn’t mess up the “feel” of simultaneity. But I’m definitely open to puzzling through ways we could get this working. Perhaps one idea would be that retreated unit are automatically scrapped for some value in ipcs? You could still get something of value for your decommissioned units, better than just having them destroyed. In this sort of system the retreated units would not re-enter the fight immediately, as you wouldn’t have to worry about them until the next round. That might be open to exploit as well though, since it would introducing a scrapping mechanic that doesn’t currently exist.

Another idea, (again open to potential movement exploits but perhaps workable) is that any retreated unit is returned to the capital. This resolves the specific issues of having a territory to retreat to, unless the capital itself is taken, which would necessarily be a less common situation. Not sure if any of that makes sense. The short answer is, I wasn’t able to figure out a way to get retreats working, so I just dropped the concept altogether as an expedient. But I am definitely down to bounce ideas round, if you have any.
:-D

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Another interesting case that could crop up, is when exactly this retreat occurs, if it is immediate then that opens up the exploit. But if it is delayed that could create a new problem, say for example that attacking units retreat to a territory that is itself attacked and conquered during the intervening delay period. This then requires players to track the retreats in addition to all the other stuff we are already asking them to track.Again there is probably a way we could create a balanced system for this, I just haven’t quite hit on it yet.  […]  The short answer is, I wasn’t able to figure out a way to get retreats working, so I just dropped the concept altogether as an expedient. But I am definitely down to bounce ideas round, if you have any.

I haven’t thought about this in any great detail, so this idea may not work to solve the retreating problem you mentioned, but for whatever it’s worth here’s something to consider.

The problem you describe seems to arise from the fact that – if I understand your proposed system correctly – combat would basically work like this example (which, for the sake of simplicity, assumes there are only three battles occuring simultaneously around the world, in three different territories):

• Round 1 of combat occurs in Territory A
• The attacker in Territory A has the option to retreat
• Round 1 of combat occurs in Territory B
• The attacker in Territory B has the option to retreat
• Round 1 of combat occurs in Territory C
• The attacker in Territory C has the option to retreat
• The above cycle resumes with Round 2 of combat in the territories where the two sides are still fighting

In such a model, it does indeed very much matter which order the “territorial sub-rounds” of each round of combat take place.  But I think the solution can be seen if we remember what is happening here at a conceptual level.  Conceptually, these sub-rounds of combat are taking place “simultaneously” in terms of the game’s fictional time-frame.  In the real world of the players, on the other hand, these sub-rounds are taking place sequentially because it’s not mechanically possible for all the players to fight all their-subrounds of combat at the same time.  The bridge between these two conflicting requirements might be the concept of “locking and unlocking” each territory where combat is taking place in the following way:

• Territories A, B and C are locked, meaning that the clock has been stopped and that the map is “frozen” at a moment in time representing the start of the first round of combat.  Each of those territories temporarily becomes a self-contained bubble that cannot interact with the surrounding territories.

• Round 1 of combat occurs in Territory A

• Round 1 of combat occurs in Territory B

• Round 1 of combat occurs in Territory C

• These sub-rounds of Round 1 are all assumed to be taking place simultaneously.  Their effects (meaning casualties) are implemented right away in each self-contained bubble that each territory represents, but none of these effects are allowed to affect anything “outside the bubbles” until all the sub-rounds are completed.  This is similar to the concept of having the players write down all their moves in advance, without any actual moves being made until they’ve all been written down.

• Territories A, B and C are now unlocked, meaning that the clock resumes ticking and that the territories (all of which are now in their post-Round-1-of-combat configuration) can go back to interacting with each other.  All have been fully “updated” with the results of Round 1, so it makes no difference in what order the sub-rounds of Round 1 were played (because these sub-rounds were played in a “locked” environment).

• Retreats from Territories A, B and C can now be carried out, if desired.

• Territories A, B and C are re-locked, and the players can procede to Round 2 of combat if they so wish.  And so forth.

[Narvik]

A smooth way to solve the retreat issue.

phase 1. Write orders on paper

phase 2. Resolve combat. If the attacker want to retreat units from one battle, he must end the combat in this place but let the units be stuck there and make it a contested territory.

phase 3. Noncombat move. After all combats are resolved, the attacker may now retreat units from contested territories or sea zones, and of course land aircrafts

[General 6 Stars]

Sorry if I missed it. But who gets to attack first? I would roll a D6 or D12 die to find out who gets to attack first. If the axis attacks first, does the allies defend or do they get to counter with their attack values?
After 1 round of combat both sides should be able to retreat.

[Little_Boot]

The one round at a time idea would definitely be the most realistic, but I don’t think it would be feasible to play. Instead, I have an idea that would be slightly less realistic but would be much easier to operate.

After all combat moves are resolved, one side (perhaps the axis, as they were the general aggressors, or perhaps determined by coin flip/dice) will decide which combat to decide first. That combat will be decided, and either side may retreat from it. Perhaps we could even allow the defender to retreat from combats, but we’d have to think of some penalty for retreating to prevent it from happening all the time. If either side retreats mark that there has been a retreat but do not move the units away from their territories.

After the fist battle has been resolved, the other side will get to pick the second battle that will be fought. Play will continue in this way, alternating until all battles have been resolved. After every battle is finished then retreats can be completed into a safe territory. It’s not the most realistic but I think it is the most feasible option for a same-time situation.

[Narvik]

@SS:

Sorry if I missed it. But who gets to attack first? I would roll a D6 or D12 die to find out who gets to attack first. If the axis attacks first, does the allies defend or do they get to counter with their attack values?
After 1 round of combat both sides should be able to retreat.

In real wars its just in very rare occasions that two attacking armies meet each other. Usually the strong will attack and the weak will defend. But, if both armies attack each other, its not easy to just switch to defend just as that. Attacking and defending need different planning and preparations. A strong defense need to dig trenches and lay minefields, and have the supply  far back in the rear. This is not done in two seconds. The attacker will have the supply with its trucks and horses up in the front ready to follow up the charge, all opposite as the defender.

I say if both sides are attacking, they must stick to the attack values at least for the first round of combat. This first round will be at the border, and if one side want to retreat, he switch to defend and they move the battle to the defending territory.

[Black_Elk]

Great feedback CWO! And everyone else who’s stopped by to keep this thread going.

I think these are some interesting ideas about “retreating.” From the perspective of modelling warfare in an accurate way, it would certainly make sense to allow the option to retreat, but my concern there is mainly game resolution, and doing it such that the game doesn’t drag on forever.

I have not tried the Same Time concept with a retreat mechanic, so I can only speak to the experiments we launched in Revised and AA50. My other concern at the time, (and the main reason we just ditched retreating altogether), was the fear that it would mess with the Blitz phase, which was important for us to get working, esp. since there is no turn order “can-opening” in a Same Time game and we wanted the Blitz phase to replace this phenomenon.

I made the determination that, at least in Same Time Axis and Allies, retreats gave the attacker another advantage in a system that already favored attack. And that it was difficult sequentially to find a way to do this in the combat sequence, that didn’t privilege the person who went first in that sequence, which for our purposes was meant to be arbitrary. I suppose it could be random as a way of balancing for the advantage of going first, but I preferred the idea that the sequence of combats wouldn’t make a difference to the results. CWO’s locking idea sounds like it could work. Perhaps “defender retreats” could counterbalance that attacker retreats advantage too? But again I’m worried that players would just constantly retreat from battle and the TUV would stack up pretty high, without units being regularly destroyed/replaced. That’s just a gut feeling, so it could be wrong.

At the time my idea for “both sides” attacking, was that this would only ever occur along a border. During the “Border Class” phase. But that all assumed a game with only 2 sides, and which did not include attack-able neutrals (e.g. it worked for Revised/AA50.) In a game like Global however, it is conceivable that two opposing armies could both arrive in the same neutral territory at the same time, in which case, I suppose it makes sense to me that both sides should contest the space using their attack “hits at” values.

Its worth pointing out that in Risk II Same Time, there was no such thing as “Sides” or “Allies” who could occupy the same territory at the same time. This situation would always result in a battle (and they used a system D12 or D20 where the hit value of the force increased with its size) Risk II was an FFA meaning everyone was at war with everyone else. It was possible to “ally” with another player before your combats in a very simplistic sense, but this didn’t change the way the units interacted, it just meant you agreed not to attack this player for 1 round. And even then, you could always “betray” your ally and launch an attack anyway! A&A doesn’t work like that. In A&A the sides are basically already set and so are the rules for unit interaction among allies.

Some other situations I can envision in A&A that would not have occured in Risk II. Relieving a teammates force in a territory they are defending, by moving in a force of your own. So like…

Player A moves an army into a territory to help player B (their Ally) to defend against attack Player C (their mutual enemy.) In this situation, I suppose it makes sense for army A to roll like a defender, just to prevent total confusion during combat. Even if technically, in actual warfare they would probably be considered ‘attacking’, since they just arrived and not dug in. I guess the logic would be that Player B has already established defensive positions, and Player A is just joining him to reinforce those positions. This makes enough sense to me to hold up at least abstractly. The alternative, of requiring each force to roll at different values would just be too confusing for my tastes.

The way we conceived of it, there was never any need for the same units to switch from attacker to defender within a given round, because we didn’t bother with retreats. The units either survived to occupy the territory, or were destroyed in the attempt.

I’m still hearing you guys on the desire for a retreat mechanic, to be more realistic, something about it still seems to undermine the playstyle a bit a bit right now. I don’t know, I’m still interested to hear ways you guys think about doing it.
In the other thread I proposed 6 basic phases, or sub phases that are paired together…

1. purchase/repair
2. allot (combat) movement
3. Bombing
4. Border Clash/Combat + blitz
5. allot (non combat) movement
6. place/collect

If a retreat mechanic with a territory lock was put into effect, when is the best time for that?

For example, would you allow a retreat from the border clash? This would make sense from a real warfare point of view, but for the game I’d be concerned it might mess with the other combat sub phases. Basically coming up with a way to give it a clear place is what I feel we need. Wish I had a white board right now to try and map this sequence out!
:-D Alas, its harder to puzzle it out with text.

Would you allow retreats to effect the Blitz, or would it come only after all sub-phases of combat have resolved? If so what is the penalty or situation if you have no safe place to retreat to when this all concludes? Auto-Kill forces? Force resolve another combat? I’m still just trying to visualize what it looks like in the sequence.

OK how about a blitz analogy, at least for the an approximation of how the mechanic might work. It was suggested in the other thread, after movement is allotted, that planned blitzes should also be written down at that time. This is like locking in the attack plan, so that players can’t just suddenly change their minds about which attacks they wanted to run, now that they have all the information!

Retreats, if you wanted to include them, should likewise probably fall into a similar sort of sub-phase. I mean rather than making it directly part of the combat itself, but imagined more as a “strategic withdrawal” rather than a “tactical retreat.” I’m just kicking this around still, so not sure if others want to follow, but I was thinking, what if you could declare a retreat contingency, in the same way that you declare Blitzes. Just like the Blitz plan that you write down during the Allot Movement phase. It could be written down, but not revealed until the relevant sub-phase. For an example, say the threshold is something like “if 50% (or more) of the attacking force is destroyed in combat” then it will retreat. Or “after a single round of combat” to preserve some form of strafe option. But the difference would be that this stuff is written down beforehand and then activated, rather than being on the fly.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

At the time my idea for “both sides” attacking, was that this would only ever occur along a border. During the “Border Class” phase. But that all assumed a game with only 2 sides, and which did not include attack-able neutrals (e.g. it worked for Revised/AA50.) In a game like Global however, it is conceivable that two opposing armies could both arrive in the same neutral territory at the same time, in which case, I suppose it makes sense to me that both sides should contest the space using their attack “hits at” values.

As Narvik previously noted, most battles involve an attacker and a defender.  It’s rare for two armies to both be on the offensive against each other at the same time, except in special situations such as (for example) two opposing units racing to take possession of an unoccupied piece of ground that has military value.  Battles generally can’t be won by pure defense (except when an attacker is foolish enough to conduct repeated suicidal charges against an impregnable position) any more that a hockey game can be won without putting the puck in the other guy’s net – but that being said, there are various incentives for one side to be on the defensive.

First, the defender can be trying to protect his home territory from being conquered by the enemy (example: Poland, 1939).  Second, static defenders have an advantage in the sense that they can operate under a certain amount of cover, whereas the attacker has to expose himself to enemy fire in order to advance (example: the Somme, 1916) – hence the traditional rule of thumb that an attacker should have at least a 3-to-1 ratio of forces to be successful.  A third related point is that in land warfare terrain matters a great deal, and when two opposing forces meet on a battlefield a good general will try to determine if the terrain favours offensive action or defensive action by his side (example: John Buford at Gettysburg), and will then choose whichever course gives him the advantage.  Fourth, the defender may actually be hoping that the enemy will attack him because, in doing so, the enemy will be running into a strong prepared defensive position which is intended to wear him down and set him up for a counter-attack (example: Kursk) – a method called, I think, offensive-defensive warfare (or the other way around).

On the issue of borders, I think a border is where there would actually be the highest chance of one side attacking and one side defending, rather than the highest chance of both sides attacking, because many of WWII’s campaigns started when Nation A’s army (the attacker) crossed Nation B’s borders with the intent of conquering Nation B, while Nation B’s army (the defender) tried to stop Nation A from doing so.  One nuance to consider, however, is that the attacker and defender roles can sometimes switch sides as the battle progresses.  Prior to Barbarossa, Soviet generals were assured by their political and military superiors that if any attempt was made by Germany to invade the USSR, the Red Army would stop the invaders at the border and would immediately counter-attack in the opposite direction, so that the war would be found on enemy soil rather than on Soviet soil.  This plan proved to be hopelessly optimistic: the Wehrmacht got within sight of Moscow before being pushed back, and it was late 1944 or early 1945 before the Red Army set foot on German soil.  Nonetheless, the period from 1941 to 1943 saw the strategic offensive shift back and forth several times between the Germans and the Russians.  I can’t think offhand of any good examples of a WWII attacker being thrown back at a border, but I have a vague recollection that the Greeks may have done so when Italy invaded Greece from Albania.

[General 6 Stars]

If you play where you have one side being the attacker and other side defending, then you got to have a combat initiative. Its not fair for one side to attack all the time. If Russia wants to attack Ger and Ger wants to attack Russia at the same time over a territory then you have a initiative die roll. If you play were you have a initiative roll for every battle. then that could change the outcome of the game. You could have it where like Germany  attacks Russia in an Russian border territory and Russia wants to attack too, then have Germany attack and Russia defend, then Russia attacks and Germany defends for round 1. Give them both the chance to attack only for border territories. Same for everybody else.
As far as blitizing, have it where you can blitz after all combat is done but can’t use pieces that were in combat.
For retreats you could use die rolls to determine how many retreat. This is used for the attacker and defender after every round of battle. In one of my games it has automatic retreats where a die roll tells you that all troops must retreat do to no supplys. But if time is a concern then you probably won’t use.
You could also have die rolls for retreats like a D6 and if you roll a 3, then 3 pieces have no choice but to retreat. Then you decide then if you want to retreat the rest of troops. Like attacker rolls a 2, he then has to retreat 2 pieces. Then defender rolls a 1, he retreats 1 piece. Then both sides have to either keep fighting or retreat some or all pieces.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Perhaps “defender retreats” could counterbalance that attacker retreats advantage too? But again I’m worried that players would just constantly retreat from battle and the TUV would stack up pretty high, without units being regularly destroyed/replaced. That’s just a gut feeling, so it could be wrong.

Just an additional comment about the “defender retreats” concept.  When a defender retreats from a real-world battle, this generally means one of four things:

a) The defender is carrying out an orderly retreat from an attacked position that has become untenable, ideally to a prepared or improvised fall-back position where he can send up a new defensive line.

b) The defender, while not under actual attack, is pulling back to a new position in order to shorten and/or straighten his line to make it easier to defend.  The Germans did this on the Western Front in the final year of WWI, as I recall.

c) The defender, benefiting from good intelligence and/or good guesswork, is preemptively pulling back from a position he suspects will soon be attacked.  General Heinrici successfully pulled this trick on the Russians at the Battle of the Seelow Heights in 1945.

d) The defender’s position has broken under enemy pressure, and the survivors are fleeing for their lives.  In the old pre-firearm days, roughly from 1500 BC to 1500 AD, the army the cracked first and took to its heels in disorder ran a considerable risk of being annihilated by the victors if they chose to pursue it, since the victors were still operating under discipline and since they now also had the morale advantage of seeing their enemies collapse.

By the way, note that there’s a difference between an orderly retreat and the so-called “feigned retreats” you sometimes read about in old accounts of ancient battles, like the feigned retreat supposedly carried at one point of the Battle of Hastings by William’s forces.  Some modern military analysts have questioned whether an ancient army would have had the discipline, the training, the level of tactical control and the means of communication to successfully fake a retreat in order to draw the opposing forces out of position, then to reverse direction and go on the offensive to destroy the enemy in his new exposed position.  It’s quite possible that ancient accounts of “feigned retreats” were actually cases of a sympathetic writer trying to cover up for the fact that part of the “good guy” army actually broke and ran, but that its commanding officers were able to get the men back under control and rally them before the contagion of panic spread to the whole army.

[Black_Elk]

I’m not sure I’m explaining it correctly, as it is somewhat difficult to describe if you haven’t seen it working in Same Time Risk.

The border clash isn’t really what you might imagine from a situation in actual war, but more a game-play expedient, because of the way geography is abstracted into discrete territories. The attacker is the guy who is trying to move into a territory, with the hopes of winning the fight and then occupying the territory. The defender is the guy who has been in the territory from the outset, hoping to stand up and throw back all comers. But, because during the initial phase, where you are allotting movement, everyone writes down their planned attacks at the same time, you often end up with a situation where two enemies want to move across the same border at the same time. In this situation how do you determine who’s who, attacker or defender?

I gather that SS would maybe like an initiative roll at this point? Like where one guys in the Border Clash is determined to be the attacker and the other guy is determined to be the defender. It would almost always be better to defend (because of the way infantry hit) so I guess in that case the side who won the initiative in the border clash would be the defender? But Risk II didn’t really work that way. There, if you were attempting to move into a territory, and the other guy was attempting to move out that territory into your own, the result was that both armies had to resolve a border clash, as if both were attackers, and only one side could come out on top.

This is hard situation to envision, because the game doesn’t really attempt to model “space” in a realistic way at all (either in Risk or Axis and Allies) outside of a very basic and gamey sort of abstraction. Its helpful to think of them as “tiles” or just abstract “spaces” rather than territories, but even then, the liminal area, that border between territories, isn’t contested in the Turn Based Game, the issue only comes up in Same Time, because of the way everyone allots their combat movement simultaneously beforehand.

I know in RiskII the dice system was fairly complicated. It had D12 system, and depending on the size of the forces involved players had better odds to hit (the dice would change colors.) The D12 black die was the best you could get. I’m not sure that a system like that would work very well for Axis and Allies though. So far I had modelled our version of the rules on a d6 system, trying to keep the dice mechanics sort of familiar, given that a lot of other things change from the Turn Bases situation.

Here is a brief overview of the system used in Risk. Clearly a lot of this stuff needn’t apply to A&A (there is no need for example to determine who owns which territories at the outset, or how to determine how many total units a player gets each etc. since A&A has a separate way of handling all this) But the section titled “Battle Phase” has some info that could be relevant for us. Or at least, in helping to describe what I meant by that border clash stuff. Some of these mechanics are necessary in Risk because risk is an FFA, but in a game like A&A where the sides are pre-determined, I basically condensed it down to just Border Clash, Combat (Invasion), and Blitz (Surge) when we tried this in AA50. Though I guess if someone wanted to try a 3 way, with the Soviets as a separate faction some of those mechanics might have an application…

http://files.meetup.com/1187124/RISK_II_Rules_adapted_for_the_board.pdf

Here is the section I wanted to highlight…

"Battle Phase:
Once all reinforcements have been deployed, players can go into battle! Unlike standard RISK, where each player takes
his/her turn to go into battle, RISK II has a different game mechanic. Each player simultaneously chooses adjacent
territories to attack and how many armies to take into battle, writing down their moves clearly in a personal notebook.
Thus, if a player decides to invade Venezuela from Brazil with four armies, while simultaneously attacking Ecuador
with 5 armies, he might write, 4 armies from Brazil attack Venezuela; 5 armies from Brazil attack Ecuador. All
players plans must be seen as the moves are made, and if the orders are not clear, the move is void and all armies
involved in that move remain in the same territory. Players may change their minds about moves during this phase,
and must cross out changed plans. This part of the battle phase continues until all players are satisfied with their plans.
It is important to note that a player may only attack if he has 2 or more armies in the territory from which he is
attacking; one must stay behind and occupy the territory, while all others are free to go on the offensive. Once all plans
are completed, players move their armies suggestive of what their attack will be. Players take turns doing so, while
others ensure that orders are followed. During this part of the phase, the types of battles that will ensue become
apparent. All chosen battles are then resolved in order of priority:

1. Border clashes: Head-to-head battles where both armies have charged directly towards each others territory and
meet head on. Both sides roll dice as attackers.

2. Mass invasions: Multiple army attacks against an army defending a single territory. If multiple armies are attacking
a defender, each attacker individually deals the same amount of damage to that defender. In other words, if three
armies are attacking a territory, and the number of casualties inflicted per roll is two, then for
each attacking army that defeats the defender, two casualties are dealt. For instance, if all three of the attackers defeat
the defender, the defender suffers a loss of six units. If only one attacking army defeats the defender, the defender only
suffers two casualties. If the defender rolls a higher number than all three attackers, then two casualties would be dealt
to each of the three attacking armies, totaling six casualties.

3. Invasions: Single army attacks into the “back door” of a territory that has its occupying army either stationary or
attacking away from the invading army into another territory. If the territory under attack is using any of its armies for
an attack away from the invading army, those armies are not used to defend the territory, and the die rolled only reflects
the number of armies that have stayed behind to defend.

4. Spoils of war: A fight between different players after a joint mass invasion. In other words, if the armies of separate
players jointly attacked a third player’s territory and defeated him/her there, they then would have to battle each other
to determine who gains control over that territory. All players involved roll as attackers, and all rules that apply for
mass invasions (with multiple armies belonging to the same player) apply here. Whoever wins this battle then obtains
the contested territory.

5. Surge attacks: An army that has been ordered to charge through a single territory. If successful in that battle, the
army then moves on to challenge a second hostile territory. During surge attacks, any further conflicts are resolved in
the same order (i.e. surge border clashes, mass surge attacks, etc.). A player is allowed only one surge attack per turn.
During the course of a battle, often a player will not have as many armies as he/she anticipated, i.e. a border clash
preceding an invasion or a pricey victory followed by a surge attack. If this happens, all available armies from the
planned number go on with the attack (minus one which must stay behind and defend the newly conquered territory).
So if a player planned on invading territory X from Y with 10 armies, but a victorious but costly border clash leaves
im with only 4 armies, 3 continue on with their attack as the original 9 (minus the defender) were originally ordered
to.

Note: The attacker(s) may not cancel a battle after it has commenced; he or she must see it through until one army or
the other is defeated."

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

I’m not sure I’m explaining it correctly, as it is somewhat difficult to describe if you haven’t seen it working in Same Time Risk.

The border clash isn’t really what you might imagine from a situation in actual war, but more a game-play expedient, because of the way geography is abstracted into discrete territories. The attacker is the guy who is trying to move into a territory, with the hopes of winning the fight and then occupying the territory. The defender is the guy who has been in the territory from the outset, hoping to stand up and throw back all comers. But, because during the initial phase, where you are allotting movement, everyone writes down their planned attacks at the same time, you often end up with a situation where two enemies want to move across the same border at the same time. In this situation how do you determine who’s who, attacker or defender?

Ah, okay – I have a better understanding now of what you’re driving at.

You might get some useful ideas on this subject from the game Diplomacy.  I’ve never played it, but it’s my understanding that, at each game turn, all the players write out their orders in advance; these orders are then all displayed, and there follows a (potentially) complicated process in which all of these orders (some of which have results that are affected by the orders issued by other players) are resolved.  I think armies in that game can be ordered to attack into a territory, or to support another army’s attack, or to defend…but as I said, I don’t know very much about the game.  Are there any Diplomacy players here who could determine if these concepts can be applicable to Black Elk’s question?

[Black_Elk]

The more I sit with this, the more I realize how hard it is to describe these situations without a visual. But it’s probably easier to just describe what I might do in A&A, rather than analogizing it to RiskII Same Time too much.

Lets imagine a simple series of opening battles between Russia and Germany along the eastern front. I’m going to puzzle out a same time start using 1942.2 as an example… which I havent tried before with this map, so bare with me.
:-D

Here is an expanded phase order, with each phase separated out so you can see how they would work sequentially.

1. Purchase units and repair facilities.
2. Allot (initial combat) movement.
3. Bombing.

4. Naval Combat: (It is necessary to resolve Naval combats before Land, because of the amphibious aspect.)
4a. Naval Border Clash.
4b. Naval Combat.
4c. Naval Blitz. (a second combat movement sub-phase, it is written down, then revealed simultaneously)

5. Land Combat:
5a. Land Border Clash.
5b. Land Combat.
5c. Land Blitz. (again, a second combat movement sub-phase, written down, then revealed simultaneously)

6. Allot (non combat) movement, land aircraft.
7. Place units.
8. Collect Income.

So you can see we’d have 8 basic phases, and each combat phase (Naval/Land) would have 3 sub phases: one to resolve the Border Clash, one for regular Combat, and finally a Blitz combat phase for any units which have 2 or more movement, that have not already moved during the initial allot movement phase.

GERMANY
W. Russia: 3 inf, 1 artillery, and 1 tank.
Ukraine: 3 inf, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter.
Belo: 3 inf
Baltic States: 1 inf and 1 tank
Finland: 3 inf
(note: there are more German tanks, aircraft, and transports that could be involved in this opening, but for simplicity we’ll just focus on the units in the actual territories along the Eastern front itself.)

RUSSIA
Caucasus: 3 inf, 1 artillery, and 1 tank
Moscow: 4 inf, 1 artillery, 2 tanks, 1 fighter 1 aa.
Archangel: 1 inf and 1 tank
Karelia: 4 inf, 1 artillery and 1 fighter

Those are our starting forces on the Eastern front. So in the first movement phase all these forces are allowed to move simultaneously! Each player (Russian and Germany) writes down their intended moves on a sheet of paper.
Once everyone is happy with their choices, all moves are revealed to everyone at the same time. This concludes the first movement phase. Lets picture one possible way it could look…

In Same Time movement is not restricted to "combat or “non combat” for the purposes of determining where units can go. For example, you don’t have to wait to move into a territory that you (or an ally) already control, as all territories could potential be hostile once all moves are made, you need to be able to reinforce all possible positions. Here is how it might be written out for Germany and Russia.

German moves:
From Ukraine to Caucasus: 2 inf 1 artillery
From Ukraine to W. Russia: 1 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter
From W. Russia to Caucasus: 3 inf, 1 artillery, 1 tank
From Finland to Karelia: 3 infantry
From Baltic States to Karelia: 1 inf, 1 tank
From Belo to Karelia: 2 inf

Russian moves:
From Karelia to Belo: 1 inf and 1 artillery
From Karelia to W. Russia: 3 inf 1 fighter
From Archangel to W. Russia: 1 inf 1 tank
From Moscow to W. Russia: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, and 1 tank (in Moscow, 1 tank and 1 fighter will remain for the blitz phase)
From Caucasus to W. Russia: 1 inf
From Caucasus to Ukraine: 2 inf 1 artillery
From Caucasus to Moscow: 1 tank

Border Clashes!

Ukraine/Caucasus
Germany: 2 inf 1 artillery vs Russia: 2 inf, 1 artillery.

W. Russia/Caucasus
Germany: 3 inf, 1 artillery, 1 tank vs Russia: 1 inf.

Karelia/Belo
Germany: 2 infantry vs Russia: 1 inf, 1 artillery.

These combats are first to be resolved, because forces from opposing sides are both attempting to cross the same border.
At this point I can imagine maybe a few different ways things might go. Either both sides roll as attackers, or perhaps roll for initiative to determine which side rolls as defender? It might be possible in addition to an initiative, to have some roll to determine whether the forces meet at all, or simply bypass each other. This last possibility could be interesting, given the huge areas these territory tiles are meant to encompass. Its conceivable that two armies might not meet, but “but pass through each other” on the logic that they are moving in different parts of a vast territory like “Ukraine” which is pretty big after all. But I think this last condition, if it was allowed, should be less likely. Perhaps roll a single d6, if it hits at 1 then the border clash does not occur and both armies continue to their destination? Otherwise though, the idea is that both forces meet at the border, and the conflict must be resolved, so that you can then see how many units will enter regular combat in the actual territories.

Lets say for simplicity that Germany wins the Ukraine/Caucasus border Clash with 1 artillery piece remaining. This artillery unit will then continue on to the fight in Caucasus.

In the second border clash, W. Russia/Caucasus lets say that Germany also prevails, this time with no losses. The 3 inf, 1 artillery, 1 tank will continue on to Caucasus and join the fight with the 1 artillery piece coming from Ukraine. Now because Russia did not leave any units behind in Caucasus to defend (the tank moved to Moscow, and the other units were destroyed in Border Clashes) this means that Germany will occupy Caucasus unopposed during the regular combat phase.

In the third border clash, W. Russia/Belo, lets say that Russia prevails, taking no losses. Their 1 inf and 1 artillery will continue to Belo during the regular Combat phase.

After all border clashes have been resolved, we then proceed with all the regular combats.
After the regular combats are resolved, there is one Russian tank and 1 fighter that can make a blitz move.

It is possible either to make players declare this Blitz move during their initial movement plan (i.e. they write down their intended move at that time), or you could separate this out into a separate phase, where all players write down their blitzes after the initial combats are resolved and then reveal at the same time. I think the first option is a bit faster, but the later is more straightforward. The Russians might have written down a move like this…

Blitz from Moscow to Belo (through W. Russia) 1 tank and 1 fighter

Or they could have written… Blitz from Moscow to Ukraine (through W. Russia) 1 tank and 1 fighter or…
Blitz from Moscow to Karelia (through Archangel) 1 tank and 1 fighter etc.

If they are blocked along the path, then combat occurs. If the final destination territory is hostile a combat will occur. If all territories are friendly then no combat occurs, and unit will join whatever forces are currently stationed there.

Lets say that the Russians just chose the first option to Blitz Belo. Lets say Russia won the battle in W. Russia clearing a path for the blitz. Now Russia also won the border clash in Karelia/Belo, but here 1 German inf unit remained behind in Belo to defend. Lets say that lone German infantry unit managed to completely destroy the Russian attacker but was himself destroyed during the final round of combat. So mutual annihilation, with no units remaining, but Germany retains control of the territory. But now, during the Blitz phase Russia launches their tank through W. Russia into Belo to take control of the territory with their Tank. The one fighter comes along as well, even though there is no need for it to fight a combat, it will then land during the final non-com movement phase.

Now if, instead of mutual annihilation in Belo, the German infantry unit had actually survived the regular combat in Belo, the Russians would have to run another combat, when their blitz units arrived, to deal with that 1 German infantry.

If, instead losing in W. Russia, the Germans had prevailed, then there are two potential options. Either force the Russian tank and fighter to fight a combat in W. Russia, or allow the player to just abort the Blitz altogether. If you do a separate Blitz phase (instead of writing down blitzes during the initial movement phase) then this last option would be necessary, since players would already know whether the Blitz pathway was clear or not.

This Blitz phase move is an example of “self can-opening” in Same Time. Rather than a turn order thing, its accomplished with Tanks and Aircraft during a specialized Blitz sub-phase of the combat phase. Most of the interest in Same Time comes from this move, because it forces the players to consider multiple lines of defense. First at the border, then in the territory itself, and finally during any potential Blitz. So you have to stagger your units, and plan for all these possible contingencies.

Does that make sense? Basically the Blitz phase gives you a way to preserve the can opening phenomenon in a playstyle that has no “turns” per se, but rather just phases and rounds where everyone does there thing simultaneously.

[General 6 Stars]

Very nice.  Would there be any kind of retreat option? Would just the attacker get to retreat ? Have you thought about some kind of auto retreat?

[Black_Elk]

So at this point, I am thinking if you wanted to allow retreats, that they should be held until after all other combat sub-phases have been resolved. So basically you add in a delta

4d. Naval Retreat
5d. Land Retreat

This would prevent the retreat mechanic from messing with the other sub-phases (by not allowing units that were already involved in an attack to also participate in a defense for example, or to otherwise exploit the information that is revealed during these phases.) This could be separated from the normal non combat movement phase to prevent confusion, basically retreat units could “hover” in the territory from which they plan to retreat, similar to the way aircraft hover until they can land, just so its easier for players to keep track of which units are which.

I would think the retreat should be allowed into any adjacent friendly territory, but it is conceivable that the units could be totally cut off with no friendly spaces adjacent, and in that case we’d need to work out a penalty of some sort. Perhaps the units are are automatically destroyed, becoming prisoners of war? Or perhaps they could be allowed to retreat to the closest available territory, but with some other cost accruing? Not entirely sure what that might look like. What do you guys think is best?

[General 6 Stars]

If they have no where to retreat, then they fight to the death. Something you need to think about before you move your pieces. If battle goes wrong, where could I go.