@KraytKing said in Operational Realism House Rules:
I am playtesting this week for the first time, I will write up a comprehensive and detailed AAR. I suspect it will be illuminating.
Awesome :)
AARHE: Rule files
-
Try not using the abbreviations as much, some people are not use to them and may fall on them as quite confusing.
-
OOB= out of the box rules
LHTR= larry harris tournament rules
BTW= by the way
-
Ah we could have the abbreviations list towards the the front of the document…
Abbreviations can be confusing but it actually help when you talk about units.
It makes the unit names stand out. -
definitely put it at the start of the rule booklet, I’m pretty good with them but allot of people might see it as another language. Its coming along nicely by the way! :-o
-
Small update with changes in last week.
-
ok
-
Another update.
Also I’ve put little boxes around list and sequence information. -
Bravo Tekky!!! the draft ending in 805 is totally awesome!!! great work!!!
I’m sending you the Iron Cross with oak leaves.
I plan on reformating the final draft into one column and adding military pictures into a booklet form… professionally done and then PDF so people can make their own nifty rulebooks.
some of your fonts will be changed. It will be bitchin!!!
-
that’ll be nice
but I think don’t start until phase 3 or it’ll be annoying to editI think we should still have a compact version (double column, no pictures, no justifications) though cos not everyone wants to print out 20 pages or something
-
My comments on Phase 2 document:
Game Sequence (page 1): In the final writeup, maybe a simpler way to present the same information is to say that both Axis always go before all the Allies except that Russia gets a special bonus move at the very start of the game. State explicitly that this bonus move is in addition to their normal 1st round move after the Axis so there’s no confusion. Perhaps we could even scratch this whole section and instead make this idea one of the Russian National Advantages. For example, one Russian NA is that Russia gets 1 bonus move at the start of the game (this would cut down on any possible confusion of why the first turn is different from all the other turns and this would also make the document a little shorter- every little bit helps).
Blockade (p3): I missed the definition of a “friendly SZ”. Is that a SZ that occupies a friendly naval unit or just a SZ that doesn’t occupy an enemy naval unit?
German Blitzkrieg (p12): This is different than regular blitzkrieg (namely, when an armor unit moves through a hostile territory into another territory). I think this is confusing have two types of blitzkrieg rules. I have stated before that I don’t like +1 modifiers as the advantage for blitzkrieg. I think a better representation for blitzkrieg would be to allow armor/ftrs to attack in combat and if it only lasts 1 round, then allow them to attack any adjacent territory right afterwards (2 attacks in 1 turn). Or maybe to say that armor units attack in opening fire stage in the first round or something, etc… Only have 1 set of blitzkrieg rules though.
I really like what you’ve done with diplomacy and neutrals. I came up with something similar to the diplocamy rolls but I don’t remember proposing it before I left. I’m just curious where did that come from/ who came up with that?
-
I think i may have come up with those ideas. Tekky added a few things as well.
The main thing id like to pick your brain with is the combat system. both land, naval and air. Is their anything you would like changed?
Also what you think about the ideas on Italy?
-
Game Sequence (page 1)
Yeah I actually put USSR’s bonus opening move separately before.
So how about:
1st Round
[USSR]Following Rounds
[Germany, Japan]
[USSR, UK, US]Blockade (p3)
Actually I shouldn’t say “SZ” since I don’t use that particular abbreivation elsewhere anyway.
The phase “friendly sea zone” is frequently used in both OOB and LHTR. I recall the definition being any sea zone with no enemy naval units. But then I just looked through and can’t find any definitions. Anyone know where the phase is defined?
German Blitzkrieg (p12)
I think the ARM special move through an unoccupied hostile territory is just called “Blitz” not “Blitzrieg”.
Although it can be confusing.
Imperious can give us another historic name.As for ARM/FTR 2 attacks in a 1 turn if 1st attack only lasted 1 cycle…we can look into that.
In fact we are considering a similar deal for naval combat!I’m just curious where did that come from/ who came up with that?
Yep Imperious came up with most of it. Wonderful isn’t it. Neutral territories are no longer useless.
-
Imp- I’ll give a closer look to combat and Italy next.
Tekkyy-
Actually what I was thinking regarding Game Sequence was this:
Under the game sequence section state that on every turn [Germany, Japan] go, then [Russia, UK, US] go. Don’t go into a sepatation of turn 1 from all other turns.
Then, in the NA section state that 1 of Russia’s NAs is that they get to move before the first turn in addition to all their normal moves. I think a good name for this would be Russian Winter. This is because historically Russian Winter should be restricted to only being used during the winter of 1941-1942 anyway. Matching Russian Winter with this rule would accomplish this. I know there have been some other ideas floating around regarding how to represent Russian Winter, but I think this new interpretation of Russian Winter is a better match. After all, didn’t Russian Winter save Moscow from being captured and thus very important to the outcome of the war? Wouldn’t adding an extra turn for Russia at the very start of the game also be very important to the outcome of the game (i.e. it’s a powerful NA)?
As for friendly SZ, it wouldn’t be hard just to define it or call it a non-hostile SZ. I was just unsure if their was such a thing as a neutral SZ (i.e. empty SZ). Apparently there isn’t such a thing because friendly SZ includes no units present in it.
Currently, I’m of the opinion that the blitzkreig tactic shouldn’t be restricted to just Germany (i.e. a German NA). I feel that instead how it’s defined should make it a better match with German strategy and thus used more often by the Germans. I always thought that Russia used blitzkreig during the end of WWII anyway, so why restrict it to Germany. Let’s just come up with another German NA in place of blitzkreig. Just my opinion.
-
Yes that would be easier to understand ( re: game sequence).
perhaps blitzkreig could be a learned concept? allmost like a technology… or wait it could be a german free NA and not counted against the ones they can select, while the alllies have to choose for it under the NA’s?
-
I think the NA Idea is better… Much better… Technology has to be something that is “physically” tangible and unatainable by another power (they could just copy tactics)…
GG
-
Ok so its a na that German starts with.
-
“they could just copy tactics” captures precisely why I don’t think blitz should be a German NA. By 1942 all nations had already studied the tactic in depth. After all, it did result in the defeat of france so it’s not like anyone overlooked it. All nations could perform blitzkreig by 1942. Germany and Russia only had the armor to do it effectively though. By making blitz available to all and restricting it well, we could have it viable only to Germany earlier in the game and Russia later in the game. I doubt US or UK or Japan wants to build that many tanks to ship over to Euro-Asia just to blitz. I wouldn’t waste money for that.
Defender retreat
Defender may choose to retreat some or all of his units after attacker declares intention to press on with the attack, with exceptions to land units already offloaded in an amphibious assault. Retreating land units must retreat to friendly adjacent territories with no pending combat. Retreating air units retreat to a friendly territory with no pending combat within 2 spaces. In the case where all adjacent friendly territories have pending combat, the involved combats are resolved together, cycle by cycle and retreats can only be made to friendly territories with no pending combat.
This is from the Phase 2 document. This rule can be expoited by the attacker sending a small force into battle over an adjacent territory just so as to stop a large retreating force from being able to retreat there. This would be very unrealistic. It is also overly complicated IMO. Instead how about we do this… any units that retreat into an embattled territory (this is a territory with unresolved combat BTW) may only be placed in that territory after the resolution of that combat (i.e. they do not participate in that combat). If the attacker wins the combat over that embattled territory, then all the retreated units are instantly all removed as casualties. If the defender wins, then all the retreating units are placed in that territory. What do you think?
-
How bout if that “trick” is pulled by the attacker we fix it by the following:
If defending forces decide to retreat and all the availible adjacent territories are under attack, then all those combats are settled on a round per round basis. One combat round is performed in each territory. Once at least one territory is cleared to retreat to, then those defending units can retreat to that open territory. That kinda solves the problem w/o too much extra rules. Many times this will not even come up but it can.
the other method is way too harsh… because the other territories can be just a few units against a few units and the real battle with substantial forces would lose too much. WE allready have a defender “gets surrounded” thing with armor forcing each infantry to roll a d6 losing it on a one. the Attacker gets as many rolls as he has an advantage in tanks.
-
the other method is way too harsh… because the other territories can be just a few units against a few units and the real battle with substantial forces would lose too much. WE allready have a defender “gets surrounded” thing with armor forcing each infantry to roll a d6 losing it on a one. the Attacker gets as many rolls as he has an advantage in tanks.
i was thinking that the retreating force is not defeated just because of the enemy force that they would be unwittingly running into, but more because the retreating force is unwittingly sandwiched into both the force ahead of them that won the battle and the force behind them that they ran from in the first place. This “sandwiching” is what causes their demise and should therefore be weighed into account when making the decision to retreat to that territory. This sandwiching could (and should) be a tactic commonly used more more experienced players and thus invoking more tactical strategy into the game… a very good thing IMO.
I think we should come up with more rules that invite (and allow) better tacticians to win more often instead of such having it be a number-cruching game of odds.
-
Attacker Retreat
Attacker may choose to retreat some or all of his units. Retreating naval units must retreat to adjacent territories which they came from.
Defender Retreat
Defender may choose to retreat some or all of his units after attacker declares intention to press on with the attack. Retreating naval units must retreat to friendly adjacent sea zones with no unresolved combat. In the case where all adjacent friendly territories have pending combat, the involved combats are resolved together, cycle by cycle and retreats can only be made to friendly territories with no pending combat.
So the attacker is more restricted than the defender in where he can retreat? What if we made the attacker choose where the defender can retreat? I think it’s justified because the attacking units shield where the defending units can and can’t retreat. Obviously, the defending units can never retreat where the attacking units came from. This would invoke a little more strategy to the game.
I’m worried that if we keep the rule as it is now that the defender will retreat naval units just so they will be able to attack a space 1 extra move away.
Suggested Topics
