Possible Rules Change

Considering the power that would like to do so must already have an infantry in the destination before its turn started under the change, and that the CP can already do this if the destination tt is contested anyways, it’s safe to say the answer is no. The key is that the infantry must already be there, which totally throws out the window the worry of a move-through more potent than the CP can already currently do with contesting a tt.

Yes, and bear in mind that the western allies will be doing the same against Germany on the western front soon enough.

With the great Moscow Revolution swindle likely denying them Moscow, I’m prepared to give the CPs a break in the east.

@Krieghund:

More specifically, the question is does the proposed change help the game without opening up the possibility of the Central Powers blitzing into Russia too quickly by leap-frogging over each other.

Whats your definition of leap-frogging?  Currently the CP can do a type of leap-frogging if both territories are contested.  But Russia can choose to not contest the second territory and prevent the movement and thus leap frogging.  with the change that choice is taken away from the Russians.  Or are you looking for a different type of leap frogging or just waiting to see more in game results and how it is actually used rather than hypotheticals?

@ksmckay:

But Russia can choose to not contest the second territory and prevent the movement and thus leap frogging.  with the change that choice is taken away from the Russians.Â

This isn’t exactly a bad thing. Having a choice isn’t a good thing if it leads to abuse of rules and gamesmanship.

I think it might be exaggerated in some minds how easy it is to pull off a “can-opener” with the rule I proposed. It’s harder than you might think. This example is with the proposed change.

Let’s look at Germany and Austria in Russia. Poland is Rus/Ger contested.

On Germany’s turn they would need to move a unit in Ukraine (from Galicia let’s say) to move into there on their NEXT turn from the contested. Let’s not ignore that the German unit has to get to a place where it can move into the location that it would like to move through to in the first place. Next it needs to be even possible to move a unit into Ukr and it survives this turn. This means either Germany needs to be strong enough to move into that territory, or Austria must have already cleared that out for them. In addition, the German unit needs to survive on Allied turns through to the next German turn.

Compare this to the dreaded actual can opener situation where on Austria’s turn they can attack Ukraine, and on Germany’s turn they can just move in if controlled. The change does NOT allow that, and fear of that is the reason why the rules disallowed movement from contested to allied.

Don’t mistake discussion for some personal attack or even a lack of support for the rule.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

This isn’t exactly a bad thing. Having a choice isn’t a good thing if it leads to abuse of rules and gamesmanship.

Im not saying one way or the other.  Just pointing out the change.  Its not an abuse of the rules, it is the rules, and could very well have been part of the design and intent.  I dont know and unless you were there and part of the design team you dont either, whether you think its dumb or not isn’t the question.

Saying over and over that there is nothing wrong with the rule is unproductive.  Spending time thinking about ways to abuse it and see how that affects the game is productive, if there is a way someone will find it and the purpose of this discussion is to do that now.

@ksmckay:

Don’t mistake discussion for some personal attack or even a lack of support for the rule.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

This isn’t exactly a bad thing. Having a choice isn’t a good thing if it leads to abuse of rules and gamesmanship.

Im not saying one way or the other.  Just pointing out the change.  Its not an abuse of the rules, it is the rules, and could very well have been part of the design and intent.  I dont know and unless you were there and part of the design team you dont either, whether you think its dumb or not isn’t the question.

Saying over and over that there is nothing wrong with the rule is unproductive.  Spending time thinking about ways to abuse it and see how that affects the game is productive, if there is a way someone will find it and the purpose of this discussion is to do that now.

I definitely did not see it as a personal attack, I admit that I did see it as a lack of support.

I do admit that I tend to be saying the same thing  over again, but it’s not as though I am merely saying it is bad, I am trying to say the evidence in a different way and provide new evidence. In my opinion it IS productive to try to find the best way of explaining the case for the change, just like it would be to state the best argument against the change. So far as I can recall you are the only person who has offered reasons why the change is not obviously a good idea; I thank you for that as it has caused me to examine the issue a little deeper.

@Krieghund:

An example would be if there were a German force contesting Poland with Russia, then Austria-Hungary on its turn moves into and contests Ukraine.  The current rule prevents Germany from abandoning its fight in Poland to jump into Ukraine and get one step closer to Moscow without having to fight to get there.  Leap-frogging is basically taking advantage of the turn order to capitalize on your allies’ advances, which circumvents the purpose of contesting territories.

• For those that have not been reading the whole discussion please keep in mind that under the current rules, Germany is not prevented from skipping the fight in Poland if they have one unit in Ukraine and Ukraine is contested. However, if Ukraine is AH controlled, Germany could not move in.

The rules change would not allow the leap-frogging described quoted above.

@Krieghund:

@ksmckay:

Whats your definition of leap-frogging?

An example would be if there were a German force contesting Poland with Russia, then Austria-Hungary on its turn moves into and contests Ukraine.  The current rule prevents Germany from abandoning its fight in Poland to jump into Ukraine and get one step closer to Moscow without having to fight to get there.  Leap-frogging is basically taking advantage of the turn order to capitalize on your allies’ advances, which circumvents the purpose of contesting territories.

@ksmckay:

Spending time thinking about ways to abuse it and see how that affects the game is productive, if there is a way someone will find it and the purpose of this discussion is to do that now.�Â

Well said.

Excellent discussion and good question about leap-frogging- though under the proposed rule you still have to have units there in your “escape valve tt”.

I really don’t know the answer to this right now- gotta play a few games.
:-)

I agree with vonLettow  I do not see how the propsed rule change (which I totally support) allows the leap frog effect.

@Krieghund:

Leap-frogging is basically taking advantage of the turn order to capitalize on your allies’ advances, which circumvents the purpose of contesting territories.

I think contested territories are a huge improvement over the issues with the classic WWII line, wich in fact were kind of gamey. Typically you could see a stack in Germany and a stack in Russia, and one inf in Poland who would dubble-collect income after unlimited back and forth battles. Some times an ally would clear out that lone inf, and let the other allies tanks “leap-frog” (Blitz) and attack the enemy stack. Not to mention all the strafe attacks just to wear down a stack, and retreat just before you got stuck in that territory. You could even attack a territory (Yugo)from two different directions South Germany and Rumania), and after one round of battle, if the defender survived, you could retreat all your attacking units to one territory (Rumania), and abuse this attack as infantry express to get your inf faster to the front than if they had to walk in friendly territories. So yes, you guys are doing a great job.

But the rules should be simple and rational. When UK is not allowed to retreat from a battle to seak safety at its French allies, and Germany is not allowed to hide behind the Austrians, just because they failed to get a liason unit there in time, then that rule is beyound common sense, and bound for derogatory land.

As I said, the map is the issue. Moscow is too close to Berlin. I know Larry from years back, and suspect he did this on purpose just to tease people. But you can keep on with rule change proposals for ever if that is your kind of fun, but I tell you that as long Moscow is two steps away from Berlin then Russia cant trade land for time as they usual do in real wars, and since you at the same time placed Paris like 8 steps away from Berlin, then we will not get the WWI feeling. Next time buy a real Atlas before you start drawing maps.

I can respect your issues with the map, but as I am sure you know changing that is not an option, especially not in this thread. Given the framework we have, would you support this change?

Razor,

I see no reason to be condescending and rude towards Larry about the map. His record on game designing is excellent. In fact when anomalies in game mechanics, game balance and other rules issues come up with his games, he and Krieg have accepted constructive criticsm and suggestions to make the game better as this thread has done.

You may not like the map, but as Von said, that is NOT going to change. So if you problems with what is proposed or have better ideas lets hear them, but lets not berate the designers who are trying to listen and make improvements.

Kim

To me, the topic address one of two advancement choices.

Either advance separately along two fronts, (hence Germany moved a large force into Poland)

or. advance as one along one front (Austria moves into Ukraine, Germany moves into Austrian held territories clearing Russian single infantry as needed, thus can opening)

This rule change seems to be advocating for a change that makes the two front war more advantageous or viable than a 1 front battle. These are choices based on play styles established probably from earlier game types.

As written, (when Russia pulls out of Poland, they leave 1 unit to stall) ok, so Germany is stalled one round. What prevents Germany from moving next to Moscow or into Austrian contested/held Ukraine next turn? Remember if Austria is in Ukraine, Russia must choose which fronts to attack with its larger force, thus committing them for a turn. And if Ukraine is contested, Germany will be able to move a large force in without firing a shot.

Remember, you are knocking down Russia’s IPCs when you outmaneuver them and they retreat backwards.

Personally, its way to early to change rules, give the community months to try out different approaches, and then address recurring issues if a larger body agrees with the minority’s current distaste of the way this new game plays when compared to older tactics from other versions. Having lived through this with global 1940 being changed so frequently, and too early, only to cater to a vocal minority; I was left with less enthusiasm for the game then before. If the vocal members are upset with the game let them house rule it until the time that others come to the same conclusion. The game does not have to be “fixed” the month it comes out, remember, changes will persist for years to come, lets give the community at least half a year too, before we change things.

Basically as written, Russia can stall Germany once in Poland and once in Ukraine or Belarus, or Livonia. So if the Russians stall twice and they are 3 spaces away, by turn 5 Moscow can be contested or be collecting very low amounts of IPCs.
Remember if the Russians counterattack into these territories they are (stuck the round they attack) , move into Moscow, contest it and reinforce the other battles, and then they are stuck permanently.

Isn’t Russia going to lose all of the money from contested territories or retreating? Doesn’t this give the CPs a lot of IPCs when this is over?

Heaven forbid, there is another approach: Lead with Germany: Build up turn 1, Move into Poland turn 2 with Germany, reinforce and/or clear with Austria’s stack: Move into Belarus, Livonia, or Ukraine (whichever is empty, let Russia try to counterattack the combined German/Austrian stack) turn 3: Move Austria in the same clearing or reinforcing: Move into Moscow turn 4(contesting it if able) so Austria can then move in for the capture or contest-ation. This prevents any stalling other than by shear defensive numbers.

Here are the numbers for this argument:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30597.0

Razor you have a point as far as the map goes between Berlin and Moscow there are 3 territories (about 1150 miles), and between Berlin and Paris there are 4 territories (about 650 miles). The map is purposely distorted for game play though. The territories on the western front are about half the size of those on the eastern front and more urban. You are conquering much smaller chunks of land on the western front because of the dug in trench warfare that the game try’s to simulate. Movement on the eastern front is much better just because it was much more rural, so you can gain/lose much larger land masses or at least can keep larger areas contested.

You do have a valid point though. If there was 1 more territory between Berlin/Vienna to Moscow the leap frogging thing wouldn’t be an issue with the proposed rule change. The map isn’t going to change though, so lets be done with that (at least in this thread).

This whole issue is being caused by Russia holding Poland, they should abandon it on R1 because they might get cut off.

@oztea:

This whole issue is being caused by Russia holding Poland, they should abandon it on R1 because they might get cut off.

There is a lot more to the issue than that, especially on the western front. Poland is just one example.

Regarding James’ post:

Clearly, it is NOT too early for rules changes, since there have already been several, including a MAJOR overhaul of the Russian revolution.

As Krieghund himself has said, the reason for disallowing movement to a friendly territory was to disallow can opening. It seems at the time the designers knew this was a funky rule, but the can opening worry trumped that.

Now, requiring that a unit of the moving power be in the friendly territory removes a lot of the “funkiness,” and still prevents the can opening that was so undesirable. It gives the players the ability to do what they logically should be able to do still without being able to do what the current rule was designed to prevent!

In other words,without the can opening worry, the players would be able to do what I am talking about anyways. Now that a system has been proposed where the can opening worry is eliminated, there’s not much, if anything, left in the way.

Well don’t hold any territory you can get surrounded in. I understand the game rules might change to allow/disallow certain movement in this instance, but from a practical standpoint being farther away from your capital than you need to be is a bad idea anyway.

Even with this rule change I don’t think the issue will come up very often at all.