I’m still wondering how to resolve commander unit movement. I think for movement purposes, a commander can be “attached” to a unit and moved that way.
I think it should have a range of effecting all units in or adjacent to it.
Its a front HQ
Yes, its an “HQ”, buy it’s shaped like a dude. For me, that makes a difference, both in what its name is and its function.
can i make a request that we get at least one that looks like chuck norris?!
Here’s a thought about how to implement a commander unit.
Attack 0
Defense 0 - may not be taken as a casualty, but if all other attacking or defending units are destroyed, then commander unit is removed from the board.
Move 1 - counts as an infantry for purpose of transports
Cost 0 for the first one - i.e. if you have none on the game board, 3 IPCs for all others.
If the commander is involved in any battle, then once during that battle, if both players agree that the die results were way off base, then the commander unit allows you to re-roll 1 entire round - both attackers and defenders. (This commander unit does not allow you to re-roll the entire battle, unless the battle only lasted 1 round.)If the commander’s battle ever fails, (i.e. the attack failed to take the territory, or he was defending, and the territory was captured, then he is removed from the game board.) Only 1 commander may be involved in any attack, but defending commanders may be used together.
if both players agree that the die results were way off base,
This is problematic. The rule must be enforceable by itself, because players can argue or always agree or always disagree. This is not standardization in rule making.
Well, I would hate to just automatically get a free re-roll. i.e. Someone attacks my capital with only a 10% chance of winning. I would hate for him to get 2 shots at it, although with the commander only being a re-roll for that one round, maybe it would be okay.
What I was trying to say was that if the battle results for that 1 round were way below the 50% odds, and everyone could obviously tell that, then that would be the best time to use this commander ability.
ON defense if units are adjacent to HQ they should be able to retreat on DEFENSE. Yes no?
@Imperious:
ON defense if units are adjacent to HQ they should be able to retreat on DEFENSE. Yes no?d
and this would represent something like Manstiens actions after stalingrad?
I prefer one round of combat with the attacker reatreating if we has not killed all the defenders.
plus besides the one i gave i cant really think of a lot of situation where a good commander or lots of supplies allowed for an effective retreat
and this would represent something like Manstiens actions after stalingrad?
yes to protect the good units from getting wiped out.
HQ should be able to save armies and well as direct them in battle.
IN attacks perhaps units moving from them can move 3 on land or +1 ( movement boost)
what about that?
I still think the commander peice should only represent leadership and supplies should be represented by trucks.
I understand alot of other war games use the HQ peice, but axis and allies is a very different game and I would like a peice that simply represents the twist that humans put on the battlefield.
I still think the idea that i posted here a few posts ago, is better.
What is wrong with it?
What about HQs allowing for the exploitation of a “break out”, or something like the Blitzkrieg NA for Germany.
All Blitzing units lat leave from a space with an HQ and take a territory within 1 round of combat get another move point, either to attack again or regroup.
yes thats what i propose. Exactly, you gain the MP you lost by attacking one space away, which allows you to attack a new spot or retreat after capture as the attacker.
Getting back to the topic. Perhaps in the interest of simplicity, a commander unit should be as follows.
0 Attack - This unit may never attack (even an undefended territory) without another land unit also attacking. This unit may not capture a territory. If all other attacking land units were destroyed, then the commander unit must retreat.
0 Defense - This unit can stop tanks from blitzing the same as an aa gun can.
4 Movement Points - This would be overland movement points only. (Commanders could always get to battles quicker than armies.)
8 IPC cost - (You are limited to having a maximum of 3 Commander units on the board at any one time.)
If this unit is involved in a land attack or defense where other units from the same country are attacking or defending, then on the first round of combat only, all of the air units and non-aa land units from the same country as the commander unit gain a +1 modifier to the applicable attack or defense value. This modifier is non-cumulative. (i.e. if you have multiple commander units involved in the same battle, then only one +1 modifier applies, not multiple +1’s.) This unit must be the last unit taken as a casualty, and if attacked with no defending units present, is automatically destroyed in the same way as transports.
The nations would begin with the following commander units in the following locations:
Germany
1 in Poland
1 in France
Japan
1 in Manchuria
1 in Japan
Italy
1 in Italy
Soviet Union
1 in Karelia
UK
2 in Great Britain
US
1 in Eastern US
1 in Western US
China - I know that this gives the Allies 6 starting commanders to the Axis’ 5, but the Chinese one will probably be destroyed on J1 and can never be replaced.
1 in Yunan
The side effect of this abilty and placement would be to make a G1 attack on Karelia VERY difficult, if not impossible, and Japan would have to dedicate more units to be able to take out the Yunan fighter. I see both of these things as a good thing. I almost put the second starting UK commander unit in Egypt, but I finally decided against it.
What do y’all think?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/19362
Anyone ever heard of this expansion? It turns out A&A has had commander units before, so it’s not like we have to start from scratch.
0 Defense - This unit can stop tanks from blitzing the same as an aa gun can.
thats kind of a crazy rule, i dont c the point in it or the historical backing.
Otherwise my main concern is that i dont think these rules add a lot of stratagy except making three of each players land armies super strong.
Why cant you have naval or air commanders?
