Tom Jensen - 03:56pm Aug 20, 2003 PST (#6230 of 6256) Current game: Midway variant for Carrier; Current book: Ninety-Three by Victor Hugo; Listening to Morphine's Cure for Pain The only Command game I thought was really good was Attila, Scourge of God. But the rules were a little deficient and I was hoping that someone who owned a copy of its sister game, Spartacus, would throw a little light my way. Here's my question: When one side has a breakthrough, the units can advance and turn upon the flanks of the opponent. What do you do when multiple units achieve a breakthrough? Do you stack them up so that each unit can attack... or is only the one adjacent unit allow to attack with the others in reserve? Attila doesn't say. Also, at some point the battlelines are so broken that I usually just drop the line formation and square the units off one against one. A mass melee. How have you handled this? Other than this, I'm completely satisfied with the game. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ty Bomba - 10:25am Aug 22, 2003 PST (#6231 of 6256) "Make no needless rules." Gen. Robert E. Lee (ret.), June 1867 Q. When one side has a breakthrough, the units can advance and turn upon the flanks of the opponent. What do you do when multiple units achieve a breakthrough? Do you stack them up so that each unit can attack? A. Yes, use the regular procedures for lining up such multiples. Q. Also, at some point the battlelines are so broken that I usually just drop the line formation and square the units off one against one. A. Why are you doing that? It's been a long time since I've had this game in front of me, but I certainly remember the combat procedures were written to work the same way from the start of a battle to its end. Stay with the procedures as given until the battle's over. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Jensen - 04:19pm Aug 25, 2003 PST (#6232 of 6256) Current game: Midway variant for Carrier; Current book: Ninety-Three by Victor Hugo; Listening to Morphine's Cure for Pain Ty, thanks for answering but I'm still not clear. Here's what happens: Attila achieves a breakthrough, the units move forward into the Roman's line, some turn left, some turn right and, if I understand you correctly, ALL the units can attack the next impulse rolling up the line with irresistable odds. Meanwhile, the SAME thing is happening within the Hun line: Roman units have broken through and THEY are rolling up Attila's line. The result: MAD, mutually assured destruction! The survivors are now in two stacks! That's when a melee breaks out and I pair them up one-on-one. This can't be the game's intention. Please clarify your clarification more clearly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ty Bomba - 10:31am Aug 26, 2003 PST (#6233 of 6256) "Make no needless rules." Gen. Robert E. Lee (ret.), June 1867 In the ancient and classical eras, if the enemy staged a tactical breakthrough into your main battle line, that was about the worst thing that could happen for you short of having some enemy force suddenly show up immediately behind you. So the effects of such breakthroughs in the game are supposed to be powerful. (You might want to think of using the retreat rule.) When units make a breakthrough, you don't "pile them up" (except as some space saving device on a crowded battlefield). That is, in their breakthrough attacks, the breakthrough units are lined up, just as they would be in the main battle line, etc., except now their new position gives them a combat advantage against the enemy they're attacking. So, if you somehow have a battle that comes down to no more than breakthrough groups surviving, one (or more) on each side, then -- OK -- line them up again fresh and start a new battle. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Jensen - 04:19pm Aug 26, 2003 PST (#6234 of 6256) Current game: Midway variant for Carrier; Current book: Ninety-Three by Victor Hugo; Listening to Morphine's Cure for Pain Aahhhh... now that I've got a semi-official ruling I can rest easily. Thanks. Still, creating a brand new battleline in the midst of battle stinks of unreality. What if there are two MORE breakthroughs resulting in even MORE leftover units... I guess I form a third battleline and begin again ad infinitum! So it goes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ty Bomba - 10:53am Aug 27, 2003 PST (#6235 of 6256) "Make no needless rules." Gen. Robert E. Lee (ret.), June 1867 Are you telling me this kind of thing actually happens in your play of this game? If so, this is the first I've ever heard of it. When playing/battling, you should keep your mind on the victory conditions. As soon as it becomes apparent a battle isn't going to go well for you, get out. There is no point in staying to fight some hopeless battle of annihilation. Also, please remember, the game uses a "pseudo-tactical" combat system. That is, it is an essentially strategic-level game that presents a highly abstracted form of classical-era tactical combat. That sub-system features and centers on the main aspects of low-level combat in those times, but without trying to be a step-by-step recreation of the minutiae involved. So, for instance, if you come into a situation as you describe, wherein you've got to redistribute your surviving units into new battlelines, you shouldn't visualize it as if all the tactical combat events you're seeing are happening in a single engagement in one afternoon (or whatever). Figure, instead, you're fighting a series of engagements within the timeframe of the overall game turn length and within the space of province in which the battling forces are located on the main game board. Another question for you: has your play experience with this game been two-player or solitaire? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Jensen - 05:04pm Aug 27, 2003 PST (#6236 of 6256) Current game: Midway variant for Carrier; Current book: Ninety-Three by Victor Hugo; Listening to Morphine's Cure for Pain Solitaire only, though I've tried to get others interested, so my experience is colored by this bias. Still, I really like the game because the switch from strategic to tactical feels so right. The three attack ratings for missile, charge, and melee combat work well and create a clean, swift resolution to a battle. I also like the siege resolution where a breach in the walls allow only one unit at a time to face off against one another. It's simple and feels right. I think of A:SofGod as an ancient Victory in the Pacific, a game which I set aside for two years because it looked so unrealistic... but when I sat down to play, discovered how well the system worked. Same with Attila. As for withdrawl, IIRC the campaign that brought up this question came down to one BIG battle with both sides ~ even... and whoever won that battle would win the war. Neither side would recover from a withdrawl so they both fought to the finish. One rule I changed was the limit to the "militia" that each area generated. (For the moment, I forget what the game called them.) It was restricted by the counter mix so I use substitute counters temporarily until others become available. Otherwise, Attila will invade low Victory Point areas to place the "militia" there, then move on and turn his attention to the areas he needs to win the game... leaving the Roman player without this useful fodder to throw into the breach. Playing solitaire, I've come up with a "perfect plan" for Attila and it's fun for me to try to come up with a Roman strategy to defeat it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ty Bomba - 09:02am Aug 28, 2003 PST (#6237 of 6256) "Make no needless rules." Gen. Robert E. Lee (ret.), June 1867 Solitaire only, though I've tried to get others interested, so my experience is colored by this bias. Right. My strong feeling is, if you'll somehow take the trouble to find another 'gamer to play this title with, you'll then find you need to come up with entirely new conclusions about its optimal strategies, play balance, etc. As to taking the limits off the number of militia available to the Roman: that limit was put in as a deliberate reflection of the Romans' historic inability to make better use of their much larger population base (much larger than the Huns and other barbarians pitted against them) during the late-empire era. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Jensen - 04:23pm Aug 28, 2003 PST (#6238 of 6256) Current game: Midway variant for Carrier; Current book: Ninety-Three by Victor Hugo; Listening to Morphine's Cure for Pain The name of these units is the Limitanea (looked it up last night). So even their name suggests that they should be limited. Makes me wonder what the Latin roots mean. Perhaps my house rule should be modified to say that when limitanei are generated without enough counters to cover the new units, then limitanei elsewhere on the board can be "retired" and moved to the active area to meet the new threat. Otherwise an Attila player can manipulate the counter placement to suit his evil needs. But I'm having trouble getting the Roman player to win even with unlimited Limitanea. As for solitaire, I've had quite a few times where I've thought I've got a real grip on a game only to find that in f2f play I'm a complete LOSER! ...you just don't know what you don't know. But I guess that's the point of life: to bump against one another in a benevolent polishing process leading to a perfect diamond. Gag!!!