Karl Laskas, on BITTEREINDER: >The game as published has a couple of game mechanics that distort the historical flow of the action, and strongly encourage the Boers to invade Cape Colony. Other rules make it highly dangerous for the Boers to use their two armies (as opposed to independent kommandos. As the designer, I accept these two valid points of criticism. Please allow me a response here. The massive invasion of the Cape Colony, though ahistorical, was well within the realm of possibility. For that reason I did not want to write a rule that disallowed it. Though I have not tested your remedy to the overuse of the Cape Colony Invasion strategy, it sounds quite sensible, and I'd like to try it at some stage - though that will not likely be in the near future. I encourage players to try your variant. It has my complete blessing. This variant should be widely published - such as on Web Grognards (Yes, Alan Poulter; I mean you. :-) ) - and I'd like to see the feedback from it. I'll repeat the essence of Karl's modifications: -------------------------------------------- >I'm playing with two simple house rules that seem to correct these problems. They move the action to more historical locations, improve play balance and increase game variety. >Rule 12.4.1 (Replace). BOER VICTORIES. Each turn, count the number of Boer victories. A Boer victory is defined as (a) any Boer attack that achieves a DR or DE result, (b) any British attack that achieves an AR result, or (c) any British decision to allow a siege instead of combat. >With respect to (c), the Boers get credit for a victory only on the first turn a siege is initiated, no matter how long the siege endures. Roll one die. If the die roll is less than or equal to the number of Boer victories, Empire morale is reduced by one. >Optional Rule 12.4.1. For more variety in possible outcomes, roll one die for each Boer Victory and reduce Empire morale by one for each 6 that is rolled. >Rule 12.4.2. (Addition) Add one to the siege die roll if the besieging units include an army. >The effect of these changes allow the game to simulate the loss of Empire Morale as a result of Black Week, since it is fairly easy for the Boers to cause British morale to drop to 6 by the end of the first turn. With this variant, the Boers can achieve this result without a massive invasion of Cape Colony. With the drop in British morale to 6, and the +1 modifier for armies conducting a siege, there is now some chance of the sieges causing some degradation of British morale on Turn 3. This gives the British player the incentive to march to relieve the sieges, thereby causing the game to follow history more closely. -------------------------------------------- >Nicholas [Barker] has a good point about the retreat rules as well. >I assume the problem he's referring to is the following: if the British attack a Republican army and cause a Defender Retreat result, that's the end of the army and all its constituent kommandos. Much too extreme of a result. Perhaps only the army should disappear, and not all of the constituent kommandos. Designer's response: I'm not so sure I'd like to see the Army retreat penalty changed. My intent was to bring about the historical Boer disasters of Paardeberg and the Brandwaterkom, where large Boer concentrations with their slow supply trains were surrounded and forced to surrender. Any kommandos that chose to stick around with those armies were also eliminated. The rule should encourage [historically] the Republican player to scatter his forces, and to abandon the less mobile elements. I'm not so sure I'd like to see this changed. Anyhow, thank you very much for your interest and input. I'd like to see how this turns out. Please keep me in the loop. Hjalmar