The game starts at the beginning of the combat phase of the first German turn. As they are on the strategic offensive, the Germans have access to a re-roll marker for the first half of the game, allowing them to force any one die to be rolled again every turn. They will have this advantage until the marker gets handed over to the Allied player at the half-way point. So they can deploy this ability to their best advantage, the Germans therefore choose to open with their most important combat and work their way down the list of priorities.
New rules for Illusions of Glory 2nd Edition are available for your view. (Go to this link). The rules have been clarified with respect to:
Troop Quality Penalties: reductions in Troop Quality for incurring unit losses and using Reinforcement Cards have been reduced so that reinforcement step reductions should not occur until 1916, as is historically accurate.
Allocating Unit Losses: the player taking fire must apply as much of the Loss Number as possible to his units (using guidelines instead of scripted procedures), cannot take fewer losses than is required to absorb the entire Loss Number, and units cannot take more losses than is required by the Loss Number.
Out-Of-Supply Effects: a unit that is Out-Of-Supply can move by just 1 Movement Factor; can be activated for attack but cannot participate in a combined attack with supplied units; cannot use Combat Cards; cannot use Strategic Redeployment; cannot receive Replacement Points; cannot build Trenches (but can use existing Trenches); cannot be used to make Flank Attacks; and is reduced to a Combat Factor of 1.
Diminished Supply Effects: units that can only trace a supply line to Supply Sources of other friendly nations can activate for movement or attack at a cost of 1 additional Operations Point, cannot use Strategic Redeployment, and cannot receive Replacement Points.
Building Trenches: any nationality may attempt to build a Trench in a Clear space; only German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian, and Serbian units may attempt to build a Trench in a Mountain space; only one trench building attempt may be made per space in an Action Round; and entrenching is attempted by rolling a die.
Retreats After Combat: every defending unit forced to end its retreat in an overstacked friendly space is reduced by one step and continues retreating to the nearest friendly-controlled space or region where it will not overstack; and defending units in Forests, Mountains, or Swamps can reduce a two-space retreat by one space by taking a step loss from any of those units, but a one-space retreat normally cannot be halted.
Destruction Versus Permanent Elimination: reduced-strength units that take another step reduction are destroyed and go into the Replaceable Units Box, but units are permanently eliminated and removed from the game if destroyed by combat when Out-Of-Supply, if reduced-strength while Out-Of-Supply during the Attrition Phase, or if forced to retreat into or through a space that contains enemy units, an unbesieged enemy Fort, or an Uprising Unit.
Choosing Movement or Disassembly: a unit can move or assemble/disassemble in the same Action Round, but not both. (Similarly, a unit can be used to move or entrench in the same Action Round, but not both.)
Reserve Box Uses: Small Combat Units (divisions) in the Replaceable Units Box that are rebuilt go immediately into the Reserve Box; they can use Strategic Redeployment to go from the Reserve Box onto the mapboard; or they can use Strategic Redeployment to go from the mapboard into the Reserve Box.
Movement Into Neutral Nations: units that move or retreat into neutral nations are immediately interned to the Replaceable Units Box, except that Serbian and Montenegran units in neutral Albania are not interned until the end of the Action Phase and may use Strategic Redeployment to leave neutral Albanian ports.
Deployment Of Uprising Units: If a nation’s National Will marker has reached National Demoralization by Step 1 of the Rebellion/Revolution Phase, the opposing player can immediately place 2 of that nation’s Uprising Units in separate spaces and/or regions of that nation without cost.
Playing a Strategy Card: If a Strategy Card cannot be played for its Event, it can still be played for its War Status Points.
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: When the Victory Points marker reaches the “26” space on the General Records Track, the Allied Powers can play the “Treaty of Brest-Litovsk” card and, when the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk takes effect: all Russian units are removed from the gameboard and are replaced with Russian control markers; other units cannot move into Russian-controlled spaces and regions within Russia; units can attack Russian Uprising Units and take control of spaces or regions that they occupy; all German Large Combat Units (corps) outside of Germany immediately go into the Brandenburg region. After that, one German unit in the Brandenburg region can be moved in each following Action Round.
Decisive Action is a game all about deep planning, tactical maneuver, and judicious use of combat multipliers like artillery and electronic warfare, as discussed previously. But this is war, and so, at the end of the day, you’ve got to put the pointy end of the stick into the other chap. Or rather, put the armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot round into the other chap’s explosive reactive turret armor, this being modern war. And so that’s what we’re going to talk about today: how combat works in Decisive Action.
The 19th century is the age of British hegemony. This hegemony was expressed in terms of economic development, territorial expansion, diplomatic influence, and the capacity to project military power anywhere on the globe. In 1880 the British Empire was by far the largest in the world, including the vast territories of India, Canada, and Australia, as well as key bases straddling the oceans, which allowed Britain to supply its coal-fuelled navy and ensure the protection of its far-flung Empire. The City of London was the financial heart of the developed world, and the British Navy was bigger than that of the two following powers combined.
France in 1880 was also a first-class economic power and Paris was undoubtedly the cultural capital of the world, but the country was still reeling from its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, which had left deep wounds in French national pride. The Third Republic, established after the abdication of Napoleon III and lasting until the French debacle in World War II, was characterised by political strife and instability. Many in France saw colonial expansion as a necessary balm to recover lost prestige and unify the country in an external venture, as they bided their time until they could take revenge on the new German Empire.
The recently unified GermanReich was the youngest power in Europe, but it had demonstrated its military prowess by destroying the supposedly formidable French Imperial Army in a short campaign and capturing the French Emperor, Napoleon III, in the encirclement battle of Metz. The German Empire had prioritized European expansion and Bismarck was at first indifferent to building an overseas empire, an endeavour he considered expensive and of doubtful use. Bismarck’s priority was to build an alliance system that would isolate France and ensure peace in Europe under the terms imposed after the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. All this changed when Wilhelm II came to the throne with very different ideas. The young Kaiser promptly got rid of the aging Bismarck and embarked on a project of global expansion based on naval power that antagonized Britain. Wilhelm also tied the destiny of the Reich to that of the decaying Austro-Hungarian Empire, at the cost of friendship with Russia, which Bismarck had so carefully cultivated.
The scenario for the Final match was “Howe’s Grand Assault” at White Plains. Father Todd and I each wanted the British and so we bid. It only took one round. He bid zero and so I prevailed with a bid of 1 army morale point. I surrendered it from my at-start morale, and we completed the game set-up. Father Todd rolled for General Washington’s combat modifier and was successful in bringing Washington into the game with a combat DRM of “1” vs. a possible 0. In a classic example of turn-about being fair play, his Militia Attrition die roll yielded the worst possible outcome and he had to remove seven militia counters from his deployed forces. The seven units he selected amounted to 1,300 men! The roads to upstate N.Y. and Connecticut must have been clogged with this human flotsam and jetsam as they streamed homeward, wanting nothing to do with His Majesty’s forces. He made his secret die roll to determine his Ruse de Guerre set-up and we drew our starting hand of two Opportunity Cards each. We were ready to start playing. It was 10:00 AM.
As “Infernal Machine: Dawn of Submarine Warfare” moves toward publication, it has been my task to research the backgrounds of those who made up the crews of the “fishboats.”
I am fascinated by the amount of information that is still available on many of these individuals. Census records gathered before, during and after the American Civil War are very informative. When combined with newspaper reports, tax documentation, church attendance records, even civil and criminal arrest warrants, the gathered information will, as Shakespeare once said, “Hold the mirror up to nature.”
Draft Vietnam Mission book pages before they go off to GMT for layout (not final images)
Progress on Fields of Fire Deluxe Edition moves ever forwards. With the layout & design folk at GMT freed up from other projects (and everyone back from having fun gaming at WBC), the mission books are full speed ahead. First up will be Vietnam, this is the most complex of the books so we thought it best to get the layout perfected here and then everything else should be easy. New mission layouts, updates to missions, units, package lists, events, almost everything has been rewritten from scratch. This one has the most campaign specific rules too, so we think it’s best to get it online and into the hands of the community quickly who will no doubt let us know if our rules are as clear as mud and need further improving before they go to the printer.
Sample of Upgrade Kit counters that bring both 1st and 2nd edition sets up to 3rd edition “Deluxe”.
We stress-tested the new counter sheets recently and made a few amendments, they’re done now (really this time!), so work can begin on making the Update Kit sheets. Three sheets, 525 counters. 115 of those are extras for people who want to upgrade their 1st edition sets straight to 3rd edition. You’ll find corrected counters, new counters, QoL counters and a bunch of recoloured NKPA units in there. We’ll include some kind of guidance on which counters are new, which are replacements and which 2nd edition owners can ignore. You can find more info on the kit here: Fields of Fire, Deluxe Edition Update Kit.
It’s been fun watching Youtubers get to grips with the draft 3rd edition rules recently, I know it’s tricky without the new Mission Books and counters to support them, but we’ll get those out for you all soon! There will also be a Living Rules update based on the past nine months of internal discussion, plus feedback from playtesters, proofreaders, folk on BGG and Facebook and Youtubers. The master doc has a few edits noted here and there for clarification and some updates to the images to submit. Looks like we’re approaching 500 edits in total (big book, they do add up!).
Talking of stress testing, having Made the Cut last month, a small group of us are playing through the first of the Fields of Fire III campaigns right now. After we’ve made some adjustments, this will be ready for wider playtesting. You’ll find a call for playtesters in the August 2023 newsletter. The Falklands campaign is the least complex of the three in the set, so we’re looking for people who can already play the game, aren’t intimidated by the Normandy campaign, and are looking for something different to try. These will be followed by the Arnhem campaign and Afghanistan as they become ready for testing.
Sample of Falklands Playtest Book & Mission being played (rather poorly) in Vassal (not final art)
Finally, those of you following wargaming news on Twitter or who attended WBC this year may have noted that Ben Hull was there showing off a Tarawa/Saipan set. As expected, his prototype shows off some new innovative ideas for the series and feels quite different from the previous amphibious invasion of Peleliu in FoFII. It’s quite a long way off yet, but we’re quite excited about this one.
So, there’s this to look forward to along with a deluxe upgrade for the Peleliu, Chosin Reservoir and Hue campaigns from Fields of Fire II at some point. There are a few things to work out, but hopefully these upgrades and the Tarawa/Saipan set will be compatible not only with Fields of Fire II, but also Fields of Fire Deluxe so everyone can enjoy them.
Tarawa/Saipan Prototype Module Samples (not final components)
And now back to work. I see “Bunker” needs adding to the index, and a definition of what “Under Fire” actually means is required on the Enemy Activity Hierarchy chart somewhere…
The 19th century was not only a century of intense political and economic change, but also great intellectual and ideological oppositions which sustained and accompanied them. The French Revolution moved the Enlightenment ideals from a handful of intelligentsia salons to the center of the political landscape across Europe, and as it did so new counter revolutionary and anti-Enlightenment ideas rose in opposition.
Indeed, the wars of the Revolution and the Empire were significant as much for plunging Europe into intellectual turmoil as for their military implications. After Napoleon was defeated in 1814 and 1815, it was the hope of the crowned heads of Europe that the Congress of Vienna could mark the end of these ideas as it ended the wars, but even through the repression and censorship that marked the postwar era, the new ideas kept on progressing among all parts of the population. It was from this ferment that the premises of modern ideologies such as nationalism and socialism arose.
We tied our third-best attendance record for Battles of the American Revolution at the WBC this year with 31 players participating. Among those were eight new, unrated players which speaks to the continued popularity of the series. Also participating this year were six of the top ten AREA rated players which made for good leavening within the field.
I conducted a scheduled demo (since AGM Rob “Cappy” McCracken was an unfortunate late-scratch and couldn’t attend) as well as two 1:1 tutorial for individuals who couldn’t make the demo. Among these folks, two showed up to play.
We ran six Heats to qualify eight players for the single elimination quarterfinals. In-all, 52 separate games of BoAR were played from Heat #1 through to the Final match. It was a long week for those players who committed wholeheartedly to the event, including the three players who had selected BoAR as their WBC team game. On the other hand, the Swiss-Heat format provided others with maximum flexibility to come and go as their overall schedules allowed. It was a nice mix.
Hi to the followers of the development of my game Tanto Monta. There are several of you who have asked me why the game is called “Tanto Monta” and not “Tanto monta, monta tanto”; so I have decided to explain everything around this and I hope I know how to answer the question.
Both expressions have their depth and justification in the history of the period that the game relates and that has come down to our time. The title of the game has its origin in the expression that Ferdinand first, then Isabella, adopted for their joint monarchy and this is recorded in many writings and remains of the time. Ferdinand, as king of the Crown of Aragon, adopted this personal motto as his own, alluding to the Gordian knot that Alexander the Great cut instead of untying: “it’s as easy to cut as it is to untie”. In other words, no matter how it is done, the important thing is that it is achieved. And indeed this motto was presented on the arrows, with a loose string (cut) around it.
However, the monarchy of the couple Ferdinand and Isabella is articulated as a monarchical union where both monarchs are of the 2 kingdoms, Castile and Aragon and consequently act on them; although the character of involvement of Ferdinand in the affairs of Castile is more marked than Isabella in those of Aragon. In the end this was translated in an impression of the citizenship that both she and he were in charge, and that together with the motto of Fernando ended up becoming dual, inverting the order indicating that both had decision in the reign and from there the well-known popular motto “tanto monta, monta tanto Isabel como Fernando” (both Isabel and Ferdinand are so much alike) being reduced to “Tanto monta, monta tanto monta”.
In the game I used the popular motto to name the third natal card of the Spanish player because it is a powerful card that can be used indistinctly with both Aragonese and Castilian units, thus departing from the norm of the rest of the natal cards but at the same time allowing me to represent this dual character of the monarchs over the subjects of both kingdoms.
