Game: Tactics II

Image

barteus — 2008-08-12T16:42:25+00:00

Blue, with two tanks leading the way, stages an attack deep into enemy territory – to the Red Capital!

Image

barteus — 2008-08-12T16:40:30+00:00

Red lands two amphibious units near the Blue Capital!

Thread: Re: Are the Bridges to the Red Capital, Individual Spaces?

dittohos — 2008-07-28T03:52:23+00:00

I have the 1958 game with the "Instruction Supplement- Tactics II". It states "You may attack across the bridges to the Northwestern Red Island. Move your counter onto the bridge itself to close for combat." Also it states "In cross-bridge attack, an attacker must fight each adjacent defending unit."

I hope this helps you.

Mark

Thread: Re: Completely new to wargaming...

cannoneer — 2008-07-18T04:01:17+00:00

One thing to note that the rulebook (at least the 1958 one I have) implies but does not come out and say:

In any individual engagement (i.e. being resolved by a single throw of the "cubit"), the forces of one side or the other must be limited to a single square

All the examples in the rulebook follow this procedure, and it's an explicitly-spelled out one in subsequent AH games from this general period (early 60's).

I recommend adopting it - it makes odds determination easier and breaks the combats up into manageable chunks.

Thread: Re: User Review

tacticsnut — 2008-07-07T03:15:01+00:00

This is the first time that I have run across this site and reading your passion for the game, I am quite amazed that this game is still around. I got hooked on this game while in the military and when you are a broke Marine, playing this game was alot of fun and kept alot of Marines in the barracks out of trouble.
Glen I would like to know what you think? Some of the blank units we used to use as artillary, giving them about a 4 square reach to support infintry units. We also used our paratroop units to make the original drop into a square, move off the square and have a certain number of units that could then follow them. If you lost those paratroop units, you lost the ability to do drops. Amphib units would have to hit and take beach squares first, and then additional units could follow behind just like a beach invasion.
The other game that we used to play is Midway. I have invisioned, ( I don't know why) combining the two game so that the entire tatics board is an island and there would be a massive sea battle to get to the island to invade. Strange what a grown man dreams sometimes.
I would like to know what you think.:

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

521tiger — 2008-05-18T21:47:58+00:00

Well, that sounds like a good idea!!!
Andy (521tiger)

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

gamesbook — 2008-05-18T14:14:51+00:00

Trelane wrote:
quozl wrote:
Where can I find the 1958 rules? Well Johnathan, Tactics II is so cheap on e-bay you can probably get a whole game from '58 for around 7 to 12 dollars.
Maybe, for those of us who already have a more recent copy of the game, some kind soul could create a scan of the 1958 rules?

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

Trelane — 2008-05-15T19:40:40+00:00

quozl wrote:
Where can I find the 1958 rules? Well Johnathan, Tactics II is so cheap on e-bay you can probably get a whole game from '58 for around 7 to 12 dollars.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

quozl — 2008-05-15T19:08:50+00:00

Where can I find the 1958 rules?

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

TheChin! — 2008-05-15T17:48:40+00:00

That reserve rule sounds awesome.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

Trelane — 2008-05-15T14:56:39+00:00

One other point. The rules for the 1958 edition are far superior to the 1973 edition. For example, the Replacement rule in the 1958 edition limits the nature of what you can replace every third turn. The rate is determined by the number of friendly cities remaining in a player's hands. To qualify, THERE MUST BE NO ENEMY UNITS IN THE CITY or WITHIN ONE SQUARE OF THE CITY.
An army receives ONE recreated Armored division IF his Capital AND his replacement center are in friendly hands!
An army receives on infantry division for each city other than the capital remaining but ONE and ONLY ONE of the divisions recreated may be a SPECIALIST.
The 1973 rules define what a captured city means (physical presence inside without an enemy unit also inside the city) They mention nothing about the ZOC.
The 1958 rules also state under Miscellaneous rules #2 that Corps HQ units must remain within 5 squares of the BULK of their corps at all times, however it is not always practical and no specific penalty is implied if this requirement is not met. (73 rules only talk about set up with the proper HQ in the Bivouac areas and their role is nothing after that unless you are using atomic weapons).
The rules of 1958 also cover "RESERVE UNITS" -Either player, AT ANY TIME, may remove from the board the equivalent of an infantry corps (six divisions and an HQ) for use as a maneuver element. This is done by asking the opponent to step away from the board. The player moves his corps to the location he desires, notes the location and removes them from the board. The area cannot be in enemy contact. IF the enemy stumbles into the corps that is hidden, the army is placed on the board. The real fun in this is that the army can be placed in the area where your forces have made the most gain! So a player can have an offensive weapon at hand ready to pounce on a position!
The 1973 rules mention nothing at all and expect you to place the units in the replacement area, which was never meant for that purpose. The replacement area in the rules of 1958 was the starting area for replacements! (not one per city in a city)
So friends, THROW OUT those 1973 rules, which limit this game and go back to 1958! You will rediscover the "Blitzkrieg" inherent in the game as it was originally intended.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

JohnnyD — 2008-05-15T14:45:07+00:00

This was my first AH game along with 1776 Christmas of 1976. Still a GREAT game....i keep it on the shelf and pull it out from time to time to introduce my kids to wargaming.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

Trelane — 2008-05-15T04:57:21+00:00

Also Randy, players forget that if piece "A" can march down the road from an initial set up area for 15 squares then infantry "B" immediately behind it can also make it down the road and pull up right behind or beside piece "A". Time and again, I watch people waste time by counting each unit as if they need to do this action, especially when they move the Armor divisions. (18, 19, 20, 21, oops! I lost count... let me do that again! Oh boy!) Also, some players try to form "killer packs" of Armor units. This is a mistake. Armor units in this game are designed to be with their own individual groups as odds increasers in company with their own infantry and specialists. It is more important to insure destruction of a unit by surrounding it with ZOCs on a Defender Back 2 or D-elim than trying to punch a line stalemate hole that can be plugged on the opponents turn and you never leave that "middle" giant line that you spoke of!

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

DocStryder — 2008-05-15T02:27:27+00:00

Ahhh the memories this brings back...Tactics...Tactics II and Blitzkrieg. I need to dust them all off for a quick run. Thanks.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

GeneSteeler — 2008-05-15T01:49:02+00:00

Gosh, I gotta play this again. Our games in the early 80's tended to end up two giant lines facing each other with each line trying to outflank the other. Underestimated indeed!

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

Trelane — 2008-05-14T21:33:36+00:00

Joe: Just a note to let you know how a Mountain unit can contest the Blue Capital on Turn one- Mountain unit is moved to Sea port city C 13-16. Paratroop unit is dropped on Blue Capital, Sea movement of Mountain unit transfers to Blue Capital and is moved onto Mountain near the edge of the Capital with a choice of negating the road or using the river to add to the defensive position. You then withdraw the paratroop unit (it can still move using road movement back toward Reds own lines!) Then you try to mount pressure in the center using Red forces to split Blue in half. Also, the beauty of the 1958 rules booklet, the "Reserve" units. Effectively a "secret army" that can be posted on the most forward area of your lines! Very effective!
Red Island Isolation?(Unlike the Blue Capital, the Red Capital is garrisoned by a HQ unit of First Army group on the initial set up) So, take Blue Paratroop and drop it on turn one on the city at C8-16 or C13-16, start moving units in by sea (easiest place is Blue Capital as it it centrally located) and place them on the mainland side of the bridges, march the paratroop unit up the road to the remaining city and bring in more troops, use C 13-16 as your main bridgehead and bring in more troops by sea to attack against First Army set up area and units in IIC set up area and "Replacements" area. Use other paratroop unit to capture C3-28, bring in a mountain unit by sea, capture the isolated mountain to negate the road and use an infantry unit to secure the bridge in the forest area and also the forest area near (diagonally, that is) the road (remember, no Armor can enter a forest!) the road between the mountain and forest will be immune from attack by an armored unit so the odds against your loss will be less. Use this to fill that road and the others with more infantry and armor down the roads to attack the units on the other side of the island still sitting in their initial set up areas and to keep up the pressure on the isolated island. Red units will find it tough to control the area if Blue keeps the pressure up by pouring units in and eventually that Island will fall with 3 cities possibly lost already! (You can also use your Amphibious units to invade the beaches (either one on the island, one each) and perform the same action as the paratroop unit.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

521tiger — 2008-05-14T20:24:43+00:00

Trelane wrote:
So please fellow gamers! Before passing judgement on this game consider if you are really playing it right.

Michael,
I really appreciate your review! Tactics II was may very first wargame which I did understand entirly and played it everlasting solitair AND with friends during my time at university!!! Even the fact that I advanced into new fields of wargaming during the following 30+ years, didn't change my opinion to agree with your view of how to use the different units during an planned invasion. I was always sorry about geeks who downgraded this lovely piece just because it was "born" some decades ago! I rated it a 9 !!!

Cheers to you

Andy (521tiger)

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

Trelane — 2008-05-14T20:03:42+00:00

Guy in answer to your Tactics II tournament competition question, the average took only 1 to 2 hours to conclude. In fact, in my final I was Blue. I did NOT have the first turn. (Generally very bad!). I noted the rules of no replacements and went after the Armor units and Specialists. During the entire game I did not get once into Red territory! Yet the game was won near the Blue Capital with 4 to 1 odds in my favor, forcing the surrender of my opponent. (Who had already won 4 of the 7 tournaments of AH classics that week!) He did not understand how he lost until I told him.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

isaacc — 2008-05-14T19:42:33+00:00

An underappreciated game. Good review. Time to pull it out again.
.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

Sprydle — 2008-05-14T17:42:50+00:00

Thanks for reviewing this and bringing it back to mind--it's been 30 years since I last played it. Your reminder has made me want to break it out again. I think even more than not understanding how to play (now) it's more a case of people not remembering correctly how they played, or as with many "first" games, actually were playing it incorrectly in their youth.

Out of curiosity, how long does it take you to play a game (using the tournament, no reinforcement rules)?

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

trojanman — 2008-05-14T16:50:25+00:00

Nice review. My father collected AH games when I was a kid. I used to play with the pieces before I understood the game, but this was the first wargame I actually played correctly. I used it just this year to teach my younger brother into wargames.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

TheChin! — 2008-05-14T16:09:36+00:00

Trelane wrote:
Fluidity is the key to this game and most offensive minded people using the pieces properly will bring quick victory against average players.

I have to ashamedly admit that I was one of those 'average' players. This was one of my first wargames, I played a few times in my teens and stopped playing when I purchased Blitzkrieg. I was under the misconception that Tactics II devolved into a a huge fight in the middle with little depth in general. I thought Blitzkrieg was the game that fixed those faults. I see from you post that I may have missed some of the more subtle aspects of the game (I was a kid afterall), and now I want to try it again to see if what you say is true.

Thread: Tactics II: The first and most misunderstood Wargame

Trelane — 2008-05-14T15:13:54+00:00

The great Charles S. Roberts was working out of his garage when he gave the world the first set of Avalon Hill titles. Tactics II was the noble son of an earlier work known as "Tactics" from 1954. Since that time, players have sought more historical battles then just the idea of "Red" versus "Blue".
However, having played this game now for over 50 years, and winning one of the tournaments in the mid-1990s where Tactics II was featured; I have come to know that almost no one really understands how to mobilize and use the units properly!
If we look back prior to 1973, and consult the 1958 and 1961 editions, it is a little more clear in the rules as to how "0-5 HQ" units and Specialists should be played. Now what brings me to this point? Well, quite frankly, players tend to spend the first turn leaving their initial set-up areas, move units to the middle of the board to defend bridges, waterways, etc. and then try to flank their way through into enemy territory. This concept generally will make the game rather tedious and long running, without the fireworks that were originally intended in the "Blitzkrieg" ideology.
This game should be fast moving! For example, if Red has the opening move, on the first turn the Blue Capital can be contested with ONE mountain unit. The extraction of this pressuring unit will take the best effort or luck to get rid of it.
Paratroop units and Amphibian units tend to be used by average players as a type of "Ranger". They will move them to an isolated beach and march them up to a city or take the paratroopers and use them to drop behind the main lines and increase odds from a "2 to 1" to a "3 to 1". Although this is OK, it is far better to use these units for the "isolation" rule or ensure destruction of an armored unit by surrounding it with ZOCs.

Headquarters units were originally a "span of control" counter for individual corps. They also carried the nuclear missile options and each was different in what effect they carried. Now, they are used to garrison lonely cities, front line drones, etc.
Mountain units are powerful. They can control roads, especially in that area on the left of "Reds" territory, where there is one lonely mountain next to a road. Remember: Mountain unit ZOCs cannot be entered. So it negates the road access. If a paratroop unit is dropped on the city on the first turn by Blue, then he can rush a ton of units down the area and cut off the Island while attacking the initial set-up areas of Red on that turn. Subsequent battles will be fed by back up troops continually coming in by sea to that city as the original rules set that there is NO LIMIT to the amount of units that can come in by sea to an uncontested city that is captured even in the same turn. (This is almost always forgotten by today's players)
So a sweep invasion that cuts off the Red Island can be done and those bridges are not as easy to take back as a player may believe. Units on the Island become trapped and eliminated in two turns!
I once witnessed a tournament player conduct an invasion on turn one with Red through the forest road! Of course he was bottled up quickly and his attempt to flank the Capital of Blue never succeeded. Simply the rule that allows you to bring in reinforcements by sea in an unlimited way will prevent any invading army from getting to you and splitting Blue in half. (Unless you contest the Capital on turn one with your mountain unit! SEE.....)
Also, remember in tournament play that there are NO replacements every third turn. So eliminated units never come back. What does this imply? The Armor units should be eliminated as soon as possible. I have seen opponents forget this basic idea and lose 5 Armored Divisions before they woke up! Then of course it was too late. Suicidal one to one attacks followed by "4 to 1 " or better attacks on my turn forced surrender very quickly.
So please fellow gamers! Before passing judgement on this game consider if you are really playing it right. Too many "Follow the Leader" ideas result in missed opportunity. Fluidity is the key to this game and most offensive minded people using the pieces properly will bring quick victory against average players.

Thread: Re: User Review

Trelane — 2008-05-13T20:19:12+00:00

I was glancing through your material on Tactics II. I am responding because you stated that you have the 1973 edition, and noted several problems related to the use of certain units, specialists, etc. In order to understand the intent of these units, you have to return to the original set of rules back in '58 and the reorganization of '61.
In the 1958 edition the HQ units had a role along with the original areas that you set your pieces up to start the game. Each HQ had a span of control for the units within it's command area. It was an optional rule that you could add to the mix along with weather cards, etc. Also, HQ units had the nuclear missile capacity, and each type fired a different atomic weapon.
Specialists such as Paratroop units were able to be flown from "any" square on the board and dropped on any square save for forests and mountains or ZOC's. This was useful for the "surround" rule. The '73 edition limited the role of paratroop units with new requirements. Mountain units were such that their ZOC could not be entered. Therefore, if you captured the mountain area that has only one mountain by that road near the city on the right you controlled the road area and forced every unit leave it. The only way to disperse the unit was a 1 to 1 attack on a diagonal with another mountain unit. Also, the Blue Capital could be permanently contested by a mountain unit exerting a ZOC into the Captial by hanging around on the Mountain area on the outskirts of the city. It prevented replacements under the old rules of an armored unit returning from the replacement pile.
So you see the roles of the units are just not properly understood due to subtle changes over the years that changed them into more battle minded assist units rather than the independent operators for which they were originally intended.

Image

jsper — 2008-03-15T05:43:21+00:00

Promotional

Thread: Re: Is this available online via Cyberboard or Vassal??

prodgers — 2008-02-09T22:38:33+00:00

I posted one on Vassal myself not to long ago. There's also a cyberboard version out there

Thread: Re: User Review

Michael Dorosh — 2008-02-02T23:29:48+00:00

Ok, realizing it is several years later, but anyway - there was indeed a variant in the The General making use of those unused counters and providing an entire amphibious/airborne corps IIRC.

Thread: Re: River rules

alexprague — 2007-03-24T17:47:57+00:00

It may depend on which rules you use.
My 1958 rule book states:

"Units attacking across a bridge retain their combat factor, but only one unit can cross a bridge at a time."

I just came across this very issue. In a battle in the city to the far north, I had an armored unit attacking an enemy infantry unit across the bridge. That put the odds unchanged at 2:1.

I also had two infatry on either side of the armor. Because they were across the river from the enemy and had no bridge themselves, they didn't have to attack. If they did, their attack would be halved.

I couldn't find a reference to bridge combat in the most recent version of official rules posted on BGG.

Thread: Re: Are the Bridges to the Red Capital, Individual Spaces?

Duglis — 2007-03-13T04:53:19+00:00

Thank You!

Thread: Re: Are the Bridges to the Red Capital, Individual Spaces?

G Haggerty — 2007-03-13T02:39:26+00:00

From the original rule book found in the Links section here:

Bridges leading to the Red and Blue Capitals hold ONE Unit each, regardless of the fact they join 2 sea squares. The attacker has the choice of which sea square side of the bridge to place his Unit.

So units go on the bridge (i.e., in one of the two sea squares whose common edge has the bridge symbol).

Thread: Are the Bridges to the Red Capital, Individual Spaces?

Duglis — 2007-03-12T19:17:45+00:00

prizziap wrote:
... The bridges to the Red Capital Island- we always played that the bridges themselves counted as a space, so a unit was ON the bridge. I'm not sure if that was per the rules?

TheChin! wrote:
It's been a long time, but I think that we played that you were NOT on the bridge if you were in the hex. For the simple reason that a whole unit at that scale wouldn't fit on a bridge, especially armor, unless it was like the Golden Gate or something.

Great Question. It left me perplexed.

Does anyone out there know the definitive answer for this? Do the bridges count as spaces or dont't they?

Thanks to anyone who answers!

Doug

Image

Duglis — 2006-12-31T22:21:39+00:00

Box Cover Art

Thread: Re: River rules

ianh — 2006-12-16T05:34:09+00:00

Thanks!

Thread: Re: River rules

TheChin! — 2006-12-14T13:36:04+00:00

It's been a long time, but I think that we played that you were NOT on the bridge if you were in the hex. For the simple reason that a whole unit at that scale wouldn't fit on a bridge, especially armor, unless it was like the Golden Gate or something.

Thread: Re: River rules

prizziap — 2006-12-14T06:07:37+00:00

That's correct. You still get the defensive bonus of the river even with a bridge.

Now the bridges to the Red Capital Island- we always played that the bridges themselves counted as a space, so a unit was ON the bridge. I'm not sure if that was per the rules or just the way we played, it's been awhile.

Thread: Re: River rules

wargamer55 — 2006-12-14T05:46:27+00:00

Generally bridges do not negate the combat effects of rivers, just movement. Fighting you way across a bridge is pretty difficult.

Thread: River rules

ianh — 2006-12-14T03:43:53+00:00

Just a quick question:

Do bridges negate effect of rivers on combat, or just on movement?

Image

cmhladik — 2006-10-29T22:59:45+00:00

Avalon Hill catalog listing from 1975

Thread: Is this available online via Cyberboard or Vassal??

joemac2 — 2006-10-17T16:33:16+00:00

I have looked around and cannot find anything for Vassal or Cyberboard on this? Is anyone aware of an online application?

Thread: Re: Tactics II: Anyone able to send us the rules??

gregu33701 — 2006-08-27T17:32:35+00:00

Thanks Chris.
I will post my code and game as it comes along.
As a young boy in the 70's and 80's, my father was in the military, and I soon followed, this game provided hours of fun for me and my brothers and friends.
GregU

Thread: Re: Tactics II: Anyone able to send us the rules??

TheCat — 2006-08-27T03:15:08+00:00

I posted them at http://gesserit.net/chris/tacticsii/ and submitted it as a link for the game page. The rules are in psd (Photoshop) and png formats.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: Anyone able to send us the rules??

gregu33701 — 2006-08-19T18:28:19+00:00

I would also like a copy of the rules, I played tactics a lot in my younger years and am writing a prog in vb2005 and would like to use the rules as a guide.
My email is gregu33701@yahoo.com

Image

Athena60_98 — 2006-07-02T12:39:46+00:00

Time Record Card

Image

Athena60_98 — 2006-07-02T12:32:36+00:00

Weather Table

Thread: Re: Tactics II: Anyone able to send us the rules??

Athena60_98 — 2006-07-02T08:15:49+00:00

Uploaded the rules pages, weather table & Time Record Card. You can go to My yahoo Photos for Tactics II Rules at http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/athena60_98/album?.dir=/fe83sc..._

Watch your Six!!
Julie

Thread: Re: missing the CRT!

Athena60_98 — 2006-07-01T08:58:43+00:00

It is VERY large file. Having a hard time downloading and printing the CRT.

Check your SIX!
Julie

Thread: Re: Tactics II: Anyone able to send us the rules??

GeorgeHa — 2006-06-20T22:36:26+00:00

Thanks John, my scans ended up to be 3+ megs in size, I hate to post something that size.

Thread: Re: Tactics II: Anyone able to send us the rules??

jmellby — 2006-06-20T16:49:59+00:00

I just uploaded a scanned set of rules pages.
If you really need them immediately, give my your email
and I'll send them.

JRM

Image

kbernatz — 2006-06-20T02:09:35+00:00

unpunched counters

Thread: New Thread Requesting Rules Posted Here

MuirCadah — 2006-06-08T23:04:01+00:00

I've seen a few people offer to email rules to interested parties. Is there any reason the rules couldn't just be posted to the Files section like the other game components?

PLEASE?

Thread: Re: Tactics II: Anyone able to send us the rules??

MuirCadah — 2006-06-07T17:47:58+00:00

I just bought the game on ebay sans rules. I would love a copy of the game, and a parts list if possible. Without the rulebook, I don't know if I'm missing anything else!

Frank

Thread: Re: Completely new to wargaming...

mactmctac — 2006-04-22T15:44:16+00:00

I just replied to Bill and played it as only units adjacent to a hex/square could be involved in combat. Seemed to make the most sense to me.

I hope a "meh" experience with Tactic II doesn't turn you off of wargames. I remember playing that one when I was 11 and found it so themeless and uninteresting that my wargame-crazy cousin had to work hard for almost a year to convince me to try another one (and maybe my bank account would be better off if he never did ).

Ty and I enjoyed it (Tactics II) for what it was and look forward to trying some other games. Have you ever tried Afrika Korps? That has gotten some recommendations as a nice beginner game and looks to be next on my purchase list.

Thread: Re: Completely new to wargaming...

mactmctac — 2006-04-22T15:39:16+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I think it makes sense that only units adjacent to one another can be involved in a battle and is how we played it, but the CRT chart with numbers up to 60 really threw me. There seems to be no way to get those numbers.

We finished the game and even though it wasn't the best game I've ever played it certainly gave a nice introduction regarding some war-gaming basics.

1. Keeping the chits in the squares for someone as anal-retentive as myself is VERY important (LOL)

2. It takes more turns than expected to move your armies into position to begin skirmishes (which is a plus to me but not so much for my son). I like watching things develop.

All-in-all, I think we may have found something to do together for years to come.

Have you ever played Afrika Korps? It seems that has gotten quite a few nice reviews as a beginner type war game.

Thread: Re: Completely new to wargaming...

BillSkulley — 2006-04-21T00:28:59+00:00

I can't think a game that would allow it. Not to say one doesn't exist, but that if it does it would be a rare exception. Many games do not even allow for attacks into more than one hex at a time.

Hmmm, I may have to turn in my grognard card, as it appears at a quick (short) glance that you are correct. My D-Day instructions (1965) are the only ones which imply that it might be allowable based on the verbage under Multiple Unit Battles of "choice of dividing combat into more than one battle)" and the complete absence of an adjacency rule. My Bulge, TRC, Gettysburg '88 and Blitzkrieg all have the adjacency rule. The game I was most thinking would allow for the "big battle" was 3R but I don't have a copy of it any longer...

I find it amusing that I've operated under this misconception probably for my entire wargaming past... I'm sure it hasn't come up often in any case...

Thread: Re: Completely new to wargaming...

Kevin Moody — 2006-04-20T17:33:14+00:00

This is odd to me, as it appears 5 attackers and defenders in a line cannot be resolved as a single combat as all attackers are not adjacent to all defenders; I would have thought that to be legal (and probaby have incorrectly played it as such) and I believe it is in other games I can't think a game that would allow it. Not to say one doesn't exist, but that if it does it would be a rare exception. Many games do not even allow for attacks into more than one hex at a time.

I hope a "meh" experience with Tactic II doesn't turn you off of wargames. I remember playing that one when I was 11 and found it so themeless and uninteresting that my wargame-crazy cousin had to work hard for almost a year to convince me to try another one (and maybe my bank account would be better off if he never did ).

Thread: Re: Completely new to wargaming...

BillSkulley — 2006-04-20T02:46:20+00:00

Im my copy of the rulebook, on page 5 there is a section called "WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE UNIT PER SIDE INVOLVED IN ONE ATTACK", and what it basically says (with some caveats) is that the attacker can split up combats any way desired so long as each attacker and defender is involved in one and only one combat and each attacking unit is adjacent to all defenders in the combat. So, if you've got 5 attackers facing 5 defenders in a line, you can make one combat of the middle 3 attackers against the single middle defender and 1 attacker on each end vs two defenders on each end (1 3:1 and 2 1:2s), 5 seperate attacks (5 1:1s), or any other combination where each attacking unit is adjacent to all defending units in the combat.

This is odd to me, as it appears 5 attackers and defenders in a line cannot be resolved as a single combat as all attackers are not adjacent to all defenders; I would have thought that to be legal (and probaby have incorrectly played it as such) and I believe it is in other games. Using these rules, you can't get a 37-29 odds, but other games which use the same CRT may allow it (it is used in other games as well).

I could be wrong... but don't see how you could interpret case 2) in that section any other way, even if it seems odd to me.

Thread: Completely new to wargaming...

mactmctac — 2006-04-19T15:51:14+00:00

Everyone

Just found this site and have been a boardgamer since my youth in the 70's but have just begun to try wargames. Found Tactics II on ebay and bought it to try with my 13 year old son.

If you've played Tactics II recently (or remember much about the game) we've have run into our first rules question. If all attacking units must be adjacent to a defending unit (correct?), how can you get odds such as 37-29? Also say I've got 5 attacking units in a row directly opposite 5 defending units. Can I just say these 5 units are attacking those 5 units as a group?

If you can't remember I completely understand but was just hoping someone might read this and know the answers. Thanks and look forward to getting active in the community!

Mike C

Thread: Re: General Comment / Request for parts list

MrGim — 2006-01-18T16:51:57+00:00

I have lost my rules. Could you please forward the ruels to me?

My email is j.true@insightbb.com

Thanks!!!!

Image

belial1134 — 2005-11-13T20:30:59+00:00

Image

cln777 — 2005-07-29T13:02:44+00:00

All the counters that come with the game.