Game: Manoeuvre

Thread: Re: A plea to GMT...

tw252 — 2008-05-09T03:50:17+00:00

I would say making some expansion decks, like Swedish, 2nd French (featuring the likes of Massena, Suchet,......)

Thread: GMT Customer Service FTW!

cobalt60 — 2008-05-09T03:35:01+00:00

I just had to jump on here real quick and sing the praises of GMT Customer Service. I received my copy of Manoeuvre yesterday, and upon opening found all the lovely components except the rulebook and one of the reference cards! :cry: I sent an email to GMT last night (well past business hours,) and a short while ago (they must have just walked in the office out there in CA) Denise from GMT sent me a nice email letting me know the missing components will be in the mail today.

In this day and age of lousy customer service, it's nice to see a company take care of an issue so promptly.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: to GMT!

Thread: Re: A plea to GMT...

craniac — 2008-05-09T01:55:56+00:00

Anyone have any idea what it would take to make this a reality?

Sell a similar version of the game to Z-man games, like Jason Matthews did with Twilight Struggle: [GAMEID=27708]

Thread: Re: A plea to GMT...

Sturmkraehe — 2008-05-09T07:53:17+00:00

8 decks/480 full sized cards would probably add at least 50% to the price of the game.

Yeah, Kevin, I had thought of that too. The only answer I have is that the decks could be released separately which would cut the cost for the gamer but make things prohibitively fiddly for GMT or just produce a small batch of the cards enough to placate those of us who'd be willing to spend $25 for a full set of cards.

I picture Manoeuvre becoming a mainstay at WBC. Larger cards would help it earn this position easier and probably give a good market for full-sized cards. Realistically, though, I'd never picture this as a money maker for GMT.

Thread: Re: A plea to GMT...

kduke — 2008-05-09T05:50:59+00:00

"number orientation" has been suggested and approved. They would like heavier maps and counters I know-- selling lots of games and hearing these kinds of appeals may do it.

8 decks/480 full sized cards would probably add at least 50% to the price of the game.

Thread: Re: A plea to GMT...

kentreuber — 2008-05-09T04:43:15+00:00

I'd like to see thicker maps, and I'd like to see each map printed with a number and orientation so that you could construct maps for play-by-email.

Thread: Re: A plea to GMT...

Aldaron — 2008-05-09T04:42:14+00:00

A version printed in the US or Europe would be nice too.

Thread: A plea to GMT...

Sturmkraehe — 2008-05-09T04:34:36+00:00

I've just watched the 5th copy of Manoeuvre go off the shelf at my FLGS in the past month which to me says this game is pretty popular. If the popularity continues I am wondering if GMT would consider selling upgraded components in the same way that they have done the larger maps for games such as Paths of Glory or For the People.

Not so much the maps (Manoeuvre's maps are pretty easy to attach backing to so that they have more substance), but it would be great to have full sized, professionally laminated cards for each power.

Anyone have any idea what it would take to make this a reality?

Thread: Re: Summary of rulings and important clarifications as posted by Jeff Horger (designer)

tarheel — 2008-05-09T01:46:19+00:00

Added #20 re the fields/marsh and no force marches

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

mbrugato — 2008-05-08T11:12:41+00:00

Chad Jensen wrote:
But not on Tuesdays, right?

I don't know about Tuedays, but definitely not on Mother's Day for those of us with a non-gamer wife with kids. Cavalry and foot unit movement had best be zero on that day. :(
:p

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Chad Jensen — 2008-05-08T09:48:05+00:00

But not on Tuesdays, right?

Thread: Re: Forced March & Fields/Marshes

Jeff Horger — 2008-05-08T08:26:13+00:00

tarheel wrote:
Sphere wrote:
It boils down to two cases:

1) If a unit starts its turn in a field/marsh, it can't do a forced march.

2) If a unit moves into a field/marsh, it can't do a forced march.

The first case is clear from the rules. The second case isn't, but Jeff's answers spell it out. If Jeff intended the 2nd case to replace the 1st, instead of extend it, he hasn't said that.

Item 1 is spelled out in the rulebook pg 18:
Units that begin their move in either a Field or a Marsh square may not play a Forced March card to extend their movement.

Item 2 extends it exactly as stated. If you move into a Field/Marsh, you cannot perform further movement with that piece. It all ends. You cannot Force March out of it.

You may however, move a square (or two if cav) and then force march into a field/marsh because it doesn't matter how you got there, just that once you are there, you will be penalized.

George is quite right and I think Jeff has made this much clear. I feel that any other interpretations are likely to create further confusion, because what George has summarized above seems supported by the rules and Jeff's answer.

Jeff, shall I put this in the FAQ then in this fashion?

Yes, Thanks

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Jeff Horger — 2008-05-08T08:21:29+00:00

Sorry, this is the most hectic week of the year (worse than Valentine's day) for us florists. Cavalry may move 1 or 2 squares.

Thread: Re: Summary of rulings and important clarifications as posted by Jeff Horger (designer)

tarheel — 2008-05-08T06:07:31+00:00

Added item #19 that cav can move 1 or 2 squares

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

cobalt60 — 2008-05-08T11:31:29+00:00

wmmotley wrote:
I'm squarely with sphere on this one.

Very nice :D

Thread: Re: A review not a rulebook overview.

kixdsky — 2008-05-08T04:16:25+00:00

coyotelaughs wrote:

what really ups the ante is the fact that you get enough components in the box to play 4 games of Manoeuvere simultaneously. This makes it great for a gaming group and defiantly increases its bang for the buck.

Hmmm, never looked at it that way. Way cool observation! For that alone you earned my thumb and a tip.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

noddingoff — 2008-05-08T04:08:32+00:00

You're all pixilated.

Robin

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

tarheel — 2008-05-08T02:17:41+00:00

This from consimworld ([url]http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@351.eFardZZ11fr.16@.1dcfdc10/85[/url]), posted by Jeff Horger himself a while back when describing the game. I think this resolves this, but would be great for him to support with a fresh statement.

Play is made up of only a few steps. 1) Discard any cards you don't want, this is important when you end up with cards from units in your dead pile. 2) Draw your hand up to 5 cards. 3) Move 1 unit either 1 space for infantry or 1-2 spaces for cavalry. forced March cards allow a unit to move one extra space and a Supply card can allow a move with an additional unit. No one moves diagonally and there is no stacking.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

kduke — 2008-05-08T01:41:36+00:00

Yeah, I was afraid those lofty allusions (illusions?) to "chess like" would muddle things.

It's on squares. That doesn't make it chess.

And cavalry can move one or 2 spaces (unless something prevents them from moving the 2nd space.)

Thread: Re: A review not a rulebook overview.

coyotelaughs — 2008-05-08T01:23:10+00:00

Sarge77 wrote:
Seems GMT is always having production value issues. :shake:I dont think there is a production issue. I think alot has to do with the expectations of euro gamers buying war games. As a long time wargamer I think GMT's products are top notch. my $.02

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

voynix — 2008-05-08T01:17:37+00:00

It is utterly ridiculous saying cavalry MUST move 2 spaces. What kind of stupid rule would force you to move your units more than you want them to move?

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

wmmotley — 2008-05-08T01:05:10+00:00

I'm squarely with sphere on this one.

Actually, I'm not exactly with him in the sense that I see don't this as a debate to carry. I don't really care what "may" really means or even how Jeff comes down on this - for me and mine, cav moves 1 or 2. No madness here.

Thread: Re: A review not a rulebook overview.

Sarge77 — 2008-05-08T12:42:29+00:00

Seems GMT is always having production value issues. :shake:

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

tarheel — 2008-05-07T11:33:35+00:00

Yeehaw, quite a nice discussion so far. Can't wait for Jeff to pop in and smack us down once and for all on this.

Hey, didn't I read somewhere that Guard Units get to capture en passant??

:D

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Sphere — 2008-05-07T11:00:13+00:00

Petdoc wrote:
Just for fun you should try playing with the 2 move only rule. Makes for an interesting game that is much more chess-like.

If Jeff says that's how it has been during his years of playtest, I guess I'll have to try it. If that happens, every time I'm unable to stop my horse, I'll be doing my best Yosemite Sam:[COLOR=#FF0000]"Ya mangy varmint, when I sez whoa, I mean WHOOOAAA!!!"[/COLOR]

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Petdoc — 2008-05-07T10:49:05+00:00

Sphere wrote:
TommieSL wrote:

2) The body text for section 5 Movement, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence quotes... "Some terrain may restrict Cavalry to moving only 1 square" [my emphasis]

I don't see that one as evidence. Certain terrain does restrict Cavalry to moving only one square. That doesn't imply that this is the only method by which it could move only 1 square.

Another point to consider is that on a map with no fields or marshes, half of the squares on the board would be unreachable for any cavalry unit until it participated in a combat and did an advance or retreat. Then all the squares it could originally get to would be unreachable.

Madness, I tell you.

Or does a forced march.
I went back and forth on this and I wouldn't be surprised if Jeff came on and said 'of course they can move 1 or 2 you idiots'. This game is so different than any other war game I've played that I start to doubt the assumptions that I make based on previous wargames if it is not spelled out in the rules. Makes you realized how good Bowen's rules are as those are very unconventional wargames as well. Just for fun you should try playing with the 2 move only rule. Makes for an interesting game that is much more chess-like.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

TommieSL — 2008-05-07T10:42:00+00:00

Yeah you win.
I must be mad.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Sphere — 2008-05-07T10:41:22+00:00

TommieSL wrote:
As for your example above - I think of any infantry that moves into the 'safer' hexes (versus Cavalry) as formed into 'square'.
Then again, I may be totally wrong.

I think the placement of a 'redoubt' would be a better approximation of forming a square. You don't march a hundred yards toward the enemy cav to form a square, you do it where you stand.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Sphere — 2008-05-07T10:38:16+00:00

TommieSL wrote:

2) The body text for section 5 Movement, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence quotes... "Some terrain may restrict Cavalry to moving only 1 square" [my emphasis]

I don't see that one as evidence. Certain terrain does restrict Cavalry to moving only one square. That doesn't imply that this is the only method by which it could move only 1 square.

Another point to consider is that on a map with no fields or marshes, half of the squares on the board would be unreachable for any cavalry unit until it participated in a combat and did an advance or retreat. Then all the squares it could originally get to would be unreachable.

Madness, I tell you.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

TommieSL — 2008-05-07T10:33:16+00:00

Sphere wrote:
OK, let's put it this way. If you have a damaged unit that is afraid cavalry might charge, you're saying you could prevent that by moving towards the cav?

Why should Cavalry have absolute manoeuvrability - isn't there a degree of design for effect here in the 2 space minimum - least that's my take.

As for your example above - I think of any infantry that moves into the 'safer' hexes (versus Cavalry) as formed into 'square'.
Then again, I may be totally wrong.

As I said earlier up thread - I like the added wrinkle it provides. One example of this is how it adds extra 'weight' to the forced march for Cavalry.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Sphere — 2008-05-07T10:26:24+00:00

OK, let's put it this way. If you have a damaged unit that is afraid cavalry might charge, you're saying you could prevent that by moving towards the cav?

These rules weren't written in the Bowen Simmons style, where every word means precisely what it says. The FAQ is a testament to that.

As for using the diagram as evidence, we already know that the victory point diagram is incorrect. I think the cav move diagram just shows the 2 space moves to clarify that diagonals don't work. It wasn't intended to mean that cavalry can't move a single space.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'll be shocked if Jeff says he meant to deny cavalry the ability to move 1 space.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

TommieSL — 2008-05-07T10:13:04+00:00

Sphere wrote:
Are you guys saying that if a cav started next to a marsh, it couldn't enter it because it's not a two space move? Let's not entirely abandon common sense.

Cavalry may move 2 spaces, not must move 2 spaces.

No, quite the contrary.
See my quote above... "Some terrain may restrict Cavalry to moving only 1 square" eg Marsh. Cavalry starting adjacent, can legitimately move in but must stop (thereby only moving 1 space). End of.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Sphere — 2008-05-07T10:09:58+00:00

Are you guys saying that if a cav started next to a marsh, it couldn't enter it because it's not a two space move? Let's not entirely abandon common sense.

Cavalry may move 2 spaces, not must move 2 spaces.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Petdoc — 2008-05-07T10:08:35+00:00

I had originally assumed one or two spaces but for the reasons listed above I've come to think it is probably 2 only. It seems such an inane thing to debate, common sense says they can move 1 or 2 spaces, but It's not really spelled out anywhere and all of the examples and verbiage in the rules only talk about 2 spaces.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

TommieSL — 2008-05-07T10:02:06+00:00

voynix wrote:
The cavalry certainly can opt to move just one space

Mmm, I'm not so sure.
2 reasons...

1) The movement example on page 9 shows all Cavalry movement as 2 spaces and quotes... Cavalry Move = 2 spaces

2) The body text for section 5 Movement, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence quotes... "Some terrain may restrict Cavalry to moving only 1 square" [my emphasis]

Of course, this is slighty 'muddied' by the very first sentence... "...and Cavalry may move 2 squares".

Actually the 'must be' 2 Cavalry move adds a whole new wrinkle to the game - I like it (even though it may not be the right interpretation)

Thread: Re: A review not a rulebook overview.

denverarch — 2008-05-07T09:51:33+00:00

Good review, right at the limit of my concentration currently. A day later now and I'm yearning for another game with different armies and different terrain.

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

voynix — 2008-05-07T09:51:02+00:00

The cavalry certainly can opt to move just one space

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

tarheel — 2008-05-07T09:25:40+00:00

If this turns out to be the case, sure does change things quite a bit. I could envision situations where cav could be hemmed in by its own and opponents units where it couldn't move the 2 spaces. This definitely would be very odd indeed as I'd think horses could either 'walk' or 'charge'

Thread: Re: Cavalry movement

Petdoc — 2008-05-07T09:23:51+00:00

I had exactly the same situation. Its the first 'war game' I've owned that you had to move the full movement and no less. I've started to think of it like chess now, where the cavalry is the knight and has to move the full distance, albeit in any direction.

Thread: Cavalry movement

tarheel — 2008-05-07T09:16:28+00:00

Jeff,

I got online today to play a game with a friend via VASSAL. We got about 10 moves into the game when we hit a roadblock. I've been playing, and thought the rules indicated, that you could move a Cavalry unit 1 OR 2 spaces. He however, interprets the rules to be only 2 squares. The rules say "Cavalry may move 2 Squares" and the picture at the bottom of the page shows cavalry moving 2 squares in all instances on the example so I suppose there isn't a place it says they can opt to move only 1 space.

So, was I wrong???

Can Cavalry move 1 OR 2 spaces at its discretion, or must it always move 2 squares (unless otherwise prohibited by terrain)?

Something else I thought I was clear on...

Brad

Thread: Re: A review not a rulebook overview.

kduke — 2008-05-07T09:13:08+00:00

Interesting observations and I agree with much of it. Items like component quality are subjective, of course. Most people I have seen have commented on the cards being small but very sturdy, while they (and I) were disappointed at the thinness of the counters. I think they actually are about "very average wargame counter" thick, but since they are 1" square, they seem thinner in proportion. (I know the designer and several people at GMT expressed disappointment- they were expecting more, but things from China can sometimes be surprising.)

But yes, having 8 different army sets does make for intersting combinations. Replay value high.

Checking out the FAQ will really help newcomers, as there are some items that are not intuitive and a couple things are contradicted between rules/charts/cards. That can be confusing.

Thread: Re: Bombardment

wkover — 2008-05-07T06:59:25+00:00

In the case of either a bombardment or volley, only the following are relevant: the volley/bombardment die roll of the attacking unit, the strength of the defending unit, and terrain effects. The defender cannot use the Withdraw card in this case.

Thread: A review not a rulebook overview.

coyotelaughs — 2008-05-07T06:13:36+00:00

Manoeuvre: A light war game / abstract.

First off I will not go into the rules of the game here. They have been restated numerous times with considerably more skill, clarity and precision then I would be able to in other posts on this site so what I will do is answer the questions I normally ask someone when I’m about to play or buy a game for the first time.

Conclusion: (for those too lazy to read the whole thing). Manoeuvre is a great game that should not be overlooked if you’re looking for a light war game. It’s abstracted but very fun. If you buy it you will not be disappointed.

How many players can play? 2

What is the quality of the components (bang for the buck)? This is actually a tough one. The map boards are flimsy and bow a little and the cards are tiny but serviceable. On the positive the counters are nice thick card board and what really ups the ante is the fact that you get enough components in the box to play 4 games of Manoeuvere simultaneously. This makes it great for a gaming group and defiantly increases its bang for the buck. Expect GMT quality components but a lot of them.

How easy is it to learn? Fairly easy. The rules are very well written and there are nice diagrams to show you most rules. You will however have to look back at rules for the first couple of plays until you get the mechanics ands steps down for each type of combat. This is helped by nice user reference cards and when you are fairly familiar with the combat these are all you need.

How long does it take? Box says 60 minutes. As in most games it will take longer the first time you play but once you get the mechanics down an hour is about right.

What itch does this scratch? Light Napoleonic themed war game abstraction that can be played in an hour. This is a game that could be enjoyed as an abstract war game or as a very light Napoleonic war game. It’s a lighter Combat Commander: Europe but scratches the CC:E itch with less rules.

What is the replay value? Very High. With 8 armies and 32 map sections to choose from as well as the random element of the cards. This game should be play different every time you play.

Does this game reward skill or is it a pure luck fest? Skill. The better player should win in this game. The luck portion are the cards and dice but can defiantly be mitigated by good play.

In Conclusion: Manouever is one of the better light war themed games out there. Its worth buying and is a must buy if your gaming group plays two player games since you can play multiple games of Manouever at the same time with just one box. Buy it, you wont be sorry.

Thread: Bombardment

dopamina — 2008-05-07T05:30:48+00:00

Can the defender withdraw after he lost a bombardment attack or he just take a hit?

Thnx :)

Thread: Re: Forced March & Fields/Marshes

tarheel — 2008-05-07T03:04:05+00:00

Sphere wrote:
It boils down to two cases:

1) If a unit starts its turn in a field/marsh, it can't do a forced march.

2) If a unit moves into a field/marsh, it can't do a forced march.

The first case is clear from the rules. The second case isn't, but Jeff's answers spell it out. If Jeff intended the 2nd case to replace the 1st, instead of extend it, he hasn't said that.

Item 1 is spelled out in the rulebook pg 18:
Units that begin their move in either a Field or a Marsh square may not play a Forced March card to extend their movement.

Item 2 extends it exactly as stated. If you move into a Field/Marsh, you cannot perform further movement with that piece. It all ends. You cannot Force March out of it.

You may however, move a square (or two if cav) and then force march into a field/marsh because it doesn't matter how you got there, just that once you are there, you will be penalized.

George is quite right and I think Jeff has made this much clear. I feel that any other interpretations are likely to create further confusion, because what George has summarized above seems supported by the rules and Jeff's answer.

Jeff, shall I put this in the FAQ then in this fashion?

Thread: Re: Forced March & Fields/Marshes

Sphere — 2008-05-07T04:38:35+00:00

It boils down to two cases:

1) If a unit starts its turn in a field/marsh, it can't do a forced march.

2) If a unit moves into a field/marsh, it can't do a forced march.

The first case is clear from the rules. The second case isn't, but Jeff's answers spell it out. If Jeff intended the 2nd case to replace the 1st, instead of extend it, he hasn't said that.

Thread: Re: Forced March & Fields/Marshes

kduke — 2008-05-07T03:46:03+00:00

Yes, we're still somewhat in limbo on whether you can enter the field/marsh as the extra move of a forced march as well. tarheel suggested we should be able to, but the earlier clarification said we can't.

Fields & Marshes do stop you for your turn and do not allow forced marches either into or out of.

I would figure that to mean that we can't use a force march if the extra square gets it "into" a field/marsh.

So maybe an overall restating of what is and is not allowed would be helpful to everyone.

Image

mbrugato — 2008-05-07T02:30:32+00:00

Component Storage: 9-compartment fly lure box for the chits, and Ultra-Pro deck cases hold two decks each perfectly. It all fits in the box.

Thread: Re: Forced March & Fields/Marshes

DaviddesJ — 2008-05-07T12:47:25+00:00

Jeff Horger wrote:
Thanks for tidying this up. What you said is on the nose. Once you enter a field or marsh you are done no matter how you got there and may not continue the move further with a forced march.

And if you start in a field can you move out of it and then continue your move with a Forced March? The rulebook seems to say no but maybe, on reflection, I'm interpreting it wrong.

Thread: Re: Forced March & Fields/Marshes

Jeff Horger — 2008-05-07T12:35:04+00:00

Thanks for tidying this up. What you said is on the nose. Once you enter a field or marsh you are done no matter how you got there and may not continue the move further with a forced march.

tarheel wrote:
David,

I think we agree then. Once a unit has entered a field or marsh, its done. Nothing can allow it to move further, but how it got to that square earlier isn't the issue.

I hope this is the intent of Jeff's ruling.

Thread: Re: Forced March & Fields/Marshes

tarheel — 2008-05-06T10:58:57+00:00

David,

I think we agree then. Once a unit has entered a field or marsh, its done. Nothing can allow it to move further, but how it got to that square earlier isn't the issue.

I hope this is the intent of Jeff's ruling.

Image

BobRoberts — 2008-05-03T03:43:44+00:00

Look at all those copies of Manoeuvre behind Chad who is playing the same game.

Image

BobRoberts — 2008-05-03T06:40:47+00:00