Game: Afrika - 2nd Edition

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

jackR24 — 2008-11-28T20:55:37+00:00

Wow. Seriously? I was under the impression that the whole thing only took about 3 hours or so. I guess that's just for the expansions. Boy was I wrong!

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

mcdeans — 2008-11-28T17:37:48+00:00

jackR24 wrote:
About how long did it take you to play it through?
4 evening sessions and 1 day session, so around 20-22 hours in total I reckon.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

jackR24 — 2008-11-28T14:28:44+00:00

About how long did it take you to play it through?

Thread: MMP Black Friday Sale on Afrika 2ed

scrub — 2008-11-28T05:32:04+00:00

http://www.multimanpublishing.com/sale/blackfriday.php

One day only, $12!

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

mcdeans — 2008-11-24T16:02:45+00:00

mikeb13603 wrote:
there are not that many combat die rolls in the game for the luck to "average out".
Or, in my case, enough games. My skill with dice is nothing short of legendary in our gaming group.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

mcdeans — 2008-11-24T16:00:09+00:00

mikeb13603 wrote:
I suppose this underlines that there is a fair bit of variability in the CRT - the die roll makes much more difference to the result than the column shift - and, at 1 turn per month, there are not that many combat die rolls in the game for the luck to "average out".
Yes, the CRT really rewards the 9+ rolls - big step losses and retreats. Get them surrounded and 'D3r3' style results means stacks disappear quickly. An 'average' 7 roll is A1D1, and not much happens. In our game I think my first overrun against the Italians to allow the deep drive rolled an 'A2' result on a 3-1. That stopped the advance cold, as there aren't enough trucks to take supply around the outside - those roads are critical! I still think I've yet to learn how to run a good offense in A2, however, and judicious use of actual units at the front is the issue. (A skill my Axis opponent also didn't learn, fortunately for me.)

mikeb13603 wrote:
Still, it's SCS and that means fast and furious fun.
Absolutely!

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

mikeb13603 — 2008-11-24T12:20:37+00:00

OK, fair enough.

I suppose this underlines that there is a fair bit of variability in the CRT - the die roll makes much more difference to the result than the column shift - and, at 1 turn per month, there are not that many combat die rolls in the game for the luck to "average out".

Still, it's SCS and that means fast and furious fun.

Mike

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

mcdeans — 2008-11-24T01:14:53+00:00

mikeb13603 wrote:
Sounds like you were very timid in the initial CW attacks. You need to meet Rommel a long way W of Tobruk, ideally.
Ideally, yes. But it's really hard to make much progress towards that goal early on when your average combat/overrun dice roll is 4-5. Even more so when your opponent's average roll is 8-9. Then 2 out of 4 replacement rolls in the first four turns were 4-5, so I had to withdraw units, rather than get extra units. Meeting Rommel west of Tobruk was a non-starter, let alone a long way west of Tobruk.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

garysax — 2008-11-23T23:05:10+00:00

This is such a good report.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

mikeb13603 — 2008-11-23T20:51:11+00:00

Sounds like you were very timid in the initial CW attacks. You need to meet Rommel a long way W of Tobruk, ideally.

Mike

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

billyboy — 2008-11-23T06:36:00+00:00

Nice report. I bought this recently and have only played a little bit of one scenario.This is making me want to try it out soon.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

JackFlash — 2008-11-23T06:24:27+00:00

Cool report and pictures! I'm a sucker for games about the campaign in Afrika!

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

mcdeans — 2008-11-23T02:53:58+00:00

pveenstra wrote:
Nice AAR. Love the pictures!!

What's the historical time scale of this scenario? And how many turns did you play?
Regards,
Peter
Thanks. Turns are monthly, and the campaign games starts in Sept 1940, and ends Dec 1942, for 28 turns. We played the whole game.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game

pveenstra — 2008-11-22T20:52:50+00:00

Nice AAR. Love the pictures!!

What's the historical time scale of this scenario? And how many turns did you play?
Regards,
Peter

Thread: Campaign Game

mcdeans — 2008-11-22T19:00:07+00:00

(This is republished from my own blog.)

Being a fan of the Gamers' OCS series of games, I've been looking at other games they do, and, of course, the Standard Combat Series of games. These are far lighter games, with a quite simple rule set, but they have some very interesting subjects, and after playing a small scenario from Afrika - 2nd Edition with Chuck I decided to get a few. Unfortunately, very few are currently in print, but I picked up Afrika II, Stalingrad Pocket - 2nd Edition, and Yom Kippur. Chuck and I decided that the one we most wanted to try was the whole campaign in Arika II, so we set aside a month of October evenings...

The game starts with the Italians (Chuck) invading and taking territory. The British (me) are very weak, with only a few units to defend against the Italians. Fortunately the Italians are not very strong either, and weren't able to do much.

The next couple of turns sees the British start to ramp up, and begin to take it to the Italians. However, early withdrawals on the variable reinforcements table (I twice rolled 4/5 in the first 4 turns) put a cramp on my attacks, as did my usual spotty dice rolling for combat.

However, weight of numbers eventually started to tell, and I was able to solve Chuck's supply problems by cutting off and eliminating his forward units.

Game turn 7 saw me continue to push forward towards Tobruk, but this was to be the high water mark for the British...

...before the Germans arrived and started pushing me back. I decided that an advance to the rear was in order.

Chuck kept probing, trying to find a break-through, and I kept falling back, trying to keep a line.

I decided it was time to fall back, which meant giving up Bardia. However, this was no great loss, as in 5 turns of ownership I managed to get in 1 supply point by sea (50/50 roll). I also built a couple of boxes to help stiffen the line.

Chuck had a go at trying to break my line, but was unsuccessful, and Rommel had been stopped.

The next couple of turns developed into a stalemate, as we just glowered at each other over our respective defenses. At this point the game resembled WW1 trench warfare more than the cut and thrust of WW2 desert warfare.

Having built up some forces and supply, I started cautiously inching my way forward.

And even threatened to turn his flank.

And head for Tobruk.

However, Rommel wasn't having any of that and finally moved aggressively to force me back. I also decided to use the LRDG on an attack on Rommel, which turned out to be way more successful than I had hoped it could be, as I managed to roll a '6' and Rommel was out of the game.

I once again threatened Tobruk from the south, as Chuck moved more forces back to defend it. This was more an attempt to persuade the defenders to come out, as I preferred a fight in the open to a fight in his fortresses.

This succeeded a little too well, as he came out swinging and rolling more high dice. I managed to cut him off, but kept rolling low dice to cause little damage.

Still, the pressure of numbers was starting to tell, even though he was rolling replacements every turn. (The Axis need a roll of 6+ to score replacements, the higher the better, and didn't miss a replacement roll for 8 straight turns.)

With more combat rolls going Chucks way (for his two combats he rolled '11' each time, where I rolled a brace of '4's), I was seriously starting to run out of units, and my line was looking way too thin. I had 3 stacks of units back at Mersa Matruh (out of the picture to the left) waiting for replacements to bring them back to good health, but was only rolling replacements about every other turn. (Same 6+ required.) I also couldn't get supplies in by sea to Mersa Matruh, managing twice in 12 turns (needed 5/6 roll), which meant trucks had to be used to move supply up from Alexandria, so I found it very difficult to build up supply or drive too deeply.

I finally managed a turn of good combat rolls, and started to seriously wear Chuck down. However, time was not on my side, as I needed to capture both Bardia and Tobruk for the win, one of them for a draw, and they were both heavily defended.

I started building up my attacks on Tobruk, as well as trying to get into position for Bardia.

Some decent success saw me break through to the coast, but Bardia had built up sufficient supply such that I wasn't going to be able to starve him out. I struck past Tobruk to stop any reinforcements coming in by road.

I managed to break though the final defenses between Bardia and Tobruk, and had won through to a position where I could attack Tobruk itself. Two turns left meant it was coming down to the wire.

I stacked up the attacks best I could, but didn't roll well enough, so he was able to soak up the losses and convert the retreats to more losses, without losing control of Tobruk. I tried to put out a screen of units to prevent any reinforcement. Who cares that I didn't supply them, it was the last turn coming up.

Except I hadn't counted on Chuck using all his truck points to move a supply unit around the south end of my line, and then move a couple of units to create a supply path to it from Tobruk. This allowed him to use his solitary shipping point to move a fatty Italian division into Tobruk. More importantly than the defense strength it gave, was that it could soak up 3 steps of losses. I rolled, but didn't get a high enough result, and he survived in Tobruk. Bardia was a different story, as I easily scored the result I needed to remove the final couple of steps, as with no shipping or LoC he wasn't able to reinforce it, leaving only 1 or 2 steps.

And that was it, game over and we had fought to an honorable draw, and were left to lament the might-have-beens. If the results had gone better for the British in the early game they might have forced the Italians out of Tobruk. (In the first few turns Chuck rolled 1 '6', and all the rest higher than '7'. My highest roll was a single '8', then a single '6', and the rest were lower than that.) Should Rommel have pressed harder and risked a Gazala-type operation to strike deep into my rear areas? What if the LRDG strike hadn't been successful? If the British attacks on all the surrounded Axis stacks had rolled higher than consecutive '4's (therefore removing possibly 8 Axis units from play) would Tobruk have been able to hold?

Only one way to find out, and that's to do it again!

So, what were the lessons learned? For the British, keep grinding away. I didn't attack enough to make use of the supply I had. Even at 2-1 the attacker only needs to roll '5' to get even losses, and that's good enough for the British as even rolls for each will see them get around 1.5-2 times as many replacements as the Axis. (Well, it should be, but with me rolling dice......) Also, defend in depth rather than everything at the front, for two reasons. First, you can't afford to risk developing holes in the line during combat and letting those long legged Axis units space to drive through. Second, having all the units at the front means you need to get supply up to the front, using up all your truck points. Defending in depth means you don't have to truck your supply so far forward, allowing a supply dump to be built. this means that when you do want to push forward, you have the forward base to allow you to truck supply to your forward units through a non-road route. Like around his flank.

Anyway, a very enjoyable game experience. The SCS system is simple, but not simplistic. It puts the minimum number, and complexity, of rules out there to give you the feel and challenge of the situation, and they don't get in the way of playing the game. Definitely at the beer & pretzels end of the wargaming spectrum, it's just that you need a couple crates of beer and big bowl of pretzels for the campaign. If you drink slowly. I'm currently playing Rock of the Marne with Eric for our latest Two Sides to the Coin game, and it's proving to be real tense. I want to try more SCS games.

Image

Runes — 2008-11-01T09:31:42+00:00

The beginning: A first italian offensive against the commonwealth. The area of operations is quite limited, due to axis supply-problems.

Thread: Re: Stacking: rule question

haroldun — 2008-10-20T11:05:23+00:00

Thanks Darrel.

Thread: Re: Stacking: rule question

nyhotep — 2008-10-17T13:17:32+00:00

Yes. You only check at the end of movement, end of retreat or the moment of overrun.Just remember to unstack by the end of your next move!

Thread: Stacking: rule question

haroldun — 2008-10-17T09:45:48+00:00

Can anyone help me on this? In Afrika II game specific rules, according to rule 2.3 (Stacking) units can be overstacked (any number of units!!) at the end of the exploitation phase, supply phase and when advancing after combat. Is that right?!

Thread: Re: Compass - A first SCS/Afrika play

Warbear — 2008-07-20T17:39:01+00:00

LordStrabo wrote:

Almost all small scenarios for The Gamer's games that I've played suck.

Just play the full campaigns. They're generally much better.

I agree, the campaigns are usually much better.
And many scenarios don't really work (mainly from the SCS series).

But many gamers don't have enough time for a campaign.
And not all scenarios are bad.

Most of the Drive on Paris scenarios worked quite well for me.
And there are several playable scenarios in the OCS and CWB series.

.

Thread: Re: Compass - A first SCS/Afrika play

LordStrabo — 2008-07-20T13:05:59+00:00

tppytel wrote:
mcdeans wrote:

...

I recognize that small scenarios are not really The Gamers strong suit, but I thought this one was pretty pathetic.

...

Yes. Almost all small scenarios for The Gamer's games that I've played suck.

Just play the full campaigns. They're generally much better.

Thread: Re: Compass - A first SCS/Afrika play

Warbear — 2008-07-20T08:09:01+00:00
mcdeans wrote:
(Reposted from my own blog)

Overall, I enjoyed the game, very tense, and I'd most certainly try this or another SCS game, any time.

I'm a big fan of the gamers' series, mainly SCS (Standard Combat Series), OCS (Operational Combat Series), CWB (Civil War Bigades Series) and RSS (CWB Regimental Subsystem Series) until now, and I'm interested in NBS too.

I've already played nearly all games of the SCS series. The most I liked the campaigns of "Drive on Paris" and "The Mighty Endeavor".

.

Thread: Re: Compass - A first SCS/Afrika play

DUMASCLUB — 2008-07-20T05:58:31+00:00
The system is rather unforgiving when it comes to the CRT. The British player must not be too risky here. You basically have to attack at three to one odds, anything less is inviting disaster. Supply is a major issue. It's tough and I'm not sure how one does it.

Thread: Re: Compass - A first SCS/Afrika play

tppytel — 2008-07-20T01:00:18+00:00
mcdeans wrote:
Even so, the CW has a really hard time in this scenario, and it looks an almost impossible task against an even semi-competent Italian player.
This was my impression as well. I simply don't see how it's remotely possible for the CW player to get enough force across the desert in such a short time span without completely shorting himself the forces required to take Tobruk. All the Italian player needs to do is make a token effort to hold Tobruk, while ensuring that a couple of good units and their necessary SP's make it to Benghazi. The use of the ML forces is basically irrelevant - much like Tobruk, they just need to sit there and force the CW player to divert assets to them. All the Italian player needs to do is ship a handful of SP's and a unit of two to Benghazi, and he wins. Pretty lame scenario.

I posted this line of reasoning to the SCS folder on CSW. Nobody disagreed with it, nor did any of the regulars appear to have actually ever played it. I recognize that small scenarios are not really The Gamers strong suit, but I thought this one was pretty pathetic. And unfortunately, the other small scenarios are no better. The praise this game receives around BGG rather puzzles me.

Thread: Compass - A first SCS/Afrika play

mcdeans — 2008-07-19T18:14:04+00:00
(Reposted from my own blog)

Having played a few of The Gamers' OCS games, I've been interested in looking at their SCS games, which are similar in some concepts to OCS, but very much in a simpler vein, in fact the SCS rules clearly identify them as 'Beer & Pretzel' type games, designed to be quick and easy to get into.

So it was that Chuck and I got Afrika II on the table this last week as our game of choice. I read the rules at lunchtime in preparation and found the series rule to be very short and simple, almost laughably so. The Afrika II game rules didn't seem to add too much to the brain loading either, so perhaps I'm just becoming too used to OCS.

We decided on the Compass scenario, a 2.5 turn scenario (starting on turn 4, finishing at the end of turn 6), which is also in the equivalent OCS game, DAK2, so I was familiar with the general game situation. I volunteered to take the Italians, knowing that they were going to take a pounding, but I wasn't worried by that. The Commonwealth (CW) forces are required to take Tobruk, Benghazi and eliminate all the units fulfilling the Mussolini Line (ML) (have to maintain 5 divisions and 3 exploitation capable units east of Buq Buq, although eliminated units still count).

The first phase of the turn is replacements, and Chuck rolled poorly, facing the immediate withdrawal of the Aussies back at Alexandria, so not a good start. He got his campaign rolling with a strong push west with pretty much his entire force, overrunning, combating and overrunning 3 divisions into elimination, rolling 7, 9 and 8 in the movement, combat and exploitation phases. However, this last overrun was against my units in Sollum, as they hooked back from their drive to Tobruk.

That concluded the first turn, which only had a CW player turn, and onto the Italians. First off was a ML check, where I found I only had 4 divisions to the east of the line, from the initial set up, and facing instant and immediate (sooner, even) game forfeit. That seemed a bit ludicrous, the CW player just has to isolate the eastern forces from reinforcement and he wins automatically. We went back over the set up and found we'd missed an Italian division, which meant that the Italian player starts the scenario meeting the requirements. Phew!

Anyway, onto the port rolls, which decide how much I could ship in reinforcements. Pah! Doug's Deansian Statistical thingy kicked in as I rolled 1,1,1,2,5, (hint: low is not good) which meant that I couldn't ship much at all of the required units or supply. The replacement roll was 5 (2d6), so no replacements for me, either. Good start. With the CW LRDG marauding towards Benghazi I had to ship a unit in there, using its single shipping allowance point, facing being out of supply immediately, which meant it would lose a step. Another unit went to Tobruk. Fortunately I found that the available truck points were enough to truck an SP to Benghazi, or close enough for supply purposes anyway, but a bit of a waste to supply a single unit. (In SCS you count up the number of steps, divide by 10, and that the number of SPs you need to feed them. Standard OCS/SCS rounding applies, so 14 steps would be 1.4, rounding to 1SP. 15 steps would round to 2SPs.)

However, that wasn't the important point. Remember I said that Chuck started with a strong push west? Well, that meant he'd left only a weak force protecting his supply dump (with only a single SP, but to the guys cut off beyond the ML with no chance of being resupplied it looked really enticing), and I had to attack it with the aim of capturing it and cutting off his main road to supplying his forward units. The attacks went weakly, as I rolled a 7, then a 4 on the overrun of his surviving unit in the following exploitation phase. Even worse I missed the 50/50 roll to capture the supply, which meant that units would start losing steps in my next turn if Something Good didn't happen next turn. Still, I had achieved the basic aims of cutting the road, and denying him the use of the existing supply dump, so it was a moderate success.

It became even more of a success as Chuck then reversed direction with a few units to address the situation in his rear, although he had enough truck points available to drive an SP around my roadblock to supply his lead units. However, he dumped the SP 1 hex short, so when he overran into the outskirts of Tobruk in his exploitation, eliminating my unit in a step trade and with advance being mandatory, that left him one hex too far away to be supplied. The rules for being out of supply require a step loss, so that unit was removed as it had only a single step remaining. (I should have had the overrun taken back, because it felt a bit gamey to allow him to push forward knowing that the unit couldn't be supplied.) The LRDG pushed on towards the coast, preventing me from supplying Benghazi by road like last turn. By the end of the exploitation phase he'd reopened his main supply road, and pushed forward again.

And so to the last turn. My port rolls were decent this time, but now my shipping capacity roll sucked so I had all this port capacity, but no damn ships! I used the single shipping point available to reinforce Tobruk, which made it pretty safe. With this turn the ML rule is now removed, so my units were free to attempt to escape, and they did, most successfully. I was able to place units into the ZoCs that were blocking the supply path, negating those ZoCs, and putting them all back into supply. Other units just occupied locations that blocked the main approach roads, forcing him off-road. (Moving into a ZoC hex costs +2 MPs, with roads being either 0.5 or 0.25 MPs/hex, depending on the road, so that delayed him considerably from driving forward.) I also placed units just outside overrun range, to prevent a dash towards Benghazi. Otherwise it was a pretty quiet turn, and looking good for a win. The unit in Benghazi was unsupplied, so took a step loss, but had a couple left, so no panic there.

In Chuck's final turn he recognized pretty quickly that he faced an impossible task. Especially so when he realized he was just 0.5 MP short from being able to overrun my flank protection ('Oh, really? That is a surprise! My, it's almost like I planned it... ), and therefore had no chance of getting to Benghazi with any decent strength to take it. He also had little chance of hitting Tobruk with enough strength to fight his way through the defenses, so at that point we called the game.

Chuck had a bad start with the replacements, but I also rolled very poorly with my replacements/shipping, which didn't allow me to bring much in, so they pretty much negated each other, and the CW attacks didn't face any early set-backs. Even so, the CW has a really hard time in this scenario, and it looks an almost impossible task against an even semi-competent Italian player. Perhaps one way for the CW to win is to force units beyond the ML line to retreat out, and then prevent them from getting back in and meeting the ML conditions, therefore forcing the automatic CW win. A trifle gamey, perhaps, as the CW aim was not just to clear the ML, but that's the trouble with these sorts of limited scenarios, they introduce rules attempting to reflect the overall strategic situation that are open to abuse.

From my perspective, the game turned on Chuck failing to protect his rear and turning back to attack Sollum rather than pressing on towards Tobruk. The CW doesn't have much time, and they have to advance, and anything that diverts them from their main goals could (will?) lose them the game. Then again, perhaps losing those Aussies to the withdrawal in the first turn had a bigger impact than I'm allowing. If we had a second go at this scenario, Chuck said he would press the ML units more, not giving them the freedom to move behind his main line.

Overall, I enjoyed the game, very tense, and I'd most certainly try this or another SCS game, any time. My first reading of the rules left me feeling they were not only simple, but simplistic, but that isn't so in practice. Yes, it's nowhere near the level of OCS, but it doesn't want or try to be, and I think it hits the target with where it wants to be. For me it has just enough of OCS to feel comfortable, and the rules are just enough to be easy to get into, yet provide enough challenge to keep the challenge up. Even with such a limited scenario I got a good feel for the game, and I can see that it will get plenty table time in the future.

Dang, the last thing I want or need is another series of games that I really like and want to play more.

Thread: Re: 10.0 Advance after combat

profsp — 2008-06-25T04:53:14+00:00
Daren

I have just finished playing the campaign game. My opponent was more experienced with the system than I was and I have learned a lot. One of the main things was that even if you turn steps into losses in lieu of retreats the attacker can advance his attacking exploit capable units the original distance specified in the result. When you consider what rule 10.0 says about this

If the defender retreats further than one hex, only exploitation capable units can advance as many hexes as the defender’s
retreat result. Note that even if the defender expends step losses to cover part of his retreat result, the advance after
combat is equal to the original result.The defender’s original hex must be the first advance hex. After entering that hex, advancing units can go anywhere (they can split up or stay together)—except for hexes containing enemy units or prohibitive terrain. While advancing after combat, units ignore EZOCs.

you have to be prepared for some radical redeployment of units especially when the 2 panzer divisions are involved in an attack that gets an r3 or greater.

Regards

John

Thread: PBEM anyone?

DaMilli — 2008-06-05T02:14:10+00:00
Afrika newbie (but experieced PBEM player) seeking opponent. Please PM if interested. Thanks, E. Rommel.

Thread: Re: Back To the Desert

mrankin6 — 2008-06-03T20:24:53+00:00
Bought this one based on this review. I wasn't disappointed.

Thread: Re: Short scenarios and one map

loquitur — 2008-05-25T01:04:57+00:00
I finally got around to taking everything out of the box, and as I was about to set up the first scenario (Italian Invasion) I notice that, indeed, all short scenarios all seem to require both maps. So is this an error that carried over from the first edition (which had different short scenarios)?

Thread: Re: Short scenarios and one map

loquitur — 2008-05-23T12:24:17+00:00
Anyone?

Thread: Short scenarios and one map

loquitur — 2008-04-27T02:45:59+00:00
I haven't set the game up yet, but I'm confused about what the box says (short scenarios set up on one map) and what the rules say (all scenarios use both maps, even, it appears, the short scenarios). Have I misunderstood something?

Image

manstein — 2008-03-25T10:24:37+00:00
Allied in front of Tobruk

Thread: Re: 9.0 Retreats: multiple questions

manstein — 2008-03-23T10:57:26+00:00
Also, the game-specific Afrika II rulebook spells out clearly (2.6) that at least one retreat penalty following a combat loss must be taken as an an actual retreat of one hex (unless the unit is inside a box, fortification, or city. "So, a D2r2 result could be (at most) converted into a D3r1..."
Hi, we are playing now this game but there is a little problem in the rule above: if a stack of units cannot retreat because there are friendly and enemy units at the stacking limit all around the hex, what happen to the retreting units?
Please reply, thanks.
I'm sorry for my bad english....

Thread: Re: 10.0 Advance after combat

dcjackso — 2008-02-27T21:07:04+00:00
Yep, got that one when I turned to the Afrika II rules.
From my last post:
Also, the game-specific Afrika II rulebook spells out clearly (2.6) that at least one retreat penalty following a combat loss must be taken as an an actual retreat of one hex (unless the unit is inside a box, fortification, or city. "So, a D2r2 result could be (at most) converted into a D3r1..."

Thanks again for your time and patience, sir!
I'm sure I'll have other questions once the cardboard starts geting pushed around!

Total non-sequitur: it's odd to look at the campaign game set up: lots and lots of real estate, with relatively few units on-map. I really like how the "Mussolini Line" rule gets things started with a bang.

Thread: Re: 9.0 Retreats: multiple questions

dcjackso — 2008-02-27T20:53:57+00:00
Thanks, gentlemen. Much appreciated.

Also, the game-specific Afrika II rulebook spells out clearly (2.6) that at least one retreat penalty following a combat loss must be taken as an an actual retreat of one hex (unless the unit is inside a box, fortification, or city. "So, a D2r2 result could be (at most) converted into a D3r1..."

Also, corroborating Joe's post (2.3) "Stacking [up to 4 units in Afrika II] is enforced only at the end of the regular Movement Phase, at the moment of an Overrun combat and at the end of a retreat. Temporary overstacking is allowed at other times."
[brackets mine], bold in the original.
Units in excess of stacking limits at these times are killed (owner's choice as to which units).

And you're right, Ethan, I am overthinking this. I think it comes from learning/playing RHB's Great Battles of History concurrently with this system. Great games; lots of rules. Very non SCS-ish.

Thread: Re: 9.0 Retreats: multiple questions

elbmc1969 — 2008-02-27T19:24:05+00:00
dcjackso wrote:
But the last sentence in 9.2 gives me pause: "Again, step losses affect single units, retreat hexes affect the entire force involved in the combat."
Q4. When does a stack incur a step loss, and when do all units in a stack incur a step loss?

You're over-thinking this one. This is simply a statement that step losses suffered in combat (not retreat) affect individual units. A step loss of "1" does not mean that every unit in the stack takes one step loss. However, retreat results affect the entire stack. A retreat result of "2" means that the entire stack retreats two hexes. It does not mean that one unit from the stack retreats two hexes or two units each retreat one hex.

Thread: Re: 9.0 Retreats: multiple questions

Sunray11 — 2008-02-27T15:50:19+00:00
1. Yes, but if they remain overstacked at the end of the retreat, excess units must be removed.

2. The presence of friendly units does not change the requirement to lose steps when retreating through an EZOC.

3. Yes (as in 2 above).

4. AFAIK the only time all units in a stack incur a step loss is in the Supply Phase, IF they are OOS.

(The point of the last sentence in 9.2 is that a retreat result equally affects all units in the stack. R1 means they all must retreat 1 space, not that one unit retreats 1 space.)

This is my first experience of the game too. I agree that sometimes the rules wordings are a little odd, but once you come to grips with it all, it's a terrific game.

Thread: Re: 10.0 Advance after combat

Sunray11 — 2008-02-27T15:34:06+00:00
There's a game-specific rule that says at least one R result must be taken as a retreat. Therefore, the option to advance at least one space will always be available.

Thread: Re: 6.0 Overrun Combat

dcjackso — 2008-02-27T08:44:13+00:00
Ah--now I see. Your comment "getting into position" for the overrun--since units currently in an EZOC cannot overrun--finally made it clear.
Thanks! (Now, if you tackle the other questions I've posted, you go from "nice guy" to "hero" status!.)

Actually, I think the other questions I posted will be pretty to answer for someone who has played the system even once or twice. I've got Afrika II all set up for solo campaign play tomorrow, so I'm trying to cross the t's and dot the i's in preparation!

Thread: Re: 6.0 Overrun Combat

Sunray11 — 2008-02-27T08:34:05+00:00
No, I think the example is consistent with my interpretation. It first describes the cost of getting into position for the overrun, and then adds the 2 MPs for executing the overrun (still 2 MPs, even though the hex cost in the example is "1").

Thread: Re: 6.0 Overrun Combat

dcjackso — 2008-02-27T08:26:44+00:00
That makes sense, Joe. If correct, however, the example is very misleading, no?

Thread: 10.0 Advance after combat

dcjackso — 2008-02-27T08:23:56+00:00
If a defending unit or units take the most extreme form of 9.2's "No Retreat Option", taking all retreat results as step losses, is advance after combat nullified? (Since the defender's original hex is still occupied.)

Thread: 9.0 Retreats: multiple questions

dcjackso — 2008-02-27T08:19:19+00:00
per 9.0b units that have no feasible retreat path lose one step per stack for each hex they cannot retreat.

Q1. Can units overstack while retreating?

Q2. If yes, does 9.0d come into play? friendly units do not negate EZOC's during retreat? Can a units or units stack or overstack while retreating through friendly units without taking a step loss for moving through an EZOC?

paraphrasing 9.1
9.1b each retreat path hex must be farther away from the unit's original hex than the last [hex entered].
9.1c unit(s) must retreat toward supply, if possible.
9.1d unit must avoid EZOC's. "Units can violate this rule to satisfy 9.1b or 9.1c and those rules take precedence."
Q3. So, units must take step losses as they move through EZOCs in order to move toward a supply source? (I've been learning "A Victory Lost," with rules remarkably similar to the SCS--in which these retreat priorities would seem to be reversed. In AVL, a unit's first priority is to avoid EZOC's [and attendant step losses] while retreating; moving towards supply is a secondary consideration.)

Throughout 9.0, I'm a bit confused regarding when a stack takes a step loss, and when all units in a stack take step losses. Throughout 9.0, it appears that step losses are incurred by a stack: the unit with the highest attack rating (when the attacker incurs a step loss) or the unit the highest defense rating (when the defender incurs a step loss) takes the first step loss, and all units must take a step loss before the "strongest" unit take a second step loss. But the last sentence in 9.2 gives me pause: "Again, step losses affect single units, retreat hexes affect the entire force involved in the combat."
Q4. When does a stack incur a step loss, and when do all units in a stack incur a step loss?

Thread: Re: 6.0 Overrun Combat

Sunray11 — 2008-02-27T08:09:40+00:00
I was just reviewing the procedure yesterday. As I understand it, you pay ONLY the 2 MP for the overrun. You don't add anything for the EZOC, and you don't add the terrain cost of the overrun hex. However, the target hex has to be of a type that would otherwise cost no more than 2 MP to enter, and roads don't count when calculating that cost.

Thread: 6.0 Overrun Combat

dcjackso — 2008-02-27T07:33:32+00:00
I've read some posts on consimworld, but I haven't found a clear resolution regarding 6.0c and its accompanying example.

6.0c Units can overrun only those target hexes that would cost them 2 or less MPs to enter in regular movement. For this rule, use the target hex's terrain cost only, ignore EZOCs.

Example: To overrun a hex that would cost 1 MP in regular movement, a unit would pay the terrain cost of the adjacent hex + 2 MPs for the EZOC in that hex, then 2 MPs for the overrun itself.

(bold and italics in the original)

Does the example not contradict the rule? I think I'm missing something very simple here...

Thread: Re: Attacking Escarpment

Antonello — 2008-01-29T07:05:52+00:00
Attacking from A59.17 to A60.17 via the secondary road would be attacking DOWN the escarpment.

Yes -- at least, that's how I play.

Thread: Attacking Escarpment

Champion Eternal — 2008-01-29T01:35:10+00:00
Hi
Can someone clarify "Up" and "Down" escarpments. Is the following example true or false?:

Attacking from A59.17 to A60.17 via the secondary road would be attacking DOWN the escarpment.

Thread: Re: New Vassal mod for Afrika II

Gryfon — 2008-01-06T02:33:57+00:00
check - updating to 3.0.15 fixed the problem.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: New Vassal mod for Afrika II

b5mith — 2008-01-04T05:33:37+00:00
Please make sure you have at least Vassal 3.0.13 installed Chad.

Thread: Re: New Vassal mod for Afrika II

Gryfon — 2008-01-04T01:42:18+00:00
'info' not found in ... Afrika_II__v0[1].4.mod...

Error opening module when I tried to use it. Any ideas?

Thread: Re: Air points in set-up

Andy Parsons — 2008-01-03T20:37:07+00:00
Thanks Ola, I'd rather obviously overlooked that section of the rules.

Thread: Re: Air points in set-up

unic — 2008-01-03T17:19:03+00:00
Under section 1.1 of the gamespecific rules:

Important: Regardless of which player starts the game, initialize both players' air points to the number they will receive on the first turn of the scenario.

In other words, no total air control for the CW...

Image

Harkonnen13 — 2007-10-15T23:07:56+00:00
Complete Contents

Image

mrbeankc — 2007-03-16T03:36:12+00:00
Map sample El Alamein area

Image

mrbeankc — 2007-03-16T03:35:05+00:00
Map sample. Tobruk area

Image

mrbeankc — 2007-03-16T03:34:31+00:00
Rommel counter

Image

mrbeankc — 2007-03-16T03:33:39+00:00
Close up of the camel counter. The camels count as armor for combined arms in the game

Image

mrbeankc — 2007-03-16T03:32:29+00:00
Counter sample. Note counter for camel unit on left side.

Image

Cleitus the Black — 2007-02-12T08:21:42+00:00
Campaign session Turn 4: Indian division after taking heavy losses, Mersa Matruh surrounded and cut off.

Image

Cleitus the Black — 2007-02-12T08:20:16+00:00
Campaign session Turn 3: Indian 4th Division comes in support as Italians invest Mersa Matruh