Game: EastFront

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-11-18T22:17:37+00:00

I have posted the variant at the EF2 forum and here, pending approval. You can also find it at:

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?13@763.NbQ1eVeRzv9.34@.ee6c...

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-11-08T05:38:07+00:00

Very well, it should appear shortly.

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

GROGnads — 2008-11-01T07:46:27+00:00

kuhrusty wrote:
Bah, post it under both. hear hear

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

kuhrusty — 2008-11-01T06:21:13+00:00

Bah, post it under both.

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-11-01T02:15:46+00:00

Spoke with Ed, he said the article is ready for posting, so I will post it this weekend. However, I wonder whether it might make more sense to post it in the EF2 page on BGG.

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-10-19T21:32:17+00:00

Ed is on a business trip for 2 more weeks and thus not able to answer any questions you might have. I will post the article upon his return and approval.

The variant has an OOB based on David Glantz's books on the German-Soviet conflict, and the arrival times for units is also changed according to information in these books. There new rules for armor, combat, Soviet 1941 unit replacements, stacking, von Manstein HQ unit, and other items. The ideas in the variant are proposed for more historical detail in EF / EF2.

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-10-11T04:40:47+00:00

I finished typing it (17 pages), and in the meantime I contacted Ed and emailed him the finished & edited article for his comments. He has sent me his reply with his comments, and I will look these over this weekend, then send back the final version to Ed for his approval. Then I will post it here and at CSW.

Thread: Re: Total N00b Stacking Question "Engagement Limit"

nhojput — 2008-09-20T01:03:35+00:00

i don't think it matters which version you are playing. the stacking limit applies to each side. so you can move 4 units in a hex to attack 4 units in a clear hex.

Thread: Re: Total N00b Stacking Question "Engagement Limit"

DetonatedManiac — 2008-09-20T00:43:56+00:00

ooops... I realized I was playing East Front II (I think)

in case that makes a difference, I am going to make a post on the EastFront II boards and re-direct it here.

Thread: Total N00b Stacking Question "Engagement Limit"

DetonatedManiac — 2008-09-20T00:27:13+00:00

To short cut to my question: What EXACTLY is the engagement/stacking limit, does it apply to both players collectively or each individually? ALSO if the former, what does that mean strategically or what else am I missing... [read full story below]

So, I just played my first (partial) game of EastFront the other day the Battle of Kursk Scenario.

Neither my opponent nor I had played before ever (he owns the game, so when we setup that was the first time I ever actually saw a full size color version of the map)

Even though I read the rule book twice, and then re-read the parts I felt I didn't understand until I felt I did understand, it is amazing how quickly that knowledge can leave you when you are faced with an army of blocks for the first time...

I know for sure we made a few mistakes, and I am re-reading the rules to find any other details we missed, but we figured it was a learning game so mistakes were bound to happen.

BUT - as I was playing it occurred to me that I did not fully appreciate the drastic cap imposed by the stacking limit. For some reason (not seeing the board, size of blocks relative to size of hexes etc) when I read 6.21:
In Battle Hexes, both players may occupy the hex up to the limits noted
[original italics]

I took it to mean that the stacking limit only applied per player to a battle. Thus in a really big shoot out on clear land, the attacker and the defender may have up to 8 units total (4 on each side) present. However my opponent maintained that the stacking limit is universal, so that no matter what the the battle situation there will only be 4 units total on a battle hex (1&3 or 2&2 on clear land for instance). Given how crowded the board was with only 2 or 3 blocks in a hex, I tended to agree with him at the time.

But the more I think about it, the more this creates some really bizarre strategic artifacts, to wit:
1) if one wanted, they could make it impossible to attack a hex in all situations by simply putting 4x of ANY units in it (3x on swamp), since the rules are clear that you cannot voluntarily move such that it exceeds the stacking limit.
2) One can dictate the enemies ratio of defender to attacker blocks. This is an extension of #1 but it makes one even more abusive. I can guarantee I out number any attacker 3:1 (in blocks) by putting 3 units on a hex, or guarantee block parity, thus denying the attacker some of their overwhelming force by placing two blocks.
3) It becomes permanently impossible (baring action from your opponent) to rotate out a single unit that is facing 3 enemy units in a battle without retreating and taking pursuit fire, since one is blocked from bringing in a relief force on one turn, then moving the damaged unit out on a subsequent turn (since during the intervening turn you would be above the cap).

At the same time, I remember the 4 block battles we did have and how crowded they are, I can't even imagine a 5 or 6 block battle let alone an 8 block battle. So I am really torn, were we playing the game wrong or does the restrictive stacking cap achieve a larger play balance that I am not seeing (perhaps I missed some other rules?)

On the other hand, if I am right, how on EARTH (literally) do you keep all these blocks straight?

Thanks

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-09-19T03:08:11+00:00

I have contacted Ed about posting the article here. I'm more than half way done with typing, and it looks good and very interesting. More to follow soon.

Thread: Re: What does production points xx + xx CV mean?

Jan van der Laan — 2008-08-25T15:39:15+00:00

Helmet Lampshade wrote:
Thanks a lot!

You're welcome!

Helmet Lampshade wrote:
I just found it under under rules for double scenario games , which I skipped. So it just a modification for double scenarios.

It's just a reminder to keep track of raises and declines of the BPP's when you go over from one scenario to another.

Enjoy your game!

Thread: Re: What does production points xx + xx CV mean?

Helmet Lampshade — 2008-08-25T14:20:35+00:00

Thanks a lot!
I just found it under under rules for double scenario games , which I skipped. So it just a modification for double scenarios.

Thread: Re: What does production points xx + xx CV mean?

Jan van der Laan — 2008-08-25T12:57:15+00:00

The number in the first column is the total starting amount of Production Points for that player for that specific scenario. The number in the second column (between brackets) is the difference (increase or decrease) between the Basic Production Points (see page 18) from the previous scenario compared to the present scenario. For instance: the Basic Production Points for the Soviet player in the summer '41 scenario is 0. Basic Production Points for the Soviet player in the winter '41 scenario is 6. The chart of the Winter '41 "Operation Typhoon" scenario states a "+6" for the Soviet player. Basic Production Points for the German player in the summer '41 scenario is 30. Basic Production Points for the German player in the winter '41 scenario remains 30. The chart of the Winter '41 "Operation Typhoon" scenario states a "+0" for the German player. Basic Production Points represent off-board production. These BPP's can change from one scenario to another.

Edits: typo and addition

Thread: What does production points xx + xx CV mean?

Helmet Lampshade — 2008-08-25T12:18:46+00:00

In the table for the starting forces, next to the PPs number is often a number for CV, which should be added or subtracted. What does this mean? Is it nowhere explained in the rulebook.

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-08-19T18:06:45+00:00

Yes it can! I'll have it ready by the end of September and I'll post it here and at EastFront 2 - I'm having to retype the article from the magazine into a MS Word document and it's 4.5 pages long, but I'm about 25% done. I'll type it as it appeared in the magazine and then upload it as a Word document to be downloaded and read for discussion.

It's different but not too much so; it concerns mainly the 1941 Barbarossa scenario, the respective orders of battle, stacking, armor rules, reinforcements and replacements, and a few other things. You'll see ...

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

Jan van der Laan — 2008-08-18T18:48:35+00:00

Can this Ed McGran variant be played with the 2nd edition EastFront? If so, I'm interested too.

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-08-18T17:35:00+00:00

I found it. It's in Fire & Movement #130, Summer 2003 issue. I'll post it here soon. Thanks for the interest.

Thread: Re: Unhistorical German blitzing problem?

cfarrell — 2008-08-09T06:20:29+00:00

It's not clear that the "blob" is ahistorical. The Germans certainly could have loaded up one of their army groups much more than they did historically.

I've become pretty convinced that the "blob" is not terribly effective against moderately competent Soviet play. The Germans win by destroying lots of Soviet units, and to do that you need to surround them, which means you need multiple enveloping threats, not just one huge one. The Soviets win slugfests, the Germans win wars of maneuver. One overloaded axis will turn into a slugfest.

I know the designer was aware of the issue with the blob, which was a prominent strategy for a while and he mentioned to me that he considered making a change to weaken it. But he decided not to when Soviet players learned not to panic or over-react to it and it ultimately turned out to be a lot less effective than more traditional play.

Thread: Re: Unhistorical German blitzing problem?

elijah234 — 2008-08-09T01:33:35+00:00

It's not a problem. There are ways to deal with the blob. Against a competent Soviet player, the German player will lose.

Whether to use the blob is a decision the German player should make for himself, not have the game make it for him to force him down "historicity".

Thread: Re: Unhistorical German blitzing problem?

Herr Niemand — 2008-08-09T00:56:01+00:00

I have found that a "gentleman's agreement" before commencing play is sufficient. That is, the German player agrees that he will not place all his HQs so that they are mutually supporting.

Now, having said that, "the Blob" or "Rolling Thunder" as it's sometimes called, really is not a "perfect plan" -- it simply projects the game into entirely ahistorical play.

The Soviets can counter "the Blob" by either:

1- fleeing at full speed eastward and then setting up a serious defensive line from Leningrad to Moscow to Voronezh to Stalingrad to Astrakhan. This saves a lot of Soviet forces and makes EF a "race game" (i.e., who can get to those distant rivers first). It's kind of like 1942 in 1941. The main problems with this Soviet strategy are two-fold. First, as stated above, this completely changes the complexion of the game to a race. And second, it's a fantasy version of WWII -- no way could the entire logistical "tail" of the invading Wehrmacht thread its way through such a narrow corridor along more or less unimproved roads and tracks; plus there's no way that, politically-speaking, Uncle Joe would give up most of European Russia without a fight. I've played this kind of game before and it's just awful (that is, no fun).

or

2- hang tough on the flanks of the main drive and force German infantry to guard an ever-lengthening front line. Eventually, the Germans will be left with only a handful of Panzer units backed by HQs as the mobile force; there will be Soviet units still on the borders of Romania and Germany; and the whole game will come down to a dicefest at Moscow and/or Leningrad. If the Germans take either metropolis, the Soviets are knocked out in 1941. If the Germans fail to take either city, there will be invasions of the Nazi homeland in winter 1941, which will probably spell defeat for the Germans in 1942. So, other than the impossible nature of "the Blob's" advance to and through Moscow, this sort of game boils down to a win or loss in the first six turns. I suppose if one wanted to play a truncated EF gaming session and didn't mind the fantastic aspects, this wouldn't be so bad...

So, when playing with a German player for the first time, I simply explain the ramifications of "the Blob" -- that it really ruins play. This has always been sufficient to prevent my opponent from massing all his HQs and Panzers into a mailed fisting.

I don't really see this as a flaw in EF, per se, but simply that players should play within the spirit of the game. After all, any game can be sabotaged by players seeking to do so...

TT

Thread: Unhistorical German blitzing problem?

dragonstout — 2008-08-08T23:38:59+00:00

In his comment for his rating, Tim Taylor (and several others) said:

"Also, the Germans can bunch up their HQs in Summer 1941, artificially creating a rampaging "Blob" of panzers which are virtually unstoppable."

"Bit of a problem with being able to piggyback HQ's in 1941. "

"only downside so far is that a-historical play is likely important to really play well (e.g. putting several German HQ's in the same narrow front for Barbarossa)."

"If the Germans keep their headquarters together you can almost blitz any gameturn on one point in the front. Use them like a fist and push to Moscow. The Soviets must then give up the south, run and pray for an early winter. However I've found this recently discovered strategy rather non-historical, where three German army groups are pushing into the Soviet Union."

Has anyone found a solution to this, or did rules changes/setup changes in EastFront II amend this unhistorical problem?

Thread: Re: A larger map is a big plus

SkyGazer — 2008-07-28T17:00:23+00:00

Rusty,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to post links to my pictures, which I should have done in the first place. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

- Jeff

Thread: Re: A larger map is a big plus

kuhrusty — 2008-07-25T07:10:48+00:00

SkyGazer wrote:
If you're interested, take a look in the images section of the large EastFront map I made.
Here are links to them:
]]>
]]>
(Man, the first edition map really does look better than second edition...)

SkyGazer wrote:
I know the second edition map with its larger geographic area has even smaller hexes and needs a fix like this, too.
Good God man, imagine the table you'd need for that!

Although the hexes are slightly smaller in the second edition, you sit facing the grain of the hexes, so those clumps of units fit because they're sort of staggered, as in taragalinas' picture:
]]>

Thread: A larger map is a big plus

SkyGazer — 2008-07-25T04:51:47+00:00

If you're interested, take a look in the images section of the large EastFront map I made. This was not hard to do. I scanned the board in sections, enlarged them 150%, assembled them in software and had FastSigns print the whole thing on a single 33-inch x 51-inch sheet of 3 mil Sintra. More skillful graphic designers than I can probably do this themselves on cardstock or whatever relatively inexpensively using their home printer. Anyway, having the larger hexes makes a huge difference in reducing the "annoyance factor" in the game that arises from trying to manipulate the blocks. Perhaps we are just overcompensating for general clumsiness on our part, but now eight blocks fit comfortably in a single hex and we can get our hands in and out of a dense forest of blocks with room to spare without knocking everything over. On the old board, extricating the blocks to conduct a battle was essentially like playing Operation. ("...remove funny bone..." or "remove 40th Panzer Corps") We are still using the first edition. I know the second edition map with its larger geographic area has even smaller hexes and needs a fix like this, too.

Image

SkyGazer — 2008-07-25T03:30:34+00:00

EastFront map: 150% enlargement works much better, still fits on table.

Image

SkyGazer — 2008-07-25T03:28:44+00:00

Room to move: EastFront map enlarged 150%

Thread: Re: Bloodbath "Variant"

GROGnads — 2008-06-27T05:49:51+00:00

bigstu wrote:
What variant? Where? oh, it's NOT in the "Rules" until right... about... NOW!

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-06-21T16:02:17+00:00

I'll try & track it down - it's in storage somewhere ...

Thread: Re: My houserule to make cities less powerful defensively

cfarrell — 2008-06-20T18:20:49+00:00

Might have major pro-German balance implications in the early years, though. I hate to mess with such a fundamental rule in a relatively well-balanced game. As it is now, it feels historical, in that panzer spearheads go around the major cities, leaving the infantry to clean the up once the defenders of a city are OOS. Taking cities by direct assault was pretty difficult, as even comparatively small ones could hold pretty large military forces, and they had to be taken because they tended to be transport centers.

Thread: Re: Ed McGran variant

blockhead — 2008-06-20T15:23:21+00:00

Never heard of it. Which issue of MOVES? Anybody got a scan? How did it differ?

Thread: Re: My houserule to make cities less powerful defensively

David Ells — 2008-06-20T02:14:04+00:00

Excellent idea, clever. I agree that small cities are not the same as big metropolitan centers.

Thread: Ed McGran variant

David Ells — 2008-06-19T23:34:52+00:00

I remember reading the CG discussion group on its website in the mid-90's and I enjoyed Ed McGran's posts and the various replies. I was pleased to see his polished variant published in Moves magazine about 6 years ago. I have tried it and liked it, though it does change the game some. Has anyone else heard of this and / or tried it?

Image

Xookliba — 2008-06-09T15:17:44+00:00

cyberboard gamebox

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-05-02T12:17:15+00:00

Close up from German Units

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-05-02T12:12:04+00:00

German Army

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-05-02T12:07:53+00:00

Soviet Army

Thread: Re: Markers?

VA-Norm — 2008-03-29T13:56:48+00:00

The earliest printing of did not include markers - I ended-up having to order them from Columbia, but they are not really needed. I just noticed the game is copywrited 1991, and markers 1992.

Thread: Re: All My Labels Fell Off!

Jan van der Laan — 2008-03-25T15:54:45+00:00

I had the same problem with my first edition "Rommel in the Desert". A few stickers came off. I didn't know how to glue them back so I bought a second edition RitD.

leberegel wrote:
I wonder if I have to expect the same for all my numerous block games....

This is my fear also! Since the purchase of RitD I collected around 20 blockgames. Suppose all those stickers will fall off some day......

and

Thread: Re: All My Labels Fell Off!

leberegel — 2008-03-25T11:42:20+00:00

I have the same problem now...
What kind of glue did you use? Did it work well for you?
I wonder if I have to expect the same for all my numerous block games....

Thread: Re: Summer '42: "Send forward the Jägermeister."

kuhrusty — 2008-03-12T07:21:57+00:00

Kaelistus wrote:
I have to ask: How do you break through so many places? I can never break through anything on the first turn.
It's true that you probably won't break through 2 full-strength infantry units in one turn. However, in this scenario, if that's what you're hitting, you've already run into some bad luck.

I count 22 frontline hexes in this scenario, and the Soviets have 126 steps divided among 44 units, not counting HQs. That's an average of less than 6 steps per hex, if they put everything they've got on the front line, which they probably won't do. So, a more reasonable number to expect is more like 4 or maybe 5 CV. Say you're attacking clear terrain, and you throw in all you've got: a 3-strength air strike (DF in this scenario), two 4 CV armor, and two 4 CV infantry. On average you expect 1 hit from that air strike, so now you're looking at 3 or 4 CV. Let's hope you're facing infantry instead of mechanized/armor/shock, but we'll round up and say you can expect to take about one hit. So now you've got 8 dice at DF and 7 at SF, for which you should get almost 4 hits. So you actually have pretty good odds of breaking through in this case, which will make the Soviet player wish they'd put even less on the line and more in reserve, ha ha.

(Now, a lot of the terrain is pretty good for the defender, so the Soviets may put weaker units there and stronger ones in the clear, thereby throwing off the math above, but my point is that the numbers aren't too bad for you.)

Also, don't overlook the importance of this line!
(It should also be mentioned that I had savage luck with my air strikes. More than once, I got 3 hits with as many dice. Hey, it's better to be "lucky" than "good...")

Thread: Re: Summer '42: "Send forward the Jägermeister."

Kaelistus — 2008-03-11T19:46:44+00:00

I have to ask: How do you break through so many places? I can never break through anything on the first turn.

Even if I attack with four healthy tanks: that's 4x4: 16 die rolls. At best air strikes are 3 more die roll. at 1/3 chance of a hit that means I only expect 6 hits total. Two infantry can take that assault and live... And I'm not even taking into account that defenders attack first.

Am I missing something?

Thread: Re: EF 1 or EF II?

Kaelistus — 2008-03-10T20:27:01+00:00

cfarrell wrote:

The WF/EuroFront integration is the biggest deal. Before you say, "but I'm never going to play anything that big", I should mention that the single-season or single-year scenarios for EuroFront (especially '42 and '43) are compelling in their own right and quite playable. And with the combined package you can do France '40, or throw in Scandanavia (which is quite well-done) to any game, including just a straight EastFront game (adding the battles in the far north).

I'm confused... I was reading the rules for EuF2 and I didn't see a single-season or year scenarios in 42 and 43. The short scenarios were Winter War, Wesser, 1940a-c, 1944(a), SCW. Is there something I'm missing?

Image

Fury — 2008-03-05T14:34:58+00:00

Campaign game at start of Winter '42. Germans are in trouble because Soviet industry and Air Power ramping up. Germans concede in Summer '43.

Image

Fury — 2008-03-05T14:31:41+00:00

The Ukraine is NOT weak!

Image

Festivus — 2008-02-05T03:36:25+00:00

EastFront Counters

Thread: Re: Bloodbath "Variant"

bigstu — 2008-01-26T07:24:32+00:00

What variant? Where?

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-01-12T22:24:21+00:00

Box Front from Columbia Games

Thread: Re: Question about elimination victory points

cfarrell — 2007-12-05T00:55:08+00:00

Technically, your opponent loses VPs for his unbuilt units, you don't gain VPs for eliminating them. So you are correct, only units that are unbuilt at the end of the game count as negative VPs for your opponent.

Thread: Question about elimination victory points

capadotia — 2007-12-03T18:20:56+00:00

Hi,

I just want to confirm that each player only gets VP's for units they have killed and have not been rebuilt (remain in the dead pool) by the other player.

This is the way we have been playing but I just want to make sure that each player doesn't get VP's for each unit they kill regardless if it has been rebuilt or not.

Thread: Re: Help with Summer 43

Harae — 2007-11-20T12:04:07+00:00

Here is my take on the Summer 43 Scenario:

Disengage and pullback slowly but steadily to the favourable defending terrain of the line Riga - Cherson. Here you can buit a strong Defensive line behind the Dnepr, Pripet Marshes, Cities etc. to most effectively absorb any Russian attempt to break through.

Is this exciting? Not idf you want quick results as German or Russian player in this scenario.

It is exciting if you continue to play and go for one of the biggest 'what if' questions in WW II like Heinz Guderian opted.

Thread: Re: Help with Summer 43

bigstu — 2007-11-20T11:12:32+00:00

Or I may be just a little too drunk!!!! lol
Have fun!!! yes?
cheers Stu
all good alpha et al!!!
- such a good game does not require my wankfest to shut it down or close off various and welcome roads to discursive wargamerism lol!!!
Apologies guys!---enjoy this game and remember to tell us/ me about it!!!!
cheers Stu
I can only play this solitaire now!!!!--how sad is me?

Thread: Re: Red Fists - Soviet Strategy for Summer/Winter ’41

bigstu — 2007-11-20T11:03:40+00:00

Rolling Thunder B52's-Phantom's Vietnam lol!!!! German blitz? 41?
cheers Stu

Thread: Bloodbath "Variant"

GROGnads — 2007-11-13T04:51:25+00:00

This was derived from our very first "playings" when the GAME first was available, and so is based on that from our "misunderstandings" for anything contained herewith. Basically, you are allowed to HAVE "Continuous" rounds of COMBAT within any initiated, and to help keep track of these, then it is BEST to resolve these in their entirety before proceeding to the NEXT one. What you shall also be doing, is deciding whether or NOT to "Retreat" with certain ones and keeping yet others present, before commencing with the subsequent 'Rounds', and that could be from either 'side' conducting this.

Once we figured out that WE had been "playing" this 'wrongly'- in the manner previously proscribed- then when we began to conduct it in the appropriate "fashion", it just wasn't the same anymore! We'd found that with our manner for that alone, then it'd become MORE openly evolving and faster paced than with what was intended. Try this simple expedient yourself sometime and then let us KNOW here how you felt about it then.

Thread: Re: Help with Summer 43

bigstu — 2007-11-03T09:31:05+00:00

Know your opponent!!!! look him in the eye and proceed to make his destiny uncomfortable!!!!!
Kill him----screw him around--fuck him up!!!!!!!!!
Go 10 different ways to success!!! KilL cheers stu

Thread: Re: Help with Summer 43

Imago — 2007-10-28T22:06:10+00:00

This game began with Russian (mostly badly-aimed!) blitzes and well-directed defence led to decisive German victory!

Thread: Re: Help with Summer 43

Psych0 — 2007-10-28T21:37:48+00:00

Christian, have you thought of just retreating back to the Dnepr? You should be able to hold that all through summer. Once winter comes around you'll have higher engagement limits than the Ruskies across the river, so should be possible to stick to the Dnepr line until summer and fall back on the next river.

Whatever you do, try to keep your army as healthy as possible. If you need to give away some territory for that, so be it. Failing to do so, WILL result in Berlin falling too soon.

Good luck and let us know how you went,
Joris

PS: To keep it fair, also advise for your opponent; just keep attacking (blitz only). I know you like that Alpha so you're very well suited to play the Ruskies in the Kursk scenario

Thread: Re: Red Fists - Soviet Strategy for Summer/Winter ’41

blockhead — 2007-10-27T16:44:49+00:00

I changed my nomenclature to refer to the German strategy as Rolling Thunder. I was one of the people who talked to Craig Besinque extensivily about the Rolling Thunder and Red Fist statagies. I ran into both playing in the www.eastfront.de tournaments. I was concerned that the game play in the tournaments had become sterotyped. I saw essentially the identical German and Soviet setups from every opponent and the first turn was the same too. Craig and I had several long talks about proposed solutions, but his conversations with other players convinced him that that no change was necessary.

Joris, I recognize your name from that same tournament where you were a very dominant player. I'm willing to accept your word that there are multiple possible stratagies and I have no doubt you could stuff my version of Rolling Thunder. Laurin Colby's comments command respect as well, Laurin beat me soundly in the games we played. It's nice to hear from experts!

East Front remains one of my favorite games, precisly because there are so many options and a skilled player can find a way to win. I put forward Red Fists not as a guarantee, simply a strategy to consider.

Thread: Re: Red Fists - Soviet Strategy for Summer/Winter ’41

Psych0 — 2007-10-26T10:17:57+00:00

EF is one of my favourite games and played it quite a bit. What I realised after a while is that any strategy can be countered and that's the beauty of EF, especially until W42. After S42 it gets a bit static and attrition focused. The tricky part is to know when to apply what strategy to counter your opponent's moves and actually be in a position to execute a change in strategic stance.

If you boil EF down to the core it's sort of a 'paper-scissors-rock' game...

Paper = stretched frontline

Scissors = concentrated blitz to break through 'paper'

Rock = strong defensive position but due to it's concentration of force usually not an extended frontline, which can only really be broken with a 'paper' attack, i.e. go round and try envelop the 'rock'

I invite anyone to try the 'blob' on me, it can be effectively countered and delayed in various ways, even before W41.

The difficulty in EF lies in the efficient execution of these strategic stances and switching between them when needed.

Thread: My houserule to make cities less powerful defensively

Psych0 — 2007-10-26T06:00:18+00:00

IMHO cities are too powerful defensively. Even the smallest city, like Riga or Tula give Double Fire and Double Defense for all defending units.

What do you think of below houserule that scales this big advantage a little?

The PP value of the city is the number of defending units that get DF & DD. The rest of the units get the benefits of the terrain surrounding the city. So, Tula would only give DF/DD for 1 unit, while Stalino gives that benefit to 2 units.

This makes the board a little more open and less static.