Game: Paths of Glory

Thread: Re: Place Balance: OOB Rules vs Ted Racier Historical

Riku Riekkinen — 2008-11-19T15:43:30+00:00

In normal tournament scenario strong players bid about 2VP to play allies.

In Raicer's historical. Bid is 1 or 2... so a little less if it changes. So it is generally seen to bring sides a bit closer (still assuming draw is AP victory).

Thread: Re: Place Balance: OOB Rules vs Ted Racier Historical

jpinnion — 2008-11-19T10:37:30+00:00

In my mind there are three parts of the ted racier historic varient:

1) Start game fix (without the corps on the board then the Russians can score some easy big wins against the Austrians early on).
2) Game improvements:

8 card hand (gives players more control).
Different trenches and forced GoA (encourages the Germans to "have a go" in 1914 but makes an Italian collapse when they join the war much less likely).
OPS with events (improves game flow while slightly favouring the central powers).

3) Extra VPs available (to encourage getting Russia out and America in)

I would always want to play the historic varient, and would never play without the extra corps in place. I'd say both slightly favour the allies, but the historic varient less so.

Thread: Place Balance: OOB Rules vs Ted Racier Historical

Lobo2 — 2008-11-19T00:49:29+00:00

How does the play balance of the Ted Racier Historical variant compare to the standard out of the box rules? Does it make the game more even or do the Allies still have a slight edge?

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

voynix — 2008-11-17T22:35:09+00:00

Rule 12.1.6 states that each unit may only be involved in one combat per action round. From the 2004 ed. rulebook

Very good! I always thought of this sentences in reference to the attackers, but obviously it encompasses defenders too. I hate when I miss something obvious.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

_Kael_ — 2008-11-17T11:23:38+00:00

Hansolo88 wrote:
Hey guys,
[..] This could result in the oddity of the French advancing into a space that the British are designated to attack. [..]
As a house rule I would allow it.

One stack of allies walking into a space, while other allies starting to barrage that place, sounds very WW-I like to me.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

Lobo2 — 2008-11-17T01:24:32+00:00

Rule 12.1.6 states that each unit may only be involved in one combat per action round. From the 2004 ed. rulebook.

I just finished my first complete campaign game and we mis-played this rule the entire game.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

Philip Thomas — 2008-11-16T21:27:15+00:00

Hansolo88 wrote:
Thanks a lot for the many responses. It sounds like the ruling is that a single space cannot be attacked more than once per round. However, if you can designate a stack as attacking without designating a target space, that still leaves the possibility of a stack with an attack order on it and no enemies adjacent. Does this strike anyone else as odd? In this case I am assuming the attack is cancelled and the OP spent to activate the stack is wasted.

Because of the rule against attacking a space more than once, the only way you can have a stack with an attack order on it that doesn't have a target is if it didn't have a valid target when you gave the order! Should players be allowed to waste attack orders like that? If they want to...

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

billyboy — 2008-11-16T20:57:50+00:00

Hansolo88 wrote:
Thanks a lot for the many responses. It sounds like the ruling is that a single space cannot be attacked more than once per round. However, if you can designate a stack as attacking without designating a target space, that still leaves the possibility of a stack with an attack order on it and no enemies adjacent. Does this strike anyone else as odd? In this case I am assuming the attack is cancelled and the OP spent to activate the stack is wasted.

It does state specifically in the rules that a stack (or unit) marked to attack can cancel and doesn't have to attack. It doesn't strike me at all as odd. Depending on what happens in other attacks it sometimes (due to unexpected bad results!) changes the situation enough that I will want to cancel a planned attack. This happens all the time in many wargames. Now being able to attack the same hex twice in the same turn would be odd. That is usually only allowed in games that can have more than one round of combat or tactical games.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

MBarratt — 2008-11-16T19:25:00+00:00

If I recall correctly, Ted Raicer or Andy Lewis said that
12.1.6 Each unit may participate in only one Combat per Action
Round.
prevents a space from being attacked twice in a round.

I shall offer no comment on whether that is a sufficiently clear bit of rules writing.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

Hansolo88 — 2008-11-16T19:19:18+00:00

Thanks a lot for the many responses. It sounds like the ruling is that a single space cannot be attacked more than once per round. However, if you can designate a stack as attacking without designating a target space, that still leaves the possibility of a stack with an attack order on it and no enemies adjacent. Does this strike anyone else as odd? In this case I am assuming the attack is cancelled and the OP spent to activate the stack is wasted.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

voynix — 2008-11-16T18:54:50+00:00

I see that in the faq, and I am glad it was brought to my attention. This is certainly not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook, at least anywhere I can find.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

billyboy — 2008-11-16T18:35:03+00:00

Philip Thomas wrote:
http://files.boardgamegeek.com/geekfile_view.php?fileid=2498...

Paths of Glory FAQ, contains the ruling that you can't attack the same space more than once in an action round.

Thanks. I knew the rule but I couldn't locate it!

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

Philip Thomas — 2008-11-16T18:33:32+00:00

http://files.boardgamegeek.com/geekfile_view.php?fileid=2498...

Paths of Glory FAQ, contains the ruling that you can't attack the same space more than once in an action round.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

Philip Thomas — 2008-11-16T18:30:53+00:00

Is there a Paths of Glory FAQ?

I have found the prohbition in the sequel to Paths of Glory, Pursuit of Glory, and it isn't listed as a change from Paths (an insert is provided listing the rules changes from Paths). But that might just be an accidental omission from the changes list.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

billyboy — 2008-11-16T17:54:56+00:00

I just posted this question on Consim World.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

voynix — 2008-11-16T17:35:58+00:00

I honestly don't see anywhere in the rules where it states that a space cannot be attacked more than once per action rounf.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

billyboy — 2008-11-16T17:30:50+00:00

I can't find it either and I have the rules in front of me. I did find this rule in "Barbarossa to Berlin" .

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

Philip Thomas — 2008-11-16T17:26:09+00:00

Good question. I don't have the rules of Paths with me, I'll look it up when I can.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

voynix — 2008-11-16T16:59:57+00:00

but he gives the impression that you could attack the same space twice in the same action round, which is wrong

Where is it stated in the rules that you cannot attack the same space twice in one action round?

Thread: Re: Mounted Board on P500

ZyronEnder — 2008-11-16T14:46:52+00:00

That's what I'm expecting too (a CC:A-like board which is great.) At the end of the day though, this hasn't made the P500 cut, so we won't know exactly how it turns out until they get 500 preorders and it's printed. A bit of a catch-22 for wait-and-see-ers.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

Philip Thomas — 2008-11-16T13:55:48+00:00

Bill's reply is correct- and helpful.

Dan is correct that you don't designate the target of all attacks at once, but he gives the impression that you could attack the same space twice in the same action round, which is wrong.

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

voynix — 2008-11-16T13:36:51+00:00

Remember when you activate spaces for combat, you do not predesignate where they will fight, so if the French attack first, win, then advance into that space, the Brits can simply attack somewhere else. Furthermore, only 1 space can attack at a time.

And remember: spaces, not units are activateed. Therefore, each activation is separate, and in this case, each space would cost 1 Op point to activate.

Hope that helps!!

Thread: Re: Mounted Board on P500

jvdv — 2008-11-16T08:11:07+00:00

I think it will be the same as the board in the second Commands & Colors expansion, and that is everything one can expect from a mounted board...

Thread: Re: Quick but important rules question

billyboy — 2008-11-16T06:47:59+00:00

A single space may only be attacked once per action round.

Thread: Quick but important rules question

Hansolo88 — 2008-11-16T06:35:46+00:00

Hey guys,

I managed to teach my dad (an old-time wargamer who's been out of the hobby for a while) how to play Paths of Glory and am now enjoying my first ever face to face game. We've been doing ok with the rules for the most part, though i'll admit its a difficult game to teach with all the intracies.

We've run into a critical issue with multinational combats. He has one stack of British armies, and a separate stack of French armies, both adjacent to a stack of German armies. We know the rules prohibit him from attacking with both allied stacks together since he has no space with units from both nations, but can he still designate them as attacks and then resolve the attacks in sequence, i.e. attack with the French first, then the British second in separate combats? This could result in the oddity of the French advancing into a space that the British are designated to attack. I looked but I couldn't find anything in the rules prohibiting this type of sequential attack. Is this allowed, and if so, if the first attack is successful in occupying the space would the second designated attack simply be called off, wasting the OP?

Our next game session is Monday, so hopefully someone can answer before then!

Thread: Re: Mounted Board on P500

newuser — 2008-11-16T05:27:14+00:00

Are there any pictures of these boards? Is it a real mounted board, like you would get with (for example) Risk or Monopoly?

I bought the "deluxe board" and was very dissatisfied with the result... I'm not eager to spend more cash for something that won't get used.

Edit:

Found the images below of the Successors board. Probably should've looked before posting. I'm not quite sold on the quality from the pictures - will probably hold off on ordering until I can see one in the wild to decide.

]]>

]]>

Thread: Re: Mounted Board on P500

ZyronEnder — 2008-11-16T04:39:36+00:00

Thanks to this thread I have just preordered too! I'll be all too happy to get rid of my sheet of plexiglass.

Thread: Re: Who plays the Historical Variants from Brad Martin?

The Guru — 2008-11-12T07:34:05+00:00

I agree: Race to the Sea with free Ops is definitely a bad idea, as are the Austrian free Ops.

We play the Banquet des Généraux variant. It addresses all the above-mentioned issues, is extensively playtested and is Ted-Raicer approved.

http://www.banquetdesgeneraux.com/article1.html

Thread: Re: Multiplayer Paths of Glory?

RabbitMan — 2008-11-12T05:16:20+00:00

Three friends and I are trying to figure out this very predicament so we can play tonight to celebrate Veterans' (Armistice) Day! Here is the idea I've come up with, I think it may work pretty well:

Each side is split into teams of two. Each player may not communicate in specifics with his teammate, only generalities. For example, the player in control of Russia may tell the player in control of Britain that he will be conducting an offensive in Austria in the hopes of flanking the enemy, but he will NOT be allowed to say he is moving specific stacks from specific locations to specific places with specific combats hoping for specific results, under the assumption that specific British stacks will move to take advantage of this in a specific way. Get my drift? Otherwise, they both share the same hand just like in the normal game. The division of the powers is different for either side.

The Allies are clear cut into different countries, but the players share power on both fronts.

So, Allied player 1 controls France and Russia, and Allied player 2 controls Britain, Belgium, Italy, and the other minor powers. This creates a unique situation where although one player begins the game with the majority of power, the unity of command breaks down rather quickly on the Western Front as the stronger British forces arrive in the North and Italy comes into play in the South. France might request some points to launch an offensive in the west, but since he cannot pin-point exactly what he will do to his friend( "I think I can break through in the Alsace-Lorraine area with a concentrated enough offensive. Trust me, it'll be great!"), he will probably have to make a concession( 'Okay...but give me a point so I can send in British support alongside you and maybe plug up any holes' ). Russia remains a stable power, but will probably rely on the other player as Italy or the minor Balkan powers at some point.

The Central players were a bit more tricky, but ultimately we felt merely divvying up the countries would be boring for whomever did not get to play as Germany.

So, Central player 1 controls the Western front, everything pretty much west of the Cold War line. In particular, he gets control of Vienna. Central player 2 controls the Eastern front (basically everything else), in particular getting Budapest. Both players essentially share Berlin. Combined with the 'lack of specificity' rule in my variant, this creates a predicament much like the Central Powers dealt with in the real war; figuring out which front to focus on. The Eastern player will insist at times that he has the perfect plan to break Russia, and just needs a few points here and there to launch some offensive with Austrian help to flank the Russians. The Western front commander will be arguing that he needs more reinforcements and needs points to make that one last breakthrough in Northern France.

What these rules create is a great cooperative/competitive dynamic through the team structure. With the communications break down, each side is pursuing glory in his own way and must rely on the other to make good on his bargain. I feel that traditional team play, where two people discuss how to play their turn, ultimately becomes a game in which there are just two players with people over their shoulders. With my variant, I think there is a bit more fun to be had without radically altering the rules.

I recognize that the variant is probably broken in some way, or only looks good on paper, but I felt this was a conversation worthy of continuing. A great wargame system like this deserves some truly creative variants. I challenge YOU to put on your thinking caps too and join the discussion.

Thread: Re: What do corps in the reserve box really represent?

heckles — 2008-11-08T17:19:11+00:00

I feel the corps in the reserve box also represent officers and NCO serving in the more easily replenshed main army structure; as opposed to those sent off to "Dunsterforce"-type detachments into remote areas. Such task forces will draw a disproportionate number of trained and experienced leaders away from the main fight.

Thread: Re: Looking for pbem opponent

_Kael_ — 2008-11-03T20:27:52+00:00

...and don't you two forget to write a nice session report, based on the ACTS logfile

Thread: Re: What do corps in the reserve box really represent?

MBarratt — 2008-11-03T18:14:00+00:00

The way that I thought about reserve corps is that they represent troops who being rotated out of the line. If you don't give your troops R & R their morale will crack when something goes wrong.

Thread: Re: Looking for pbem opponent

residue — 2008-11-03T16:22:35+00:00

Splendid. I'll contact you via geekmail once I have everything sorted out (could take until tomorrow atleast, I'm afraid).

Thread: Re: Looking for pbem opponent

Philip Thomas — 2008-11-03T16:17:30+00:00

ACTS keeps track of the cards, and War Status, yes and you can do dice-rolling on it too. You do need some other way of keeping track of the rest of the game state. I use Cyberboard for this purpose, each player keeping track on his own Cyberboard file- not exchanging files unless someone has managed to lose his.

I'm a willing enough teacher, just set up a game on ACTS.

Thread: Looking for pbem opponent

residue — 2008-11-03T16:04:24+00:00

I've only played PoG twice, and it was quite some years ago. Re-reading the rules now. Am looking for a PBEM opponent not afraid to tell me when I'm screwing up

Preferably VASSAL. ACTS I can learn if that is preferred (I assume I'm correct in that it works as a turn-submission tool, keeps track of cards played and the players use VASSAL or Cyberboard to actually play the game?).

Yeah. Noobie me.

Thread: Re: Who plays the Historical Variants from Brad Martin?

MBarratt — 2008-11-03T13:10:53+00:00

John St wrote:

I don't think the idea of using Race to the Sea as an event and OPS at the same time is a good one, as the Allies normally leave that area empty until the CP plays Race or goes to limited war. The CP could waltz right into the channel ports.

Maybe it would work if the channel ports restriction wasn't lifted until after the OPs had been taken

Thread: Re: Who plays the Historical Variants from Brad Martin?

John St — 2008-11-02T18:12:24+00:00

FrenchCrusader wrote:
I read them in the player's guide, love them but never test them.
(mandated offensive in Strasbourg for the French, in Tannenberg for the Russian, in Serbia for the Austrian, the events race to the sea + landwehr count as events and you also play the ops, you can build trenches buy paying 2 ops, the Austrian has 2 OPS for free per turn until 1916)
Do you have any advice?

I don't think the idea of using Race to the Sea as an event and OPS at the same time is a good one, as the Allies normally leave that area empty until the CP plays Race or goes to limited war. The CP could waltz right into the channel ports.

Part of my house rule that I use is mandatory offensives (neither side rolls) for the French, Russians (must be against Germans) and Germans in August, and mandatory offence for the Russians(must attack an Austrian unit) and Austrians in September (simulating the Galicia offensives, which mainly took place in September)

Thread: Re: Mounted Board on P500

galeninjapan — 2008-11-02T15:48:42+00:00

Does this mean that newer reprints of this game will have mounted boards?

Thread: Re: Who plays the Historical Variants from Brad Martin?

jpinnion — 2008-11-02T12:43:54+00:00

I dont play this historical varient, I do play Ted Raciers though - 8 card hand, no british trench, Italian trenches, only austrian and Italian armies allowed in Italy until total war and various events also count for ops. The idea of anything beyond the first turn being fixed would annoy me to be honest (if you want to force tannenburg, start the game in 1915!) While free Austrian OPs sounds game breaking.

Thread: Who plays the Historical Variants from Brad Martin?

FrenchCrusader — 2008-11-02T09:11:04+00:00

I read them in the player's guide, love them but never test them.
(mandated offensive in Strasbourg for the French, in Tannenberg for the Russian, in Serbia for the Austrian, the events race to the sea + landwehr count as events and you also play the ops, you can build trenches buy paying 2 ops, the Austrian has 2 OPS for free per turn until 1916)
Do you have any advice?

Thread: Re: PBEM opponent wanted

Clifton Pig — 2008-11-01T15:43:54+00:00

Thanks, I have found an opponent.

Thread: Re: About ridiculous mandated offensives and Romania after Tsar has Fallen

John St — 2008-10-31T16:44:45+00:00

Thread: Re: What do corps in the reserve box really represent?

cmudd02 — 2008-10-31T03:40:31+00:00

I feel that this represents that all of the back line (cadre) trained forces have been sent into action at the front and are no long able to train the recruits that would normally replenish the army. So without the pipeline in place the army will not be brought back and the remaining infrastructure is being used to maintain the existing field army's.

But then again, I could be very wrong in this.

Thread: Re: Is there a beginner's scenario?

PlayMe1 — 2008-10-31T03:29:07+00:00

Hansolo88 wrote:
..if there is an introductory scenario that you can play with prior to tackling the main game. In this case, I think the introductory scenario will be quite good.

Hi Ryan, Yes, that was exactly what I was asking, but probably not very clearly. Just looking for an introductory scenario to get familiar with the play mechanics before taking on the entire rulebook. With an introductory game or two under my belt, then I'd be looking forward to immersing myself in the complete game.

Thread: What do corps in the reserve box really represent?

Hansolo88 — 2008-10-30T23:02:21+00:00

I realize on the map corps units represent armies that have suffered heavy losses or detached corps-sized elements of infantry and cavalry.

However, in the reserve box the corps seem to represent something else entirely. An army that is reduced without a corps to take its place is eliminated from the game, which is a very heavy and irreversible blow comparable to having the army cut off and destroyed behind enemy lines.

Are corps in this box intended to represent a strategic reserve of formed and trained military units or a more general measure of that nation's reserve of available manpower? In either case, what is really meant when an army is eliminated when no corps is available to replace it? Or is this just a game element with no realistic or historical reason?

Thread: Re: Is there a beginner's scenario?

Hansolo88 — 2008-10-30T22:53:46+00:00

Michael, I might have misunderstood you. I thought you were asking if there was a short scenario that you could play in place of the main campaign game. However, it sounds as if you are simply asking if there is an introductory scenario that you can play with prior to tackling the main game. In this case, I think the introductory scenario will be quite good. The scale of the game is the same but the length is a lot shorter, letting you learn from your mistakes and get the mechanics down.

The rules are really not that bad, the actual rules governing movement and combat are quite simple. It's the structure of the turn and the multitude of exceptions that bog the game down, but they generally make logical or historical sense.

Thread: Re: About ridiculous mandated offensives and Romania after Tsar has Fallen

jpinnion — 2008-10-30T21:54:26+00:00

phimbs wrote:
Two questions:

1. Is it really allowed to fulfill mandated offensives with suicide attacks with only one corp (for example an intentional attack with only one corp from Belfort against an army in Mulhouse)? Seems to be a too easy way for me. Shouldn´t there be a rule, that the attack could harm the enemy forces?

2. If the Tsar has fallen, Romania is still neutral and AP not yet at Total War how can he play the Romania card? (Because of the rule which demand to play Italia and Romania as Event, which is in this case not possible anymore for Romania) Can - under this circumstances - the card not be played until AP is at Total War?

Thanks for support!

1) a suicide attack that doesnt do anything but satisfy the politicians desire for an offensive does indeed count as a mandated offensive. but given the number of other things to be done and the time required to shift a corps into place (there's very rarely a German presence in Mulhouse) there are many times I'd much rather take a loss on a big attack and inflict pain at the same time. That said, there are also times I've taken the VP hit, it's all about timing.

Incidentally I find the mandated offensives to be one of the things that make this feel (to me) like a WW1 game, rather than a generic "anywar" game.

2) I'm not sure of the rule, but I suspect in those circumstances Romania is either unplayable or only playable for war status. If Germany have put the Russian capitulation track too far for Romania to join the war while the allies are still at limited war, then the allies will almost certainly be at the point of resigning anyway.

Thread: Re: About ridiculous mandated offensives and Romania after Tsar has Fallen

Tompy — 2008-10-30T21:47:20+00:00

Yes, these are good questions.

I will comment on #1. (And answer yours with one of my own.)

Isn't losing a corps and losing an action (even if it's only 1 part of an operations card) enough? I think it is.

Sadly I can't comment on #2.

Thread: Re: About ridiculous mandated offensives and Romania after Tsar has Fallen

cratex — 2008-10-30T21:46:38+00:00

1. ... Shouldn´t there be a rule, that the attack could harm the enemy forces?

Seems to me that was never a limitation on the historical commanders.

More seriously, the rule is meant to force a bad move on you. It was a dreary part of the reality of the war.

Someone more familiar with the late war portion of the game will have to answer question two.

Thread: Re: About ridiculous mandated offensives and Romania after Tsar has Fallen

billyboy — 2008-10-30T20:57:42+00:00

Excellent questions !

Image

Embark — 2008-10-29T19:04:30+00:00

A look at card management in the VASSAL module. It's a little cumbersome but totally workable.

Image

Embark — 2008-10-29T18:59:33+00:00

A look at the outstanding VASSAL module for Paths of Glory

Image

baditude — 2008-10-28T17:51:04+00:00

Trisha on the Path of Glory

Image

buffalospynovel — 2008-08-12T13:11:50+00:00

(L) 2004 WBC Champ Nick Anner vs. (R) 2008 WBC Champ Riku Reikkonnen and spectator Nels Thompsen

Image

Annagul — 2008-07-21T17:50:52+00:00

The Allied player is talking with the HQ

Image

Habbaku — 2008-06-01T07:17:15+00:00

A picture showcasing the brutal supply rules of PoG. Guard your supply lines or you might find yourself without an army!

Image

Ternal2 — 2008-05-25T22:18:10+00:00

Fira Jugarxjugar 2008 (Granollers)

Image

Lev Mishkin — 2008-04-13T19:05:33+00:00

Czech Legion

Image

jsper — 2008-02-10T10:28:40+00:00

Central powers cards example translated to spanish

Image

jsper — 2008-02-10T10:12:46+00:00

Inside box side 3 of 4