Matrix Games Forums

Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge Update
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Reserve Activations, over the top?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 9:40:04 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

If GHC starts disbanding then turn 1. I am considering disbanding 27 infantry Corp HQ turn 1.


You might want to think that through.
It is possible your opponents would enjoy your supply situation after that move on turn 1.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 61
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 9:51:50 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6293
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Indeed. But it's not just supply. Combat rolls, morale rolls, initiative rolls, everything. The leadership system rewards redundancy. With strong leaders and multiple layers your chances of making all those rolls approaches 100%. Cut out a layer and not so much.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 62
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 9:54:44 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton...you planning to attach a bunch of stuff directly to armies? You're going to miss a lot of rolls that way. That corps layer of command gives you an extra bite at the apple.

The Soviet command structure is simpler, but simpler doesn't mean better here.


The fact is I have done it and I have alrdy posted on it.

1. 400,000 extra men
2. SU per battle up fron 4-8 to 12 to 20
3. Zero effect on supplies.

I did it vs MT from turn 18 on.

JB tested and played a game he easly won, I expanded on it more by disbanding 40+ Corp.

In my game vs Hugh its saved my ass from getting rolled in 1943.

Its almost 44 3.5 million vs 9.6 million and I am still holding the lines.


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 63
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 9:56:35 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

If GHC starts disbanding then turn 1. I am considering disbanding 27 infantry Corp HQ turn 1.


You might want to think that through.
It is possible your opponents would enjoy your supply situation after that move on turn 1.



There are no effects other then extra trucks and 400,000 more men.

Ask them:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3146387&mpage=7


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3146382

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3131609&mpage=6



< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/4/2013 10:34:54 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 64
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 10:00:14 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6293
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Interesting. But does it work on the offense? I can see a case for streamlining this on the defense.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 65
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 10:06:11 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

There are no effects other then extra trucks and 400,000 more men.


Can you explain how it has no effect when you do it on turn 1?
I'm interested in how you keep the Wehrmacht supplied, or do you intend to cluster them within 5 hexes of the respective Army HQs as you advance away from railheads?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 66
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 10:25:47 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1842
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
I understand where Pelton is coming from. And that worries me....

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 67
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 10:43:28 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2292
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I just think it's totally nuts that disbanding an entire tier of the German command structure could be benificial in any way or form. But yet it is. Something is amiss.

Getting back on to Reserves.

In the past the German players in the main have been able to keep the Soviets off balance for longer periods in 1941 and this nulifies the reserve function as a Soviet army in disarray can't manage it. With little rule changes here and there its become harder and harder to keep Ivan off balance. So we see more games where the Soviets are able to regain composure earlier. Once that occurs is when the 'reserve' game really makes life much harder for the German players to get going again.

My concerns about this are as much about facing a challenging game when I play Soviet as anything else.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 68
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 10:49:44 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
MT's way of moving supplies he has no issue with, but mine he does?

Its not the great ones idea so its bad heheh whats new?

On the offensive the infantry armies can disband, but not the PA's can't for reason we all can see. I have disbanded a few per turn and it seemed to work fine, I have not tried disbanding 27 the first turn.

Back to MT thread the reason why SHC has so many reactions is because of the C&C structure. No issue's with supplies, refits ect ect.

The consern should be with SHC and not GHC.

Fix SHC so its historical as per Flaviusx ideas.

The hole C&C issue is ass backwards really. More HQ's should = more supplies, replasements, better SU commitment, more reactions and better over all CV.

BUT

The fact is the more HQ units in the chain less supplies, less reactions and less SU commitments.

Its really a big issue.

MT is right about SHC reactions being way way to high, but for the wrong reasons.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 69
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 10:54:52 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Interesting. But does it work on the offense? I can see a case for streamlining this on the defense.


I think if MT used it, it would make his GHC 41 even better if thats even possible.

Until Hitler's Dragon Air Lift Corp is nerfed MT does not need to sink as low as me to survive.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 70
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 11:04:24 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1710
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
The Allies had PLUTO, now the Axis have PLITA.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 71
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 11:11:41 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6293
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I'd like to see someone game it out in 41, Pelton, but if it works, that is bad. Not sure what we can do about it, tbh. Other than adjust leadership values in 41 for the Sovs.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 72
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/4/2013 11:41:55 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2292
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Pelton I have not in anyway been critical of you for doing it. I am critical that it is of benefit in game terms. Disbanding the Corp tier should result in some horrible ramifications. But it appears it does not. I only see positives. And from what I have seen it doesn't seem to affect your supply status.

Generalising it would seem the German command system needs to be tweaked up and the Soviet tweaked down. How this is done is up for debate, but it needs some work. And in the process make disbanding or bypassing a tier of the command structure somewhat more problematic.


_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 73
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 1:09:15 AM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1389
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
...Disbanding the Corp tier should result in some horrible ramifications. But it appears it does not. I only see positives. And from what I have seen it doesn't seem to affect your supply status.

Generalising it would seem the German command system needs to be tweaked up and the Soviet tweaked down. How this is done is up for debate, but it needs some work. And in the process make disbanding or bypassing a tier of the command structure somewhat more problematic.


This is worthy of its own thread. The timing is interesting as I was recently wondering about the usefulness of the corps as I got into multi-hex attacks. I think the easiest fix is when the attack is NOT managed by a corps commander, every participating unit gets the separate corps CV reduction. This would be a nerf on the Soviets - not sure how significant. In this battle - no support units were allocated from 9th Army which was three hexes from the battle.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rmonical -- 4/5/2013 1:21:06 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 74
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 1:27:44 AM   
Disgruntled Veteran


Posts: 491
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton...you planning to attach a bunch of stuff directly to armies? You're going to miss a lot of rolls that way. That corps layer of command gives you an extra bite at the apple.

The Soviet command structure is simpler, but simpler doesn't mean better here.


I disagree, although I could be missing something. Aside from greater hex flexibility there is no reason to keep Corps' as axis player. Every battle under army HQ I get way more SU's in every battle and never have to worry about the small penalties from different Corps. In my current game I have disbanded all Corps that can be disbanded (some withdraw so can't be disbanded) You also have your best leaders in direct command of combats, whereas many of your Corps will have sub-standard (relative to German leaders) commander's. Finally, as MT pointed out, your free up a lot of manpower. I wouldn't do this in 41 though as you need the flexibility of the Corps for daring advances. Once defense comes however...there is no room to debate IMO. Disband them all!

< Message edited by Disgruntled Veteran -- 4/5/2013 1:28:15 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 75
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 2:15:38 AM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 886
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
If it was me I'd put a cap on the number of combat units (not HQs) a leader can directly command before it starts to effect his ratings.This cap would vary according to how good the leader was.So for instance a poor leader is going to struggle with more than three units under command whereas a better leader could handle six or seven before risking being penalized.Either way Soviet commanders are going to take a hit to their ratings once the corps are disbanded.
This could also be extended to higher commands, but instead of combat units we'd be talking HQs.So again the better leaders could handle more HQs before they start to struggle and lose rating points.
In relation to this particular thread, you could make it more likely that reserves will activate when under corps command.
These two measures would make reserve activation unlikely for the Soviets and make corps HQs important.

< Message edited by timmyab -- 4/5/2013 2:16:48 AM >

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)
Post #: 76
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 5:05:27 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2201
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
Wow this thread has led to the air being let out of my balloon.

Tonight I have no desire to even play.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 77
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 5:51:25 AM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1389
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Tonight I have no desire to even play.


Well, I have the catharsis of disbanding some German HQ on the crowded sections of the front in a game in which I am getting demolished.

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 78
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 6:12:52 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6293
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Wow this thread has led to the air being let out of my balloon.

Tonight I have no desire to even play.


Don't sweat it, this is all pretty high level theorycrafting and not entirely tested.

Like legislation and sausage making, game rules are messy when broken down.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 79
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 8:40:08 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
Perhaps the average level of German leaders is high enough that losing a level of command doesn't show up that much since there tend to be leader rolls passed at the Army level anyway?

Having Corps HQ for the Soviets through the war would require a bunch more leaders deployed which would knock down the average quality of deployed guys ( bad ) but would add a layer of potential check-passing ( good? ).

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 80
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 9:14:14 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1220
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I just think it's totally nuts that disbanding an entire tier of the German command structure could be benificial in any way or form. But yet it is. Something is amiss.

Getting back on to Reserves.

In the past the German players in the main have been able to keep the Soviets off balance for longer periods in 1941 and this nulifies the reserve function as a Soviet army in disarray can't manage it. With little rule changes here and there its become harder and harder to keep Ivan off balance. So we see more games where the Soviets are able to regain composure earlier. Once that occurs is when the 'reserve' game really makes life much harder for the German players to get going again.

My concerns about this are as much about facing a challenging game when I play Soviet as anything else.


I have to read up on that game of Pelton's. I'd never have even thought of disbanding the Corps level HQs for fear of a total logistic or C&C breakdown. I re-read the rules, and logically it should work against you as you should miss more rolls??? If it's generally true that Corps HQ can disbanded on the defense without negatives but rather better SU commitment, can one drive this one step further and get rid of the Army level? If the C&C can be exploited like that, of course the whole reserves thing and everything else just follows the exploit.

When you say "Ivan of balance", what is the say "normal" course you'd want to tune the factors to?

What I am thinking is that there is rarely such phase in which the Germans outrun their supply and get stuck against solidifying Soviet resistance such as AGC faced pretty much during all of August and September at Smolensk, even being required to withdraw a bit. In game terms this would probably mean fort level 3 plus in that area after two months, and a hard time breaking this line to aim at something like the Bryansk/Vyasma pocket battles. Although, if I understand correctly, the Germans bypassed this solid line on the land bridge and the key breakthrus occurred in the Rshev and the Gomel areas, both of which where not fortified and fluid before (the former, because of the progress and forth and back fighting in the Valdai, the latter of course was the northern part of the Kiev line that had just evaporated). So the German made lemonade from lemons, using their superiority to stretch the Soviet lines and hit where they are weak.

I think this kind of thing is presently possible with WitE, though not many AARs show that an AGC that is not deprived of a PzKps for the Lvov can be stopped cold on the landbridge, or somewhere around. Even with the use of reserves, or what you can scrape together. At the moment it seems more like the first signs of solidifying and Axis slow down occur east of Rshev/Vyasma if not even closer to Moscow, rarely before Leningrad, and basically never in the south and south-center (which given the terrain is quite sensible). So basically the Barbarossa part, the 41 VC260 conditions are decided on a knife edge already. I think the strengthening could and should happen even earlier, such as it does if the German side makes mistakes and falls behind the plan.
It would be nice to see someone stop a very good Axis player with drum's and pipes somewhere cold for a month or two, like AGC. Maybe it doesn't happen because when playing Soviets, I/people are not risking enough on the landbridge with its poor open terrain? The Axis does never fall being behind supply enough? Or are Soviets/Soviet reinforcements overall too weak to recreate a feat like that?

So what's your take on that, in which phase should the going for Axis get harder, and should there be perhaps something like an even chance for both sides to either rush through without chance of solidifying lines, or even an equally fair chance that even a good Axis player should be able to get badly stuck somewhere way early of the summer goals?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 81
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 11:14:52 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6293
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Soviets don't get corps commands because this is what happened in real life; they dumped them. Realized very quickly they simply lacked the experienced officers to manage them.

When corps came back later on, they did so as maneuver formations rather than command elements. So the game presentation is correct. The question is if the mechanics follow. I'm not too terribly disturbed by Axis defenders streamlining their command and disbanding corps and whatnot. Soviet players have been disbanding HQs (and airbases and other stuff) from the getgo in 1941 for broadly similar reasons.

What does worry me is if this streamlining is actually better in offensive warfare. There ought to be a positive benefit to an elaborate command structure on the attack. If that's not the case...Houston, we have a problem.

Before anybody hits the panic or depression button (hi Ketza) there is at this moment no proof positive, no play experience at all that ditching corps in 1941 is the way to go. It's a theory. Somebody ought to put it into practice. Then we can evaluate. The same is true, btw, of the original topic. There's been a lot of handwaving here about how horrible reserves are but precious little AAR data to back it up.

Both these claims may be correct ones, but theory only gets you so far.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 4/5/2013 11:15:56 AM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 82
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 12:43:36 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
From trying to follow this thread, is my understanding correct that Corps-level HQs are being disbanded (in a defensive situation) because Army-level HQs will allow for more units to be "grouped together" for the purposes of reserve activations, and because Army-level HQs can accommodate more SUs, and that these two prior benefits allegedly outweigh the extra layer of rolls to pass activations in the first place?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 83
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 1:22:01 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2292
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Its a fact not a theory Flavius. look at the math. Reserve activations are clearly superior under the umbrella of a Army command structure.

I reiterate.

1. Army can command 18 to 30 CP, Corp 8. So all the army units pay less in MP for reserve activation. This affects die rolls and the number of battles that can be assisted and increases the range possible. Different Corp pay higher MP costs to support each other.

So Armies are better for reserve activation.

2. You can stick one great leader in the Army with a fab initiative rating (that's what is checked for reserve activation). Where as if you are using Corp you need 3 times as many leaders with great Initiative.

For me the only question that remains is the supply issue. But a simple examination of the reserve rules leads one to the conclusion that Armies are better at it than Corp. Hence my complaint about it being too good for Soviets in 1941. And why German players on the defensive wipe out the Corp tier.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 84
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 2:17:06 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6293
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Michael, I follow the logic as far as it goes. But the game is complex and the way things interact with each other is not always obvious by looking at any single game mechanic. Also, I am an old fashioned empiricist.

What is the right amount of reserve activity? If you go too far with this you risk making the defender a purely passive participant in an IGOUGO format. The game is, imo, as whole very offensively biased as is.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 85
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/5/2013 4:57:38 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1710
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
There is a trick to activate the defending reserves with a hasty attack that, with a high INI leader, has a good chance to convert to a scouting attack. I'd say that the Germans would have the advantage here due to many more high INI leaders available.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 86
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/6/2013 12:51:54 AM   
jack54


Posts: 632
Joined: 7/18/2007
From: East Tennessee
Status: offline
I like the annual roll modifier for the Soviets... it sounds like a decent quick fix.


Perhaps a German Army HQ should have to pass an Administration roll for units directly attached to it. If it fails it pays the doubling penalties as if there had been a lower corp HQ.

I don't know, I really like having corps, more commanders and stuff to shuffle around; it would be a shame if it's really broke.

_____________________________

mostly playing
Flashpoint Campaigns:Red Storm, Piercing Fortress Europa, RUS, Qvadriga, Drums of War, Hannibal


Avatar:FC:RS German counter

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 87
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/6/2013 7:47:18 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 11781
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: online
quote:

Its a fact not a theory Flavius. look at the math. Reserve activations are clearly superior under the umbrella of a Army command structure.
...
So Armies are better for reserve activation.


This is not correct.

Example:
1. u-C-A-C-u
2. u-A-u

Activation costs are exactly the same in both cases and chances are higher in 1 as you will have higher chances to pass required initiative rolls. Besides if you are trying to go up AG or Front level activation costs are automatically getting higher.


_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 88
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/6/2013 8:22:30 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2292
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I don't agree. If you have say 12 XX covering an area its better to have them all under one Army with one Army leader with a INT of 8 or 9.

Or you could have 3 Corp with 3 leaders maybe at 6 or 7 INT.

Its not like you get a chance at 6 D10 then 8 D10, its 6 D10, 8 D20.

I would rather take all my activation rolls at 8 or 9 D10, than 6 D10 then 8/9 D20.

Also MP makes a difference. You pay higher MP if you are one or more levels removed from the commanding HQ. So with an Army all 12 units pay the same MP. With the Corp's only 4 units will pay the same MP, the other 8 will pay a higher MP. Decreasing possible range and decreasing the chances to beat the MP die roll.

This is based on the RAW. If they are wrong then how about putting up the correct rule so we can figure it out?

If the RAW are wrong and you are paying the same MP regardless of C&C then I would think you are right. What is the actual rule?

Regardless I still say there are too many Soviet Reserve Activations in 1941.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 89
RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? - 4/6/2013 8:30:17 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2292
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Pavel,

The rules say a unit pays 3 x MP cost if under one Command. 4 x Cost if removed by one level. Are you saying the costs are actually the same regardless?

Also what is the additional cost for Mot and Inf, the rules say 8MP and 2MP respectively. From my bug post you say its different to that. What is it?

< Message edited by Michael T -- 4/6/2013 8:31:54 AM >


_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Reserve Activations, over the top? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.127