Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 - English » New expansions 2010
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
PlanBee
Senior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 118
Registered:
May 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 19 February 2010 23:56
OldBloodandGuts wrote on Fri, 19 February 2010 20:19

Mighty Jim 83 wrote on Fri, 19 February 2010 13:31

OldBloodandGuts wrote on Fri, 19 February 2010 15:55

I think a naval expansion would have to be a whole new game system, not playable with existing M44 units -- not an "expansion." Naval combat is certainly do-able with the basic Memoir rules, but having tanks shooting at battleships, for example, just seems silly.


Arnhem bridges inserts a one-line rule that infantry can't fire across the rhine, sure it would be just as easy to say that (for example) only bunkered artillery could fire from coast to sea.


It would be easy, but why bother? I'll bet you can count the number of ship-to-shore artillery duels in WW2 on one hand.

Shore batteries were often shelled (and more often, bombed) prior to a landing, but it's unlikely they'd engage the ships at long range. It seems to me that's because their purpose was to kill landing infantry and landing craft, not engage capital ships. Big guns were often pre-sighted and zeroed on specific places on the beach for just that purpose.

I'm not saying naval combat in the Memoir-style wouldn't be fun. Call it Naval Memoir, or something like that. I'm just saying capital ships don't really belong in a game that is primarily focused on ground and combined-arms tactics (with a small nod to strategy). For the few instances when you might have shore-to-ship combat, it would make more sense to make a "special rule" governing off-board play than to invent a whole new expansion.

I'd much rather see a Tank Destroyer expansion (TDs were a huge part of American armor doctrine), or an SP artillery expansion -- the Americans, Germans, and Soviets had some amazing SP guns.


And German. In fact I would go so far to say they invented the concept.

[Updated on: Fri, 19 February 2010 23:57]

      
Achtung Panzer
Senior Member
Leutnant

User Pages
Posts: 1063
Registered:
December 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Sat, 20 February 2010 11:06
There are already some scenario specific rules e.g. Wittmann's Tiger tank benefit for firing when not moving and being in cover in the official Villers-Bocage scenario which may cover TDs such as the Jagdpanther.

[Updated on: Sat, 20 February 2010 11:08]

      
andy01
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1
Registered:
February 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Sun, 21 February 2010 02:53
How about a special operations expansion? st nazaire raid Telemark Raid for example
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7072
Registered:
July 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Sun, 21 February 2010 06:55
andy01 wrote on Sat, 20 February 2010 17:53

How about a special operations expansion? st nazaire raid Telemark Raid for example


Cool idea! Very Happy
      
ad79
Senior Member
Major Howard

User Pages
Posts: 786
Registered:
September 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Sun, 21 February 2010 07:49
andy01 wrote on Sun, 21 February 2010 02:53

How about a special operations expansion? st nazaire raid Telemark Raid for example


While I think it would be a cool idea, I don't see how Memoir can handle the Telemark Raid. I don't think the attack on Vemork and the hunt afterwards can be gamed without some kind of fog of war. They had to hide from the German patrols that hunted them and hide well they did, because of superior knowledge of the mountains around Rjukan.

But if you make a scenario about it I will try it.
      
stevens
Senior Member
Memoir '44 Online Betatester

User Pages
Posts: 3013
Registered:
February 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Sun, 21 February 2010 13:07
Here is a fun commando scenario:

South Vagsoy

http://www.daysofwonder.com/memoir44/en/editor/view/?id=3922

look familiar?
Laughing Laughing
      
boersma8
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 182
Registered:
February 2005
Re:New expansions 2010 Thu, 25 February 2010 15:03
Some ideas:

1.) Expanding on the idea of the card expansion in SoS: a similar card expansion to be used in desert warfare (armour breaking down due to the severe demands placed on it in that environment (no longer able to move; play against one of your opponent's units), infantry heat exhaustion (-1 movement), dust cloud (Blocks LOS similar to smoke rules or perhaps roll one fewer die) etc. Something similar could be done for the Eastern front and winter weather etc.

2.) An Italian army ( We've got a special card for it, but have to proxy them with Germans)

3.) A French army: We've got maps and cards in French as well as certain scenarios but we're supposed to use American figurines and Shermans in battles that took place in 1940...So, I'd be very happy to buy a French army pack. Suggested armour figure: Sumoa S 35

4.) More plane models (Stuka,Focke Wulf, Mig, Shturmovik,Mustang etc.)

5.) More battle maps (Some suggestions: Seelow Heights, Huertgen forest, Bastogne, Berlin, El Alamein, Kasserine Pass, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal etc.)

6.) Another campaign book (suggestions: North Africa, Fall Weiss, Fall Blau, Island hopping Pacific campaign, Huertgen forest, Battle of the Bulge, Normandy, Kursk etc.)

[Updated on: Fri, 05 March 2010 16:09]

      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7072
Registered:
July 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Thu, 25 February 2010 15:35
Those are all great ideas, player71615, and I would enjoy any of them. I'm eager to see what 2010 brings to the Memoir '44 line!

By the way, how is it that you don't have a user name yet, after 80+ posts?! Rolling Eyes Shocked Laughing How is anybody supposed to remember who came up with that great idea or that wise suggestion with a name like player71615? Confused Got on that, my man! Cool
      
Mighty Jim 83
Senior Member
Starshiy Leytenant

User Pages
Posts: 333
Registered:
August 2009
Re:New expansions 2010 Thu, 25 February 2010 19:49
player71615 wrote on Thu, 25 February 2010 14:03


1.) Expanding on the idea of the card expansion in SoS: a similar card expansion to be used in desert warfare (armour breaking down due to the severe demands placed on it in that environment (no longer able to move; play against one of your opponent's units), infantry heat exhaustion (-1 movement), dust cloud (Blocks LOS similar to smoke rules or perhaps roll one fewer die) etc. Something similar could be done for the Eastern front and winter weather etc.




definitely like the sound of that. Would be interesting to see whether they made separate decks for winter and desert, or a single multi-purpose 1 - i.e. "Heat exhaustion / Frostbite -1 movement"

[Updated on: Thu, 25 February 2010 19:50]

      
GreatDane
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 755
Registered:
June 2004
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 26 February 2010 10:47
I will just buy it - whatever they publish Cool
      
Boddekker
Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 82
Registered:
December 2005
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 26 February 2010 20:19
GreatDane wrote on Fri, 26 February 2010 04:47

I will just buy it - whatever they publish Cool


Ditto

Cool
      
somethingquietlyironic
Junior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 20
Registered:
October 2009
Re:New expansions 2010 Sat, 27 February 2010 17:22
SP guns?
      
magick
Member
Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 51
Registered:
December 2004
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 05 March 2010 13:47
I like the breakthrough map,so I would like to see a winter/desrt version as a new expansion. Razz
      
Achtung Panzer
Senior Member
Leutnant

User Pages
Posts: 1063
Registered:
December 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 05 March 2010 15:20
magick wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 12:47

I like the breakthrough map,so I would like to see a winter/desrt version as a new expansion. Razz


Along with some new scenarios! Very Happy

      
boersma8
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 182
Registered:
February 2005
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 05 March 2010 16:07
Another idea:

1.) I've been playing Allied vs Germans with Tiger tanks in their ranks a couple of times now and those Tigers are darn difficult to take out! So I was wondering whether DoW could even the odds on the battlefield and issue an IS2 for the Russians and e.g. a Pershing for the Americans. For convenience sake they could play exactly the same as the Tiger (just rename the card "heavy tank(s)"; that way you could even (eventually) issue a Char B for the French playing this way or a Mathilda for the British.....

2.) A machine gun special wepapons card. Since we have a mortar and AT special weapon's card, why not one for an MG? Obviously it should then be used for small skirmishes in which one unit actually represents (roughly) a single squad. You could then add one or two special MG outfitted squads.

Movement: Not move and fire or move 1 OR 2 and NOT fire.
Firing: 3-2-1 and stars count as hits when attacking infantry units.

How about these ideas, guys?

[Updated on: Fri, 05 March 2010 16:08]

      
Mighty Jim 83
Senior Member
Starshiy Leytenant

User Pages
Posts: 333
Registered:
August 2009
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 05 March 2010 17:29
magick wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 12:47

I like the breakthrough map,so I would like to see a winter/desrt version as a new expansion. Razz


It's a nice idea, but the breakthrough format doesn't seem to have taken off that well - I think that until we can get breakthrough boards without paying £30+ for a bag, they aren't likely to. Still, hope springs eternal...
      
Mighty Jim 83
Senior Member
Starshiy Leytenant

User Pages
Posts: 333
Registered:
August 2009
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 05 March 2010 17:35
player71615 wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 15:07


2.) A machine gun special wepapons card. Since we have a mortar and AT special weapon's card, why not one for an MG? Obviously it should then be used for small skirmishes in which one unit actually represents (roughly) a single squad. You could then add one or two special MG outfitted squads.

Movement: Not move and fire or move 1 OR 2 and NOT fire.
Firing: 3-2-1 and stars count as hits when attacking infantry units.

How about these ideas, guys?


sounds like a good idea, and pretty simple to do. Nicely compatible with the other SWAs.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7072
Registered:
July 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 05 March 2010 17:50
Mighty Jim 83 wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 08:29

magick wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 12:47

I like the breakthrough map,so I would like to see a winter/desrt version as a new expansion. Razz


It's a nice idea, but the breakthrough format doesn't seem to have taken off that well - I think that until we can get breakthrough boards without paying £30+ for a bag, they aren't likely to. Still, hope springs eternal...


I wouldn't be surprised to see a battle map that has a breakthrough map set instead of Overlord at some point. Rolling Eyes
      
OldBloodandGuts
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 306
Registered:
May 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Fri, 05 March 2010 18:25
player71615 wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 10:07

Another idea:

1.) I've been playing Allied vs Germans with Tiger tanks in their ranks a couple of times now and those Tigers are darn difficult to take out! So I was wondering whether DoW could even the odds on the battlefield and issue an IS2 for the Russians and e.g. a Pershing for the Americans. For convenience sake they could play exactly the same as the Tiger (just rename the card "heavy tank(s)"; that way you could even (eventually) issue a Char B for the French playing this way or a Mathilda for the British.....

2.) A machine gun special wepapons card. Since we have a mortar and AT special weapon's card, why not one for an MG? Obviously it should then be used for small skirmishes in which one unit actually represents (roughly) a single squad. You could then add one or two special MG outfitted squads.

Movement: Not move and fire or move 1 OR 2 and NOT fire.
Firing: 3-2-1 and stars count as hits when attacking infantry units.

How about these ideas, guys?


I love the first idea. Although as I've said in other posts, heavy tanks should have some disadvantage, too -- namely, speed/maneuverability. Moving at 2 is a good solution.

As for the second idea, I like the concept. MG units in smaller scale engagements add a lot. But I see the MG as more of a suppressing unit than a "kill" unit -- they forced people to keep their heads down and give up ground. To get that effect, I've played with this rule for MGs:

When one of these units is activated, it may NOT attack as a normal infantry unit. Instead, an MG may target up to four adjacent units (units must be adjacent) within its range of three hexes (2/1/1). MG attacks ignore cover. Additionally, treat rolls of the star symbol as a retreat flag.
(from "Longstop Hill: 1942" http://www.daysofwonder.com/memoir44/en/editor/view/?id=4560)

That gives them a historical effect of being great at breaking up organized attacks and "spraying" multiple targets. I should add your rule about no move-and-fire, too.
      
boersma8
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 182
Registered:
February 2005
Re:New expansions 2010 Sat, 06 March 2010 16:16
Mighty Jim 83 wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 17:29

magick wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 12:47

I like the breakthrough map,so I would like to see a winter/desrt version as a new expansion. Razz


It's a nice idea, but the breakthrough format doesn't seem to have taken off that well - I think that until we can get breakthrough boards without paying £30+ for a bag, they aren't likely to. Still, hope springs eternal...


Aren't all the map expansions (Tigers in the Snow, Stalingrad, Market garden etc.) essentially breakthrough maps? I don't recall those came with a bag..... Smile
      
boersma8
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 182
Registered:
February 2005
Re:New expansions 2010 Sat, 06 March 2010 16:18
OldBloodandGuts wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 18:25

player71615 wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 10:07

Another idea:

1.) I've been playing Allied vs Germans with Tiger tanks in their ranks a couple of times now and those Tigers are darn difficult to take out! So I was wondering whether DoW could even the odds on the battlefield and issue an IS2 for the Russians and e.g. a Pershing for the Americans. For convenience sake they could play exactly the same as the Tiger (just rename the card "heavy tank(s)"; that way you could even (eventually) issue a Char B for the French playing this way or a Mathilda for the British.....

2.) A machine gun special wepapons card. Since we have a mortar and AT special weapon's card, why not one for an MG? Obviously it should then be used for small skirmishes in which one unit actually represents (roughly) a single squad. You could then add one or two special MG outfitted squads.

Movement: Not move and fire or move 1 OR 2 and NOT fire.
Firing: 3-2-1 and stars count as hits when attacking infantry units.

How about these ideas, guys?


I love the first idea. Although as I've said in other posts, heavy tanks should have some disadvantage, too -- namely, speed/maneuverability. Moving at 2 is a good solution.

As for the second idea, I like the concept. MG units in smaller scale engagements add a lot. But I see the MG as more of a suppressing unit than a "kill" unit -- they forced people to keep their heads down and give up ground. To get that effect, I've played with this rule for MGs:

When one of these units is activated, it may NOT attack as a normal infantry unit. Instead, an MG may target up to four adjacent units (units must be adjacent) within its range of three hexes (2/1/1). MG attacks ignore cover. Additionally, treat rolls of the star symbol as a retreat flag.
(from "Longstop Hill: 1942" http://www.daysofwonder.com/memoir44/en/editor/view/?id=4560)

That gives them a historical effect of being great at breaking up organized attacks and "spraying" multiple targets. I should add your rule about no move-and-fire, too.



Although you certainly have a point, I think my version is more in the spirit of the game and the other SWA's. Besides, I do think MGs did also function as a " kill" unit. Just think of WW1.
      
Mighty Jim 83
Senior Member
Starshiy Leytenant

User Pages
Posts: 333
Registered:
August 2009
Re:New expansions 2010 Sat, 06 March 2010 16:48
OldBloodandGuts wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 17:25



I love the first idea. Although as I've said in other posts, heavy tanks should have some disadvantage, too -- namely, speed/maneuverability. Moving at 2 is a good solution.




Makes sense for some heavy tanks, but I guess it varies from tank to tank.
One of the examples was a Mathilda, hefty 78mm armour, and already moving at 2 hexes because of North African desert rules, but equipped with a lousy 2pdr gun. It would seem like Mathildas would need a special rule to make them less effective against other armour - only rolling two dice, or needing to re-roll hits for example.
      
Mighty Jim 83
Senior Member
Starshiy Leytenant

User Pages
Posts: 333
Registered:
August 2009
Re:New expansions 2010 Sat, 06 March 2010 16:51
player71615 wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 15:16


Aren't all the map expansions (Tigers in the Snow, Stalingrad, Market garden etc.) essentially breakthrough maps? I don't recall those came with a bag..... Smile


No, they're overlord maps. Both bigger than standard maps, but completely different shapes and ratios.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7072
Registered:
July 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Sat, 06 March 2010 16:53
player71615 wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 07:16


Aren't all the map expansions (Tigers in the Snow, Stalingrad, Market garden etc.) essentially breakthrough maps? I don't recall those came with a bag..... Smile


No, the battle maps are not breakthrough maps! Apparently you haven't seen the map that comes with the Campaign Bag; look at the picture on the right when you've clicked on the link. You'll notice that the map is 'deeper' meaning that it's basically two boards stacked on top of each other instead of next to each other. This format is called the Breakthrough format.
      
boersma8
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 182
Registered:
February 2005
Re:New expansions 2010 Sat, 06 March 2010 16:54
Mighty Jim 83 wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 16:48

OldBloodandGuts wrote on Fri, 05 March 2010 17:25



I love the first idea. Although as I've said in other posts, heavy tanks should have some disadvantage, too -- namely, speed/maneuverability. Moving at 2 is a good solution.




Makes sense for some heavy tanks, but I guess it varies from tank to tank.
One of the examples was a Mathilda, hefty 78mm armour, and already moving at 2 hexes because of North African desert rules, but equipped with a lousy 2pdr gun. It would seem like Mathildas would need a special rule to make them less effective against other armour - only rolling two dice, or needing to re-roll hits for example.


Of course you're right, but since all tanks so far basically come in one flavour as far as movement and firepower are concerned (Panzer IIs in Poland and France have the same speed and firepower as Panthers in Battle of the Bulge scenarios). I therefore feel the way they've handled the Tigers is very good. If I want more detail (which I do, mind you!), I'll play TOI, AAM miniatures or Conflict of Heroes. For memoir I guess a " generic" heavy tank would work just fine and possibly specific scenario rules could allow for even more (unit) detail. I wouldn't put that on the basic unit card though, as this level of accuracy is not consistent with the rest of the memoir 44 product line.

[Updated on: Sat, 06 March 2010 16:55]

      
BlackbirdNL
Junior Member

Posts: 17
Registered:
November 2008
Re:New expansions 2010 Sun, 07 March 2010 15:55
Why not take the battle to sea?
I haven't seen many games that deal with WWII naval warfare...
I think it would make an interesting game...
New miniatures etc.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7072
Registered:
July 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Sun, 07 March 2010 17:45
BlackbirdNL wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 06:55

Why not take the battle to sea?
I haven't seen many games that deal with WWII naval warfare...
I think it would make an interesting game...
New miniatures etc.


50th will like this idea!! Laughing

We've talked about Memoir '44 at sea before and come to the conclusion that it would end up being a totally different game rather than an expansion of M44. If Richard Borg created a naval game we would probably all get it because we like this game so much, but it wouldn't be Memoir '44 any more. Smile
      
Mighty Jim 83
Senior Member
Starshiy Leytenant

User Pages
Posts: 333
Registered:
August 2009
Re:New expansions 2010 Sun, 07 March 2010 23:18
rasmussen81 wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 16:45

If Richard Borg created a naval game we would probably all get it because we like this game so much, but it wouldn't be Memoir '44 any more. Smile


Hmm... torn now.

On the one hand, I really hope this happens- would love to see a naval game.

On the other hand, I'm still waiting for news of the Command and Colors Napoleonics that Richard is doing for GMT, and I don't want anything to distract him from that.

I think the only answer is to clone Richard Borg!

[Updated on: Sun, 07 March 2010 23:18]

      
50th
Senior Member
Armor Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1362
Registered:
October 2006
Re:New expansions 2010 Mon, 08 March 2010 06:11
Not a sea battle, but ships softening the shore defenses. (I know, here we go again!) Rolling Eyes Pirate Pirate

      
PanzerRunes
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 229
Registered:
January 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Mon, 08 March 2010 09:51
I've always thought of M'44 as a land warfare game.

Personally I would likely pass on a naval expansion... However I could see more naval influence via combat cards... I would also like to see the air power removed and just have it represented by command or combat cards... possibly even a separate deck.

For game boards I would like to see more ocean hexes, maybe 4 or 5 deep with one hex of beach... I think this would make the Pacific landings more interesting.
      
nemesszili
Senior Member
Hauptmann

User Pages
Posts: 945
Registered:
June 2008
Re:New expansions 2010 Mon, 08 March 2010 10:34
Maybe a new battlemap will answer our prayers? Very Happy
      
Wrecker
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 121
Registered:
October 2006
Re:New expansions 2010 Mon, 08 March 2010 19:22
I would like to see some new cards. Cards that allow center & flank movement (whereas now you only get a pincer movement), or allow a little more mobility would be great...especially if we get some larger (deeper) boards to use.
      
50th
Senior Member
Armor Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1362
Registered:
October 2006
Re:New expansions 2010 Wed, 10 March 2010 02:48
My idea is more ships like the Pacific Theater already has and a map with an actual island (or one side of the island with more ocean hexes so that you can move the ships somewhere) and do shore bombardment like they did at Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and most other Pacific Islands that we battled on. I'm not talking about ship on ship combat. I also think that caves should give some protection against artillery, bombardment from ships, and bombing from planes, as this is what really happened. We bombed and bombarded the crap out of some of those islands before we set foot on them, and the Japanese troops survived it all because they were in caves.

Why more cards to bring confusion to a beautiful game? Look how much confusion the combat cards have brought. If you don't like my realistic Pacific Island bombardment idea, how about Italian units with Italy specific terrain or some of those French units from early war with Souma S-35 medium tanks.

      
OldBloodandGuts
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 306
Registered:
May 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Wed, 10 March 2010 03:06
50th wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 20:48

I also think that caves should give some protection against artillery, bombardment from ships, and bombing from planes, as this is what really happened. We bombed and bombarded the crap out of some of those islands before we set foot on them, and the Japanese troops survived it all because they were in caves.




Hadn't thought of this...great point.
      
boersma8
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 182
Registered:
February 2005
Re:New expansions 2010 Wed, 10 March 2010 08:44
OldBloodandGuts wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 03:06

50th wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 20:48

I also think that caves should give some protection against artillery, bombardment from ships, and bombing from planes, as this is what really happened. We bombed and bombarded the crap out of some of those islands before we set foot on them, and the Japanese troops survived it all because they were in caves.




Hadn't thought of this...great point.


Card or scenario specific rule, I'd say....
      
ad79
Senior Member
Major Howard

User Pages
Posts: 786
Registered:
September 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Wed, 10 March 2010 08:58
OldBloodandGuts wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 03:06

50th wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 20:48

I also think that caves should give some protection against artillery, bombardment from ships, and bombing from planes, as this is what really happened. We bombed and bombarded the crap out of some of those islands before we set foot on them, and the Japanese troops survived it all because they were in caves.




Hadn't thought of this...great point.


I think at the time the Pacific theater came out the idea was to keep the game in it's "simple" form, regarding rules. No terrain offered protection against artillery, and that might be why the caves doesn't have protection against artillery.

By the time of Sword Of Stalingrad, they maybe felt it ok to include a terrain type that offers protection against artillery, namely the balkas. -1 for artillery.

What would have happened if the Pacific Theater had been released at the time of Sword Of Stalingrad? Would caves have offered protection against artillery?

These are just thoughts and speculations I have and not facts.

Stig Morten
      
ad79
Senior Member
Major Howard

User Pages
Posts: 786
Registered:
September 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Wed, 10 March 2010 09:20
50th wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 02:48

My idea is more ships like the Pacific Theater already has and a map with an actual island (or one side of the island with more ocean hexes so that you can move the ships somewhere) and do shore bombardment like they did at Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and most other Pacific Islands that we battled on.




Could this be solved with a map overlay or "add-on" in the shape of a C that you put on the ocean side of the board. Maybe two or three rows of hexes on the ocean side and two or three ocean hexes that go up on the sides.


This way you could simulate landings on a island, ship bombardments and a bunch more without complication the rules or moving the section lines. The ocean flanks would be larger that the ocean center.
I have not tested these ideas, so they might not work at all.

The bold parts are the map add-on to allow the ships some manouvre room. The coloured parts is the lower part of the beach board.

OOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOO
OOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOO
OOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      
stevens
Senior Member
Memoir '44 Online Betatester

User Pages
Posts: 3013
Registered:
February 2007
Re:New expansions 2010 Wed, 10 March 2010 13:37
Looks like a clever idea Stig!
      
Mighty Jim 83
Senior Member
Starshiy Leytenant

User Pages
Posts: 333
Registered:
August 2009
Re:New expansions 2010 Wed, 10 March 2010 16:53
interesting idea about the board extension. But as you say, it would make the flanks a lot bigger, so it would take some very clever balancing on the scenario to make sure that you could still play without being excessively crippled by bad cards.
      
TexMurphy97
Junior Member
Sous-lieutenant

Posts: 4
Registered:
August 2008
Re:New expansions 2010 Tue, 16 March 2010 17:49
So now we know...
      
Pages (3): [ «  <  1  2  3  >  » ]     
Previous Topic:Tiger tank rules
Next Topic:The "TitS" Project
Goto Forum: