O Henry

[martin goddard]

O is now out and about.
Tidy up. Some small changes to the armies.
Clarifications too.


martin

[Sean Clark]

2 queries


Have I imagined that any square that isn't motivated gets 1 residual AP? (This is probably a hang over from another rule set!)

Fall backs...

Am I right in thinking this doesn't have to be towards your base edge? Just a facing square, which could feasibly be towards your opponents base edge?

[martin goddard]

Hello Sean

Yes the  residual is still there for one action ( except assault).
The fall back can be in any direction of the owner's choice.
I specifically considered the arrival of a reinforcement unit forcing an occupying unit out into the open.
I have tried to make sure that an arriving player does not use his arrival as  a trick to eject troops into the open and thus expose them to action. Hence the "taking cover" award to those that fall back from an arrival.

It is very simple, but needs to be gamed to see how it goes.

martin

[Sean Clark]

All clear, thanks Martin.

[Arrigo74]

My initial thoughts on the rules (no I haven't yet played... 3 versions in one week!).

I like the overall feeling. Not so sure I like the reduction in army size and options. After having experimented a bit in building armies I think going back to 17 addition point could be better. Either that at least having it as an option for larger games.  I would also allow the ability to buy the same vehicle option more than once, and not just for technicals. That would be even better for transports.

Technicals: I miss the ability to have different weaponry added to soft skins.

Armour: it looks very basic to me (warning, former trackhead!). The big guns armoured car have completely disappeared (AML 90 and Eland 90, Ratel 90, AMX 10RC, ERC-90, Italian Centauro, US MGS). IMHO there is space for vehicle customization options (like adding a an heavier or better gun to a vehicle category, or better armour).

Armies: some strange design choices here. No light armour for Communist supported forces (BRDM, PT-76, BMP 1 and 2). No armoured carrier for colonial settlers (Ratel 20). I also miss the intervention force.

Also a query: maybe I missed it, but there are any specific rules on the quality of the additional foot 4th unit?

Typo: in the list of armies Wester and Communist backed are listed as Western and Communist intervention.

[Sean Clark]

Original AK just had a tank  though there was AC with tank guns which may or may not appear.

I think the intent is that heavy and light armour have specific roles. Heavy armour is to counter other tanks and guns, whereas light armour is really anti infantry.

It is still early days yet though so anything can change 😁

[Sean Clark]

I wonder whether light armour might have 1 dice against heavy armour?

This would make them the exact opposite of heavy armour in shooting dice and enable me to use my Panhards with tank guns!

They would retain 3 dice against infantry and 2 against guns.

[Moggy]

Maybe the name tank should be changed to something like Large caliber armour with MG armed being termed small caliber armour.  That way you can use your Armoured cars comfortably as could someone who wishes to use mg armed tanks.

And next on the subject of vehicles. What happened to smoke grenades fired from vehicles?  These were in common use from the late 40's as standard equipment on tanks...... Perhaps they get one "launch" of smoke in current square that then follows normal smoke rules.

Derek

[martin goddard]

Well done Arrigo... you have given some more prompts.

A few notes

1. There may be some more gun and vehicle options but not yet. They are not the focus of the game, although players do like their tanks etc. At the moment you can use whatever models you like. This means you can put a 90mm armoured car on the table but pay for it as a tank. If players want their technicals to be better, then pay the cost as light armour.  AK will stop players sneaking in their own wants for a special cheap price.  They need to work with what they have.


2. I am happy to tinker with "what army has what", but  each army will have strengths and weaknesses. An army with all strengths and no weaknesses would become the only army on the table. Terrible. Instead, players should browse through the armies and choose the one that they wish to use. It might not be the guaranteed game winner but that is unfortunate. They can call it what they like, but it must conform to one of the 12 army types.
There will be no multiple of the same menu item/choice. Otherwise the differences in armies is pointless. Just choose from what is available .  Players must  concentrate on doing what they can with what they have. That is the skill AK is seeking. The special "combo win" choice is for other rule sets.

3. Smoke was not widely used by the African armies in these battles. Yes the South Africans and Rhodesians were top quality armies, but if they are made too good,  most players will use them, win, win, win and ask their opponent if they had a good game? Therefore South African and Rhodesian armies are not named armies. That helps avoid endless " I should have more than anyone else" nonsense.
Thus, AK uses generic army types. If any player is allowed to field a super army then he can win, win, win which is reassuring for his ego, but not an enjoyable experience for those who are forced to indulge him.

4. 4th foot unit. A fourth foot unit must comply with the stated maximums. ie consider the fourth unit as one of the player's units and check if minimum and maximums are adhered to.




martin

[Arrigo74]

Thanks for the replies.

Not so sure about smoke, never mentioned it! 

As point number 2: I fully agree with it, I am sure we can thinker the armies even more and make them having plenty of strengths but also weaknesses. Still missing the intervention force!

As for the light armour with heavy guns... I think the real world idea behind these designs is to sneak an heavy gun on the battlefield for cheap, with little armour... they punch a lot, but they are quite punchable in return. Thus something similar can be indeed introduced in the game!

[Colonel Kilgore]

Not so sure about smoke, never mentioned it! 

That was Derek, responding to your post, Arrigo. Blame him 

Simon

[Hman]

While I am not involved in the testing of the rules, perhaps some slight distinction in Armour types would be helpful and in the spirit of the previous rules.

Heavy Armour is tracked - better cross country movement;

Light Armour is wheeled - better road movement etc

It also does seem that the rules are going to very much work with what you have got and infantry centric.  That in my personal view is more representative of what is trying to be simulated.  Warfare is very 'much a come as you are affair', no commander ever has everything they need, and the trick is to make the best of what you have got.  Especially so in the 'AK' world.

Howard

[martin goddard]

Good input thanks Howard.
Come as you are (Nirvana).
The rule book has examples to help players know which is which. There will be no confusion there


martin

[Sean Clark]

I think the rules are developing really well. Small amendments are bound to occur. No rules will ever be all things to all people, but I am certain new AK47 will be an excellent set of rules.

I'm looking forward to where they end up. The starting point has been pretty good so far 🙂

[Sean Clark]

Any thoughts on allowing infantry to 'carry' vehicles into an assault like in PBI? It could follow the same rules as per PBI  so the vehicle would have to start on the enemies face.