Combat Mission: RISK - TURN 6

[Rico]

@Strachwitz @nathangun @Cargol @chain @eniced73 @DasTiger @Facman @Mad Mike @poesel71 @Bootie

It's been a slow start for 2014 on the CM:Risk battlefield, but we have finally wrapped up all the TURN 5 action and here's the map to start off the action for TURN 6.

Quick recap -- the GREY's have captured Greenland (they want to rename it "Greyland" I have heard from a reliable source), the BLUE Meanies have invaded and taken China from ORANGE amd YELLOW's invasion of Brasil was repulsed with the loss of an Elite Armoured Corps.

Ok, available production points are on the map -- take a week for any behind the scenes diplomatic chicanery and then post your unit purchase, placement and movement orders in your team's respective PM thread.



Now, I am not to sure how this will be affected by the imminent Red Thunder release ... players' enthusiasm and interest and playing time may be fixated on the Eastern Front for several months... so we may have to consider the option of placing this in a temporary hiatus?
I'll ponder this a bit and perhaps post a poll about it.

 

[poesel71]

My 2c: if we go into hiatus that will be the end of it. After a while players will go AWOL or loose interest and new players don't have the history.

Orange could switch to the Russians to get RT into the game.

I would suggest that we implement some kind of upkeep rules as armies are getting bigger and attrition is relatively small.

 

[Rico]

My 2c: if we go into hiatus that will be the end of it. After a while players will go AWOL or loose interest and new players don't have the history.

Orange could switch to the Russians to get RT into the game.

I would suggest that we implement some kind of upkeep rules as armies are getting bigger and attrition is relatively small.

Can't include RT as Russians can only fight Germans ... there's still Canadians and Brits in the game

 

[Mad Mike]

I'd say keep it going, it's not that much work for us, the players.

But I would understand it if you, @Rico , also want to free up some time for your RT campaign project.
I also agree with @poesel71 , some upkeep will be necessary, otherwise we will have HUGE battles sooner than later.

 

[eniced73]

I agree with armies getting too large. We can implement a cap on the amount of "unit" points allowed per territory. Maybe 14-16 max. So you would be allowed two Elites and an Armored unit but no more. This number would not include fortification, insurrection, or artillery (artillery may have to have its own limits). We could also add another category for TRP's. You can buy as many as you want and they stay in the territory that you purchase them for. So as long as you hold that territory you will have those TRP's and can add more if you wish. Once you lose that territory the TRP's are gone too. Could also have an upgrade system where you could trade up your units. For example: I would trade in 3 infantry units (6 points total) to upgrade for an Armored (worth 4 points). 2 points for production. Just some suggestions.

Poesel's suggestion for upkeep is also a good idea. Make upkeep of Elite units pretty high to limit the amount on the board. I like this too.

I say we keep this flowing though. In my opinion this format is much more fun than the other formats.

 

[Rico]

I agree with armies getting too large. We can implement a cap on the amount of "unit" points allowed per territory. Maybe 14-16 max. So you would be allowed two Elites and an Armored unit but no more. This number would not include fortification, insurrection, or artillery (artillery may have to have its own limits). We could also add another category for TRP's. You can buy as many as you want and they stay in the territory that you purchase them for. So as long as you hold that territory you will have those TRP's and can add more if you wish. Once you lose that territory the TRP's are gone too. Could also have an upgrade system where you could trade up your units. For example: I would trade in 3 infantry units (6 points total) to upgrade for an Armored (worth 4 points). 2 points for production. Just some suggestions.

Poesel's suggestion for upkeep is also a good idea. Make upkeep of Elite units pretty high to limit the amount on the board. I like this too.

I say we keep this flowing though. In my opinion this format is much more fun than the other formats.

Easiest way to do it, is that you need to spend production points (PP) to supply your armies in the field over and above the 1 garrison unit in each territory.

1 pp per infantry corps
1 pp per artillery unit
2 pp per armoured corps & airborne
3 pp per elite corps

Fortifications only cost one-off cost

Any surplus PP's you may have left after that you can use to buy new armies.

 

[eniced73]

If you have multiple types in an area which one would be the garrison unit? For example Blue has four in China.

 

[Rico]

If you have multiple types in an area which one would be the garrison unit? For example Blue has four in China.

1x Inf Corps is your maximum garrison ... if you have anything more costly in the territory, you need to "pay" for the balance.

 

[poesel71]

Unit cap per territory has one flaw: if you max out the place becomes an impenetrable fortress.

Free garrison unit: what happens when you don't have an infantry unit in this territory? I suggest to change that rule to any one (=the most expensive) in a territory is free.

+1 to upkeep costs.

There need to be a rule for when one can disband units. I suggest that it makes 'teleporting' of units (disband and build elsewhere in the same turn) impossible.

 

[eniced73]

Infantry as garrison cost no points. If you have an armored unit as an garrison unit then you should only have to pay 1 point (infantry unit cost - garrison unit cost). If you have an elite unit as garrison then you only have to pay 2 points. It should cost more to garrison an armored or elite unit (upkeep of vehicles) than an infantry unit.

You should be able to upgrade units and not disband. If I have three infantry units in a territory then I can trade them in for an armored unit. A six point to four point trade. If I have two armored units I can trade them in for an elite unit in the same territory. An eight point to six point trade. Something like that. You pay a small price to get the upgrade. No disbanding and teleporting to another territory.

 

[poesel71]

If any number of infantry units cost no points for upkeep then we will have huge infantry armies in short time. The cost advantage instantly and over the years would be so much bigger for infantry over armour.

I would vote against unit conversion. It adds complexity and is not really needed IMHO.

 

[Rico]

NEW SUPPLY RULES TO LIMIT ARMY SIZES

Here is how I propose this can work:

PP supply costs:

Inf Corps - 1
Airborne Corps - 2
Tank Corps - 2
Elite Tank Corps- 3

Fortification and artillery are once-off PP cost (artillery removed off board after use)

Each region can support 1 Inf Corps or points equivalent for free. (if a Tank, Airborne or Elite Corps are the ONLY unit in a region, they pay ONE less PP supply)

Corps may only be disbanded to satisfy supply PP shortfalls at Corps purchase rates: any extra PP's are lost if your Corps you are disbanding is worth more than the supply PP shortfall.
(eg: if are short 2 PP's supply and you disband an Airborne Corps worth 3 PP's, the extra PP point is not added to your PP total)
You may not disband a garrison unit and leave a region empty.

How would this work out in practice for the above TURN 6?

YELLOW:
PP: 8 + 2 (Africa) = 10
7 x Inf Corps free as garrisons
Supply:
4 x Tank Corps = 8

10 - 8 = 2 PP available for new unit purchases

ORANGE:
PP: 10 + 1 (Victory) = 11
8 x Inf Corps free as garrisons + 1x Elite Garrison
Supply:
1x Elite Tk Corps (-1) =2
1x Airborne Corps = 2
7x Inf Corps = 7
Total supply needed: 11

11 - 11 = 0 PP available for new unit purchases

GREEN:
PP: 12 + 1 (S. America) +1 (Victory) = 14
10 x Inf Corps free as garrisons + 1 x Airborne Garrison
Supply:
4 x Inf Corps = 4
1 x Tank Corps = 2
1 x Airborne Corps (-1) = 1
4 x Elite Tank Corps = 12
Total supply needed = 19

14 - 19 = minus 5 PP available -- GREEN needs to disband 5 PP's worth of units.

BLUE:
PP: 7 + 1 (Australia) + 1 (Victory) = 9
6 x Inf Corps free as garrisons
Supply:
2 x Tank Corps = 4
1 x Airborne = 2
1x Elite Tank Corps = 2
Total supply needed = 8

9 - 8 = 1 PP available for new unit purchases

GREY:
PP: 5 (carry-over) + 8 + 3 (Europe) + 1 (Victory) = 17
8 x Inf Corps free as garrisons
Supply:
3 x Inf Corps = 3
4 x Elite Tank Corps = 12
Total supply needed = 15

17 - 15 = 2 PP available for new unit purchases


UNIT UPGRADES
You can upgrade any existing unit by spending extra PP's on it.

Example:
You have a Inf Corps in a region. You can spend an extra 2 PP's to upgrade it to a Tank Corps, and extra 4 PP's to upgrade it to an Elite Tank Corps.
Likewise, by spending an extra 2 PP's, you can upgrade a Tank Corps into an Elite tank Corps.

The process cannot be performed in reverse.

You cannot upgrade Infantry Corps into Airborne Corps - these have to be bought new (this reflects specialist parachute training necessary)


Discuss amongst yourselves if this system would work for you -- it will certainly curtail the size of armies and make a lot of the battles a LOT smaller potentially.

 

[Nathangun]

Good idea Rico. I like it

 

[Mad Mike]

Yep, these rules look good and should fight the inflation of forces.

 

[poesel71]

To simplify a bit: just raise the PP generated per territory to 2 and no free garrison units. Has the same end result but less math.

You are a bit more generous with disbanding than I expected. I thought that disbanding would only relieve you from paying upkeep for that unit. Nothing else.

As I said I'm against upgrading (work with what you have) but I would allow voluntary disbanding. If you don't get PP for that then there is no teleporting. That would make shuffling units around a bit harder.

Everything IMHO of course

 

[Rico]

To simplify a bit: just raise the PP generated per territory to 2 and no free garrison units. Has the same end result but less math.

You are a bit more generous with disbanding than I expected. I thought that disbanding would only relieve you from paying upkeep for that unit. Nothing else.

As I said I'm against upgrading (work with what you have) but I would allow voluntary disbanding. If you don't get PP for that then there is no teleporting. That would make shuffling units around a bit harder.

Everything IMHO of course

I guess making the regions worth 2 PP's does make things easier ... and the capitals 3 PP then?

Disbanding units is not generous at all -- the purchase value of the unit and the unit is lost to pay for supply shortfalls.

I like upgrading, as it allows for smaller marginal PP amounts to be used to by more than just infantry units and also allows for strengthening of regions garrisons without moving Corps (which can be a very slow business)

 

[poesel71]

I guess making the regions worth 2 PP's does make things easier ... and the capitals 3 PP then?

Yes. Since the mandatory garrison costs at least 1 PP per turn we are still at 2-1=1 PP per territory per turn as before (+1 for capitals).

Disbanding units is not generous at all -- the purchase value of the unit and the unit is lost to pay for supply shortfalls.

You could have decided that you don't get anything for disbanding.

I like upgrading, as it allows for smaller marginal PP amounts to be used to by more than just infantry units and also allows for strengthening of regions garrisons without moving Corps (which can be a very slow business)

Then you should IMHO allow voluntary disbanding. The rule would be that disbanding comes after production so you could use the PP only next turn and can not be used for upkeep.

 

[eniced73]

Good idea Rico. I like it

I agree. Let' s implement this.

 

[Rico]

I'll add these to the rules and implement the effects on the map then to restart TURN 6.

We haven't heard from @Cargol or @chain from the GREEN team as to their input, seeing that they are going to most affected by the rule change.

Cartgol? Chain? ... any comments?

 

[chain]

I'll add these to the rules and implement the effects on the map then to restart TURN 6.

I agree.

Can't include RT as Russians can only fight Germans ... there's still Canadians and Brits in the game

I am fine with switching from Commonwealth to Russia. Let us play with these new toys.