Lets Talk Big Battles

[Zar]

I have been reading a lot of post about 100 pt builds tourney style. Well I play with a group and we do not play with less that 500 points to a player. Most of our games are either 2v2 or 3v3. Next week I plan on a 1v1 1000 points per player.

Anybody else out there play big battles? Does everyone here only do 100 points? Let me here from the big players out there, give me a story or two.

I find the big battles the most exciting and realistic. We do not mix nations or sides. We may substitute using lend lease but otherwise it is germans vs russians etc.

The next battle is US vs Germany, 1000 points each. I have 1300 points of US to pull from and I will not post my lineup because my opponent reads this, but it should be fun.

[scorpnoire]

*gg* sounds funny, that both of you read here.

You asked for 100pt. only Players, well, failing with just a single game beyond 100 pts. I consider me as one of those ;).
Yet I have to say our unregular group at our FLGS seldom played the same army more than one time, thus giving us interesting battles quit often. Also we all play all the major nation so everyone can gain experience on all sides.
We had some spectacular battles, including total annihilation of the opponent by end of turn 2, Lady Lucky und Lady Unluck each supporting one player (KT vs. JS, one destroyed with full success on the dice, the other not even scoring one single success) etc.

We all but have experienced yet, that the possibilities of the 6 standard-setups are quit quickly understood and memorized by everyone, so we seldom see completely new and extrabrilliant strategies here. Yet the fun stays anyways ;).

Lets see, what interesting battle experiences becomes posted here now.


Gruß,
Markus

[Lt_Douglas]

Yeah... my group does multi-player mayhem at about 300-500 pts per player, with the players dicing off to see what "team" they're on, which can lead to a German/US alliance taking on a UK/*** brigade...lol. Chaotic, but fun.

Last big brawl was German/US vs. UK.Russians.

[PatrickWR]

I've found that the game gets unwieldy and a bit unbalanced at the huge point values you describe. Believe it or not, the Germans almost have an edge at 400+ point games.

I've found that the game really becomes ideal between 150 and 300 points on a 3x2 map setup. With this format, Germans can field a few Extended Range tanks (and actually use them) with all related support, whereas the Allies can go many different ways as far as army build strategy (swarm, big tanks, air support, etc).

I might even recommend a 3x3 map setup with multiple objectives for larger games. In my opinion, the more area to play on, the better.

[LoeweAusNorden]

Hi there ZAR (and welcome to the boards since this seems to be your first post),

We usually play around 200- 500 p games. I agree with PatrickWR about the game mechanics getting unbalanced when playing with bigger armies.

We have implemented some houserules beacuse of this:

1. At least 25 % of your army must concist of infantry and airplanes (big battles otherwise tend to be fought between panzers).

2. Infantry is allowed to be deployed further in on the mapboard (lacking good transport units this must be done, otherwise the infantry woun´t be able to participate on large maps).

3. Multiple objects is a must on larger maps.

That´s some changes we use when playing large battles. As you Zar we play with lend-lease houserules but otherwise nation against nation (even though it´s ok for german-romanian to fight russians e t c, since they did fight together in the war- we try to keep it somewhat historically correct).

// LÖWE

[DHKnecht]

Hmmmm . . . here's an idea. How about having WotC come out with official rules for large scale battles/massed combat. Wizkids did this with MageKnight and it worked out fairly well. Just a thought.

[Cruizin2000]

Conquest!! Those were the days...until Wizkids messed the game up.

I agree, we need big battle rules for maps, unit limits, etc.

C2000

[horacus]

Yes, conquest was a great extension of the basic MK game, but with 2.0, the game died fairly fast.....

And here we play with 200 to 500 points almos ever, with the unit limit of 25, but that are our house rules, I would like to see official rules for 400++ games.

[Y2UAsk]

I enjoy big games, too, but I de-emphasize point values at that level. It's better to design an actual scenario rather than having two sides independently arrive at forces based on points. The points make a nice guide, but they don't really function the way they're supposed to when you relax the 15-unit limit and get up into the 500+ range.

Steve

[NorthernRommel]

We regularly play 200+ per player multiplayer games at this end. It was quick to see that large games and the current system are easily unbalanced and are not well suited for it.

Thats why I developed the rules on Fixed units. It makes a big difference. I'm not saying that to shill what I am doing, but I just wanting to mention there is a solution, and it is in testing now. It works extremely well -- but may be too historic in feel for some folks liking.

Whatever method you use - the loose single point purchases dont work because the Powergamers load up on Tigers, Nashorns, IS-2, etc. The other thing is screw the unit limits. If someone is brave enough to field a very large infantry force then let them.

[Zhukov]

I have been reading a lot of post about 100 pt builds tourney style. Well I play with a group and we do not play with less that 500 points to a player. Most of our games are either 2v2 or 3v3. Next week I plan on a 1v1 1000 points per player.

Anybody else out there play big battles? Does everyone here only do 100 points? Let me here from the big players out there, give me a story or two.

I find the big battles the most exciting and realistic. We do not mix nations or sides. We may substitute using lend lease but otherwise it is germans vs russians etc.

The next battle is US vs Germany, 1000 points each. I have 1300 points of US to pull from and I will not post my lineup because my opponent reads this, but it should be fun.
3/5s of our players are big battlers. This one guy hasnt done anything past 100. The rest of us are pushing higher and higher. I like to post my battle stories after playing a big one. They are funner and more realistic.

Next time I play one all post the results here.

[Zhukov]

I've found that the game gets unwieldy and a bit unbalanced at the huge point values you describe. Believe it or not, the Germans almost have an edge at 400+ point games.

I've found that the game really becomes ideal between 150 and 300 points on a 3x2 map setup. With this format, Germans can field a few Extended Range tanks (and actually use them) with all related support, whereas the Allies can go many different ways as far as army build strategy (swarm, big tanks, air support, etc).

I might even recommend a 3x3 map setup with multiple objectives for larger games. In my opinion, the more area to play on, the better.
150-300 point you made is right on the spot. The game gets less over powered for allies. Yet still I could see my main oppoenent doing some things to change the out come of the battle.

[Zar]

Large battles are a sight to behold. Granted it takes about 6 hours to finish 7 turns but the ebb and flo is amazing. With 1500 pts a side, you would be amazed at what can happen to the germans.

The germans can mass the best tanks but they get severily outnumbered. As a german you hope that your opponent comes straight at you, as the allies you need to exploit you numerical advantage. Can any of u guess how many shermans the USA can deploy. Think about paratroopers landing on all the objectives. British vanguard reaching the forward choke points and the speedy infantry rushing to defend.

Big battles is what the historical gamer is looking for. After next week I will post the big USA vs German battle and let u all know...

[general hoth]

we mostly play 250 points minimum. it's more fun when you can field a colorfull army supported by lots of planes! :)

['panzer' Mayer]

the only probably i have with games this big is how long it takes to play a damn game.

[charger3604bbl]

We played a large battle last Saturday; 2 vs. 2, 500 pts. each.

I found it painfully dull and my side was clearly outmatched. I have about one of everything, and my partner just stared playing and could only muster 360 points of allies. Also, the person running the game designated no objectives.

It was long, boring and I'd never do it again. I feel like I wasted a Sunday afternoon. Run differently (with objectives or a goal of some kind) would make it tolerable, but to what level, I don't know.

Chris

[Towelie]

I have found that 300 points works the best on a 3x3 setup. The point total is low enough to limit the numbers of certian units, but high enough to allow for some diverse armies. I just play with friends so we don't have to worry about power-gaming, and all the armies have fun infantry to play with so the issue of Infantry to Armour hasn't come up yet. Also 300 point games seem to be a good lenght, about one hockey game or so, which is good this time of year.

[Lotus]

the only probably i have with games this big is how long it takes to play a damn game.

2000-pt team game...6-7 hours, and that's if one side get's lunch while the other makes its first move. Trust is a must. ;) We don't have a problem with that.

I love big games, and a big, BIG map. Loads of fun. I will say this; coordinating w/ teamates is more difficult past 2 per side. Tactics become very localized unless you really keep a sense of the overall battle. Our last one was 2000pts and we had 4 on our side. Being in the middle, I greatly enjoyed trying to balance affecting the guys to my right and left. 4 Panthers gave me the speed to do just that. It's a challenge I like, because everyone has their own style of tactics, and our kibitzing is minimal.

[Autarch]

I haven't seen this axis advantage in larger scale games, but then again don't play RAW without a few modifications.

I agree, it would be nice if WotC produced an Axis & Allies Miniatures II for large scale (500+pt) battles.

[Muenchausen]

I think you will enjoy the larger battles. I played up to 3000 thousand points per side. We use Axis and Allies game as a scenerio generator. When a batlle occurs, we convert to A&AM. Our games range from a few points per side up to thousands of points. We have rules for retreating so if one side is getting beat up pretty bad they can withdraw to avoid a total loss.

These larger games a sometines very long, especially if your opponent is one who precisely plots the move of each unit. The larger games have a tendency to greatly reduce or eliminate some of the really wild avantages some SA's gives. You'll also find you have to come up with some new strategy.

The biggest problem I've experienced is having the space to set up a 2X5 maps for the larger armies to do battle on.

[Zar]

Last month 6 of us played 1500 vs 1500. We used 12 maps and we really needed 16. I was on the german side, no unit max, take whatever you want. We had 3 KT,3 tigers,2 panthers and maybe 10 other various panzers. The allies were 1 russian,1 usa 1 UK. The Russian took 7 tanks, 3 T34, 2 guard, 2 KV1. The USA took 16 shermans ( I fought him with my 2 KT,3 Stug,2 Elite Pz4) and the UK took 8 tanks.

The Germans won mainly due to lack of manuever space. The Allies were 2 Rows deep along the entire 6 maps. The shemans got channeled to the central objective due to placement of Pak40's that had some nice kill zones setup. I lost all my tanks except for 1 KT and 1 Elite PZ but took out all 16 shermans. The 3 tigers took out the 7 russians with the lose of only 2 tigers. The panthers ate the UK tin cans easily.

Other than the lack of maps, it was infantry that made the difference. I was able to take out 4 shermans with close combat. In fact one of my BMW's fought a sherman for 4 turns before taking him out.

I plan on playing USA in the next game which is tuesday 1000vs1000...a 1v1 game, should be fun.

[Joisey]

Battle Group New Jersey tends to go for Big Scenarios. Since we ussually get 6 players to show up for a Meet, even limiting people to 200 points adds up quickly. We'll ussually designate 200-500 points per player.

This Sunday I'm hosting a Meet. I've invested in two 4'x8' sheets of MDF and six sawhorses to set up an 8'x8' map in my rec room. On this will go our seven square feet of Kallistra 3D terrain. This time we will be debuting earthworks (trenches) terrain and "Omaha Beach" style bunkers!

[Patton4014]

Virtually all of the games that I play these days are 500 pts +. I have also played a mega 2000 pt game.

I am in the middle of a 1000 pt german vs a 700 pt russian game. This game is typical of the scenarios that I currently use. This games maps are 12 x4, along with a few cut out tiles to connect some of the roads etc. The russians have to defend against a German attack.

When I set up these battles here are a few of the things that I use to make them much more historical and balanced.

1. Set up the maps first and come to an agreement on the objectives. I always like to have 2 for each side. A set of major and a minor victory objectives. I also set up the terrain so that everyone has a little bit of something. the allies have cover and the germans have long range firing lanes.

2. Use reinforcement turns. Have additional troops come on the map at either random or predetermined points on the map. Sometimes I alternate turns for each player and sometimes the additional troops come on at the same time.

3. Try playing premade/semi historical scenarios with rules to fit the scenario. Set them up so that even if the forces are unbalanced, winning is not about who kills the most (that can still be a lot of fun) but about who achieves his/her objectives. (I play a Villers Bocage scenario with 3 tigers and 2 PZIVs vs a slew of brits. But with some great rules it worked. The British could not move or shot the first turn and had to roll on the 2nd turn to see if the crews had made it back to thier tanks etc. The british objective was to get his force off the board or back into the town. It came down to the last turn and the German won because he was able to blow up the last british tank on the board just before he got away. )

4. Let the players deploy some their troops in certain spaces. If one side is defending, let them set up some of their infantry in the town already. If attacking, allow the infantry to come on initially with some of the tanks etc or deploy forward as "scouts". Bends the rules but makes the game play better.

Generally these are the big rules. I have a few other scenario specific tweaks that I have used but they are real specific.

Enjoy.

[Lotus]

Battle Group New Jersey tends to go for Big Scenarios. Since we ussually get 6 players to show up for a Meet, even limiting people to 200 points adds up quickly. We'll ussually designate 200-500 points per player.

This Sunday I'm hosting a Meet. I've invested in two 4'x8' sheets of MDF and six sawhorses to set up an 8'x8' map in my rec room. On this will go our seven square feet of Kallistra 3D terrain. This time we will be debuting earthworks (trenches) terrain and "Omaha Beach" style bunkers!

Joisey, we're still thinkin' of paying a visit. Gotta see where the price of gas goes, tho. Getting expensive just going down to Binghamton!

Your terrain looks really cool, via the other thread. Earthworks sound great.

Hornet's been creating historical builds lately and dividing them up among the players. Do you guys do anything like that or does everybody make their own builds w/ the points?

[Stojakovic]

Joisey, we're still thinkin' of paying a visit. Gotta see where the price of gas goes, tho. Getting expensive just going down to Binghamton!

Your terrain looks really cool, via the other thread. Earthworks sound great.

Hornet's been creating historical builds lately and dividing them up among the players. Do you guys do anything like that or does everybody make their own builds w/ the points?

I told you... we don't need a car. Trade in your jeep for a horse and wagon. I hear it's a real chic magnet :cool:

[Lotus]

I told you... we don't need a car. Trade in your jeep for a horse and wagon. I hear it's a real chic magnet :cool:

Yeah, in Amish country. :rolleyes:

[Stojakovic]

Yeah, in Amish country. :rolleyes:

Only in amish paradise...

[horacus]

Well, generally I play 200pts game, but sometimes I play 500pts.

It's very funny.

[AATigers1]

We have played games as much as 2000pts/ player. However, it is usually a land grab type of scenario with an intial force of 500+pts and 1-4 waves of randomly arriving reinforcements and similar pt reinforcement waves minus or plus 10-40 pts of prescribed wave amount.

[GrimJesta]

Usually we do 3x3 or 4x2 games using 2 objectives (a minor and major one), fought over by 150-300 point armies. The game mechanics still work at that level... for the most part. We don't use planes though, since we only have one and no AA guns.

:)

-=Grim=-

[johnnyonthespot]

Only in amish paradise...

Obscure Wierd Al reference???? ;)

[RommeL BombeR 77]

Obscure Wierd Al reference???? ;)

NO! its dr. evil saying "I missed rolled a pair of dice" :D

[protevangelium]

I enjoy big games, too, but I de-emphasize point values at that level. It's better to design an actual scenario rather than having two sides independently arrive at forces based on points. The points make a nice guide, but they don't really function the way they're supposed to when you relax the 15-unit limit and get up into the 500+ range.

Steve

Personally, I think the point-value actually helps balance the game even in larger-point games. In other words, the Germans are always at a numerical disadvantage but not necessarily in equipment. The Soviets, however, have always suffered enormous casualties to gain ground, but because their units are so cheap the price is worth it. The problem I have had is taking heavy losses with the Russians while trying to close the gap with the Germans' long-range. The Russians, most of all, could be greatly helped by a truck of some sorts(take the launch rails off the Katyusha!?). My ad hoc solution has been to drive my Soviet tanks up as fast as possible, ignoring the ridiculous losses that often occur.