Remember the Alamo

It's a SimulGear tactical map.

The first couple rounds can feel a bit tedious, as you set up your approach before seeing your opponent, but it's important in giving the players the options to create different outcomes and interesting matches.

After that, it's a cerebral duel of wits with reward for positioning units in front line / rear artillery formations, attack timing, and limited bonus unit management. There is also the added twist of choosing to enable a siege timer that will more than double the typical per turn bonus at the cost of starting the countdown to your own possible demise.

Even if you don't think you like SimulGear, I think you should give this a few tries.

I don't like Simulgear, but that's only part of it. -- I just don't get it, and what I do get feels wrong when I play.  For one, the importance of the "order" of orders placed seems like a crap-shoot. and the lack of support for blitzing orders forces restrictions on map/border schemes the make the maps less exciting (for me personally).

Your map looks great. 

Quick example that's applicable in general, but also very specific to this map, that should help with understanding the order of orders.

On Remember, a standard hex adjacent attack gives a significant advantage to the defender. If you attack with 5 against 5, you will almost certainly lose. You'll lose more armies and won't advance.

However, a short-range attack from 1 behind the adjacent hex gives a significant advantage to the attacker.

So if you enter an early order that attacks the enemy from your 1-back-short-range "artillery", you will eliminate units from the enemy territory. You then enter your adjacent attack later in the order so that it is charging into a territory that has already been softened by your ranged attacks.

More specific now:

So lets say there are three territories in a line. A-B-C. You have 5 armies on each of A and B. The enemy has 5 armies on C.

On Remember, if you attack from B to C, you have a 60% likelihood of killing a defender. The defenders have a 75% chance of killing the attackers. If you attack 5 on 5 from B to C, you will probably lose 3.75 armies while killing a theoretical 3.

You can then attack A to C, with a +15% modifier to the attacker and a -15% modifier to the defender: so now 75% to attack, 60% from defend. You will probably kill 3.75 of C's remaining 2 armies, leaving the territory vacant because you ordered B to attack C first.

If you started by attacking from A to C, you would have killed 3.75 on the artillery volley and then had 5 on B to attack the remaining 1.25 on C. If you attacked with all, then you would probably kill 3 of those 1.25 armies and lose .94 armies, thus moving ahead probably 4 onto C.

Those examples didn't include any attacks from C to you, but the same general idea applies. If C orders to attack your B early, they will face the worse outcome by attacking 5 against 5 with 60/75 odds. You have entered your attack from B to C very late in the round, assuring that the C to B attack came first, then you will be attacking with probably 2 armies against their probably 1 army. Then you win and move your probably 1.25 armies onto C after killing what was there.

Most good Simulgear maps will give the advantage to the defender, because the interesting part of the game comes from trying to figure out what your opponent will attack first. There's luck there, certainly. You could be completely undone by starting your early orders on the south end of a map and entering later orders on the north, while your opponent does the opposite.

Specific to Remember, the unit caps are small, and in isolated B vs C combat, it's very likely that both territories end up completely killed off and neutral at the start of the next turn. It's important, then, to include ranged attacks in any attempt to gain ground. You may also find more success if you include assaults from 2 adjacent territories, as the combat between just 2 adjacent enemies may not leave enough units to gain any appreciable advancement. This is really the closest I've seen any map come to really rewarding "flanking" and strategic positioning in "open ground".

Also, not every area of the map has good hex layouts for setting up a ranged attack. This means you may want to rush and establish a position there to cut off an approach vector, as it will be very hard to breach straight away. Knowing you have a side of the map cut-off with superior odds can allow you to focus additional forces elsewhere.

Got me intrigued Cram, gonna go try it out now!

Yertle wrote:

Got me intrigued Cram, gonna go try it out now!

I know you were a big unit pumper, so be forewarned that pumping is off. More thinking, less ramming!

Are the borders for the Stars setup correctly?

Should Southern Front F (Green) really border Southeast Fields 1 (Blue)?

Should South Approach W border Southeast Fields 1?

Should each Yellow border all the Yellows?  They currently only border the center yellow.

Convent Yard and Stock Yards? (Unless I misunderstand...)

And since Abandon is On and Retain is Off, players can take the Hospital for a turn (lose one unit on their capital) and gain 13, then the next turn they can abandon their Hospital...this intended/acceptable?

BTW:  a few rounds into this board for the first time...Bravo Cram.  You might make me a fan of simulgear after all.

Hugh wrote:

Convent Yard and Stock Yards? (Unless I misunderstand...)

These are connected in the designer. This issue came up in a test game and I sent a note to Tom about it, but haven't heard back.

Yertle wrote:

And since Abandon is On and Retain is Off,

A note on abandon - a territory only abandons if you attack out with all units and they are either all lost or move to the target territory. Then, the territory you attack from will be abandoned and turn neutral.

However, if you transfer units from one territory to another (either as a Reinforcement or as a transfer only during the Attack phase), then the territory will not abandon/turn neutral even if you move all of your units out. Not sure if this was intended. Maybe this is a bug?

Yertle wrote:

And since Abandon is On and Retain is Off, players can take the Hospital for a turn (lose one unit on their capital) and gain 13, then the next turn they can abandon their Hospital...this intended/acceptable?

The hospital has only artillery attack borders out. It's like the Hotel California.

Cramchakle wrote:

Yertle wrote:

And since Abandon is On and Retain is Off, players can take the Hospital for a turn (lose one unit on their capital) and gain 13, then the next turn they can abandon their Hospital...this intended/acceptable?

The hospital has only artillery attack borders out. It's like the Hotel California.

Actually, now that you made me go check, it appears that the Alamo's hospital has the borders I just described, but San Antonia got goofed. Guess I've got a live fix to implement.

Cramchakle wrote:

Yertle wrote:

And since Abandon is On and Retain is Off, players can take the Hospital for a turn (lose one unit on their capital) and gain 13, then the next turn they can abandon their Hospital...this intended/acceptable?

The hospital has only artillery attack borders out. It's like the Hotel California.

yes, but if you attack with all units and lose them all, then the territory will be abandoned. I think you should change it so that the territory is a dead end (i.e. attacks only in, not out).

CK66 wrote:

Yertle wrote:

And since Abandon is On and Retain is Off,

A note on abandon - a territory only abandons if you attack out with all units and they are either all lost or move to the target territory. Then, the territory you attack from will be abandoned and turn neutral.

However, if you transfer units from one territory to another (either as a Reinforcement or as a transfer only during the Attack phase), then the territory will not abandon/turn neutral even if you move all of your units out. Not sure if this was intended. Maybe this is a bug?

This is correct behavior. The rules are set up so that the map tracks which units move where and when. The units you move in during a reinforcement phase don't attack, even if you choose to attack with "all". i.e. Unit Pumping is off.

CK66 wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

Yertle wrote:

And since Abandon is On and Retain is Off, players can take the Hospital for a turn (lose one unit on their capital) and gain 13, then the next turn they can abandon their Hospital...this intended/acceptable?

The hospital has only artillery attack borders out. It's like the Hotel California.

yes, but if you attack with all units and lose them all, then the territory will be abandoned. I think you should change it so that the territory is a dead end (i.e. attacks only in, not out).

I suppose the possibility exists. You make a fair assessment, and I agree with you. I will implement this change.

Yertle wrote:

Should each Yellow border all the Yellows?  They currently only border the center yellow.

 

I need to involve you in test games.

Yertle wrote:

Should Southern Front F (Green) really border Southeast Fields 1 (Blue)?

Should South Approach W border Southeast Fields 1?

Southern Front F (green star) doesn't border Southeast Fields 1 (blue star), and it shouldn't. Typo?

South Approach W and Southeast Fields 1 do border, and should.

I found the problem with the stock yards / convent yard border, and it was entirely me being stupid.

Fixed all the other borders mentioned here that needed fixing.

Made it so that you cannot attack from the hospital -- even as an artillery attack, which could have been exploited to abandon the territory.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

BTW:  a few rounds into this board for the first time...Bravo Cram.  You might make me a fan of simulgear after all.

Glad to hear it.

Back on Warfish, it seemed that a common theme was that most people didn't like all-at-once or whatever it was called, until the right map or the right circumstance created a "eureka moment", and then all of sudden the concept is all-around more appealing. This may or may not be the case for you, but I hope it at least gets you to consider playing more games of the style.