GDA2

Moderators: Vis Bellica, Laffe, DCRBrown

User avatar
Trailape
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by Trailape »

FWIW I say leave it as is.
"If it aint broken why fix it"?
I AM MY BROTHER'S KEEPER
Jimbo
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by Jimbo »

Minimal changes for me Dave. Some advice or recommendations for running smallish scenarios where there are only one or two brigades a side would be welcome. Specifically around ADC numbers etc… useful for beginners building up their armies.
Last edited by Jimbo on Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
m1kel
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:02 am

Re: GDA2

Post by m1kel »

A rethink on charge sequence would be good. We still struggle with the process.
Mike
User avatar
zabarr
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:55 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: GDA2

Post by zabarr »

After a few more games, and I know this is a tall order, any refinement that’ll speed up the game without losing flavor would be fantastic!
Markconz
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:44 am

Re: GDA2

Post by Markconz »

Worth noting too, that this will be a biased sample here on this forum. I.e. largely those that liked GDA and stuck with it, while those who were troubled enough by things that were mentioned for improvement in option B, will be in other forums playing different games (or looking for them), but might be lured back by speeding up, cleaning up, and streamlining GDA for example. So there's a question there on how to keep the people who still like it while luring in others.
User avatar
zabarr
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:55 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: GDA2

Post by zabarr »

Markconz wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:46 am Worth noting too, that this will be a biased sample here on this forum. I.e. largely those that liked GDA and stuck with it, while those who were troubled enough by things that were mentioned for improvement in option B, will be in other forums playing different games (or looking for them), but might be lured back by speeding up, cleaning up, and streamlining GDA for example. So there's a question there on how to keep the people who still like it while luring in others.
Excellent point!
User avatar
DCRBrown
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:04 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by DCRBrown »

Indeed. It's the main core theme of GdA2.

DB
Roundie
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 4:38 am

Re: GDA2

Post by Roundie »

Hi
late to the discussion I know but, keen to add my 2 cents worth nonetheless.

To start with, I'd have to say I couldn't agree more with Markconz comments. On at least one occasion in the past, I have fallen away from a rule set after they improved it with a 2nd addition.

I'm not averse to minor changes, tweaks and clarifications to the rules but, feel any major changes to some subsystems within the rules will upset the apple cart and compromise the essence of what makes this truly a great system.

Seems to me some people find the hesitant rule a little frustrating. Personally, I really like this aspect of the game. Do I send all my ADC's back to close up my slower formations or do I concentrate on what is happening with my forward formations? I have not come across a better system for generating command tension and uncertainty in any other Napoleonic ruleset. Please don't change this as I really enjoy the gambling side of spending my ADC's.

In our game yesterday my opponent placed a skirmish order on one of his brigades (with no reroll) for most of the game and pulled it off nearly every turn. However, it came at the cost of somewhat bogging down his attack in the centre much to his annoyance.

Are Shirmiskers too powerful? If they were any weaker could you not just ignore them? Of course, if they can be ignored why have them in the game at all? In our last couple of run-throughs of the rules, skirmish tactics have played a major part in the battles and added much to the gameplay.

Charge, melee rules. what I like most about these two mechanics is where they sit in the proceedings. If you were to combine or place them together in the turn sequence would they not lose some of the tension they generate?

Is there room for some small improvements? Probably. Does any subsection/phase need a major rebuild? Put me down for a no not at all .

I do have one fix request: A better/stronger bookbinding for the next edition, please.

Two cents spent
Wayne
User avatar
zabarr
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:55 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: GDA2

Post by zabarr »

Happy new year! So how's this badboy coming?
User avatar
DCRBrown
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:04 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by DCRBrown »

Still working away play testing numerous ideas and systems, which are now beginning to take a fixed shape.

In fact, Roundie's comments are somewhat prophetic, the idea is to produce a version of the rules that is very firmly based on the first edition but introducing better, slicker and hopefully more intuitive mechanics. So, the Charge sequence has had a lot of attention, producing a much more streamlined system but producing the same results as GdA1.

Likewise Hesitant has been tweaked but not altered its impact significantly.

Skirmishers have been tweaked but remain a very important aspect of the battle.

The only part of the rules that has been enhanced is the Command section, including bringing C-in-Cs into the command phase in a more direct manner.

So, it is now different in how it delivers the game, but most changes are minor tweaks that do not alter game play or significantly alter the manner in which a GdA game is played out.

DB
Post Reply