Notes:
1) Convoys due to the increased damage from German u-boats will have to be configured manually, unless someone can enlighten me on how to make Abattlemap calculate it correctly. (As far as I can see, it can handle the standard 2 for a submarine or 1 for a surface ship, but not 3 for the U-boat.)
2) tournament starts in about 3 weeks.
What is the etiquette on rolling dice. It is common practice in the forums to just roll both attacking and defending dice at the same time as this saves time and the majority of battles are straight forward. My question is, is the correct sequence of combat, the attacker rolls dice and the defender removes casualties, then the defender rolls and the attacker removes casualties. If this is the order, would this give the attacker the advantage of OOL as he has seen what the defender has removed or is this not even worth thinking about. This also stops the defender from seeing how many hits they have made against the attacker and then guessing what the OOL could be. Im just thinking about this as some major air and naval battles can be deciders and I would like to know if this is correct or not. Also are there any other rules regarding OOL if any. To sum up is OOL and order of dice meant to favour the attacker and if so should this be taken advantage of. Thoughts?
What is the etiquette on rolling dice. It is common practice in the forums to just roll both attacking and defending dice at the same time as this saves time and the majority of battles are straight forward. My question is, is the correct sequence of combat, the attacker rolls dice and the defender removes casualties, then the defender rolls and the attacker removes casualties. If this is the order, would this give the attacker the advantage of OOL as he has seen what the defender has removed or is this not even worth thinking about. This also stops the defender from seeing how many hits they have made against the attacker and then guessing what the OOL could be. Im just thinking about this as some major air and naval battles can be deciders and I would like to know if this is correct or not. Also are there any other rules regarding OOL if any. To sum up is OOL and order of dice meant to favour the attacker and if so should this be taken advantage of. Thoughts?
As you said, most battles are straight forward… but, if I see strategy could be involve in OOL then I roll just my dice (taking I’m the attacker) and wait for defender to state is losses. When I log back, I roll defender dice and take my losses. (If defender post his rolls it’s fine too, same difference). And then go to second round and, again, if strategy involve I’ll wait.
By rulebook, attacker has this advantage to see defender’s looses before attacker annonces his hits. Even worst defender has to assign hits before rolling his dice.
What is the etiquette on rolling dice. It is common practice in the forums to just roll both attacking and defending dice at the same time as this saves time and the majority of battles are straight forward. My question is, is the correct sequence of combat, the attacker rolls dice and the defender removes casualties, then the defender rolls and the attacker removes casualties. If this is the order, would this give the attacker the advantage of OOL as he has seen what the defender has removed or is this not even worth thinking about. This also stops the defender from seeing how many hits they have made against the attacker and then guessing what the OOL could be. Im just thinking about this as some major air and naval battles can be deciders and I would like to know if this is correct or not. Also are there any other rules regarding OOL if any. To sum up is OOL and order of dice meant to favour the attacker and if so should this be taken advantage of. Thoughts?
As you said, most battles are straight forward… but, if I see strategy could be involve in OOL then I roll just my dice (taking I’m the attacker) and wait for defender to state is losses. When I log back, I roll defender dice and take my losses. (If defender post his rolls it’s fine too, same difference). And then go to second round and, again, if strategy involve I’ll wait.
By rulebook, attacker has this advantage to see defender’s looses before attacker annonces his hits. Even worst defender has to assign hits before rolling his dice.
Correct. In situations where casualties may not be straight forward, it is appropriate to inquire as to the OOL or roll the attacker dice and wait for the defender to select casualties (and roll his or her defensive dice as would happen in a face to face game.) Yes, this gives the attacker an advantage, but then, it is the rules.
Excellent answers thank you. I was pretty confident I was on the right track so I thoguht I would ask it here so that everyone could see they have the option.
Cheers.
This just in from Larry’s site:
“I’m about ready to post Alpha+ 3. Probably next week. If I find myself without electricity for 4 or 5 days, as some are predicting, I’ll be a bit longer posting it.”
Larry
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6024
He was talking about Hurricane Irene. Since Alpha+3 will come in this week or next week at the latest, I suggest we postpone the tourney til September 15th or something.
As I said in the other thread, I am hesitant to implement new rules without signifcant play testing my the community. The first time I played Alpha 2 I remember someone sacking England and India simultaniously (ie, Germany and Japan in the same game round) because I failed to notice a naval base. (For the record, I have never failed to notice a naval base on Hainan since!)
I am willing to entertain the idea of allowing particiapants to change to the Alpha 3 ruleset starting on round 2 (which should give players 1-2 months to get familiar with them) if and only if the following:
1) Both players agree.
2) There is a battlemap module along the lines of the TMTM one for Alpha 2 that includes the NOs, etc on them.
3) Both players agree.
Did I mention, both players would have to agree?
What I am worried about:
A) Players not having time to get familiar with the new rules/placements.
B) Some unforseen strategy that is a game ender or feels like a game ender (Sea Lion falls into this latter category, so does American Pac-Strat).
C) Players who signed up for Alpha 2 that do not want to play Alpha 3. (Functionetta likes to play OOB for instance, I doubt he would be interested in playing Alpha 3 since he does not want to play Alpha 2.)
D) How do you bid? If you have no experience, your bids might not be appropriate for the new situation.
@Cmdr:
As I said in the other thread, I am hesitant to implement new rules without signifcant play testing my the community. The first time I played Alpha 2 I remember someone sacking England and India simultaniously (ie, Germany and Japan in the same game round) because I failed to notice a naval base. (For the record, I have never failed to notice a naval base on Hainan since!)
I am willing to entertain the idea of allowing particiapants to change to the Alpha 3 ruleset starting on round 2 (which should give players 1-2 months to get familiar with them) if and only if the following:
1) Both players agree.
2) There is a battlemap module along the lines of the TMTM one for Alpha 2 that includes the NOs, etc on them.
3) Both players agree.Did I mention, both players would have to agree?
What I am worried about:
A) Players not having time to get familiar with the new rules/placements.
B) Some unforseen strategy that is a game ender or feels like a game ender (Sea Lion falls into this latter category, so does American Pac-Strat).
C) Players who signed up for Alpha 2 that do not want to play Alpha 3. (Functionetta likes to play OOB for instance, I doubt he would be interested in playing Alpha 3 since he does not want to play Alpha 2.)
D) How do you bid? If you have no experience, your bids might not be appropriate for the new situation.
Ok, I understand, count me out then, I will only play Alpha+3 and I don’t want to deal with the others that don’t. Thanks.
@Cmdr:
C) Players who signed up for Alpha 2 that do not want to play Alpha 3. (Functionetta likes to play OOB for instance, I doubt he would be interested in playing Alpha 3 since he does not want to play Alpha 2.)
Yep, I have not much interest in alpha3 unless is totally and utterly balanced (improbable) is the last and definitive version (even less probable)
For the record, I have played my first game of alpha2 a couple of weeks ago, just because it was a FTF, and Axis seem having too much power (11 guys AND a big IC at East Germany, and 6 inf at South Italy? come on … !) It reminds me the AA50 unbalance, with Germany taking Leningrad too early (and that’s awful). We played 4 turns and we have to end the game yet but still… and as I anticipated, the consecutive allied turns are too tiring to be fun (but I had fun with uber French turns … I called them Obelix turns … :-P). One to one alpha2 seems horrible, and FTF multi could be semi-ok if Germany had less power … just first impression
I understand Functionetta, I only brought you up because you are someone I know feels this way.
For the record, I would not be entirely surprised if Alpha 3 is less balanced than Alpha 2. However, I will be ecstatic if the Americans are not forced into the Pacific like in Alpha 2.
I have the brackets assigned, I am attempting to make it “pretty” right now. If someone wants to “pretty” it up for me because you are way more skilled at graphics let me know. Otherwise, you might be stuck with a Mathematician’s vision of beauty.
Just read the new G40 thread. So if we spot an opponents mistake (that only hinders them) there is no Gentlemans rule to correct them. We may take advantage? I spose this replicates mistakes made on the battlefield by Generals and the like. Also with the -3 sub interiction you will have to add the extra 1 on manually as the auto convoy rule still only does 2 automatically. Would this require the Axis player only to pay attention to this and the Allied player to take advantage if this is missed. As the rules state all players are responsible for convoy raiding.
What happens if you have not placed units, or incorrectly placed them ?
Missing unit placements will be treated as per the rules for over-building. (If all you have is a major complex but buy 11 units, you over built) and you get a refund to use next turn. Note, this is only a situation if you start your next country’s turn! So check your maps!
As for the gentleman aspect, this is a tournament. However, if you dont want to get into a rule’s lawyer situation with your opponent, you might want to warn him of a mistake if it is minor (USA forgetting to place on USA 1, etc.) It’s always preferable to be friendly.
Situation I am worried about is when England screws up a placement, Italy acts in response to the situation they think is accurate, France goes (you HAVE to wait for France, don’t forget!) and Germany goes assuming England’s correct only to have the player say “Oh, I forgot to build a fighter” that changes things drastically.
This only applies to your next turn after your opponent. America’s mistakes are not permanent because China goes, etc.
Well, if I state in my thread where I mobilize guys but my map does not reflect, which is binding?
Well, if I state in my thread where I mobilize guys but my map does not reflect, which is binding?
Text is binding. Why? It’s easier on me, I dont have to download the map to make a ruling.
This only applies to your next turn after your opponent. America’s mistakes are not permanent because China goes, etc.
So changes by US could be done on Anzacs turn?
@Cmdr:
This only applies to your next turn after your opponent. America’s mistakes are not permanent because China goes, etc.
Of course, it’s just my opinion, but i think this is a mistake. I think in a tournament, unless both player have an agreement, one should stick to what he has posted during his turn.
If not, how, for exemple, are you going to deal with this situation :
Pacific theater: a Japanese dd must be destroyed and replaced by an Allied dd. This is very important.
Now, US could decide to leave this job to Anzac who just has 1dd, and 1 fgt to get the job done. Dices are rolled, and bad luck : the Japanese dd has killed the fgt AND the Anzac dd. Now, with what you say, US could say: oh, i forgot some NCM and send some dds do the job.
So there will always be situations where a creative player could take advantage of this…
@Cmdr:
This only applies to your next turn after your opponent. America’s mistakes are not permanent because China goes, etc.
Of course, it’s just my opinion, but i think this is a mistake. I think in a tournament, unless both player have an agreement, one should stick to what he has posted during his turn.
If not, how, for exemple, are you going to deal with this situation :
Pacific theater: a Japanese dd must be destroyed and replaced by an Allied dd. This is very important.
Now, US could decide to leave this job to Anzac who just has 1dd, and 1 fgt to get the job done. Dices are rolled, and bad luck : the Japanese dd has killed the fgt AND the Anzac dd. Now, with what you say, US could say: oh, i forgot some NCM and send some dds do the job.
So there will always be situations where a creative player could take advantage of this…
I would think, for integrity’s sake, that any time dice are rolled in a territory or sea zone, anything that was SUPPOSED to occur in said area prior to rolling can no longer occur. It just makes sense.
I also assume that CMs cannot be changed, but I do wonder about the NCMs and builds? If US, China or UK can change their NCMs or builds during ANZACs turn, then does that extend to Italy fixing an NCM or build during Germany’s turn?
I’m referring to final maps here.
If XYZ posts that he is placing a destroyer in SZ 101 and puts it in SZ 10, and does not clarify which is correct before starting France, then the destroyer stays in SZ 101.
Likewise, if he posts a map that has America with 92 IPC and he is only allowed to have 72 IPC, then if his opponent catches it, it is reduced to 72 IPC. However, if he was allowed to collect 34 IPC with Italy and forgets to update his money to reflect that, instead leaving it 28 IPC, then I do not feel it is fair to up it to 34 on Italy’s next turn, rather, it’s more fair that if he starts Germany’s turn and does not point out the inconsistency, then it stays 28 IPC.
