13L G40 Boldfresh vs. Jeff28 (Allies +11)

[boldfresh]

yes, they are not treated as enemy territories and actually you do not declare war on the true neutrals as tripleA suggests.  you simply attack a true neutral.  i learned through this that there is a difference between a neutral that you attack and a neutral that you did not attack.  a neutral that you attack, if not taken by a land unit, becomes a FRIENDLY territory to the other side.  meaning they can LAND planes immediately in the territory.  the other neutral territories that were not attacked become pro-allied or pro-axis neutrals.

[boldfresh]

@Boldfresh:

yes, they are not treated as enemy territories and actually you do not declare war on the true neutrals as tripleA suggests.  you simply attack a true neutral.  i learned through this that there is a difference between a neutral that you attack and a neutral that you did not attack.  a neutral that you attack, if not taken by a land unit, becomes a FRIENDLY territory to the other side.  meaning they can LAND planes immediately in the territory.  the other neutral territories that were not attacked become pro-allied or pro-axis neutrals.

it’s very complicated, and having just gone through all this, it’s still not sticking great in my head.  but get this, you can fly over the neutral you actually attacked in NONCOM.  but you cannot fly over any other neutral in combat or noncombat which you did not attack.  right gamer?  sheesh.

[gamerman01]

As many hours as you guys all play this game, I would advise that you spend an hour READING THE RULEBOOK

Statements like Karl made that “I would have just assumed” are inexcusable!  Read the rulebook!  I quoted it as saying, under the short sections for true neutrals and unfriendly neutrals, that

you CAN’T fly over any neutrals unless you are attacking them!

It also says that once you attack one, it’s not a “neutral” anymore.

If you just read what’s in the FAQ thread and don’t ever actually pore over the rulebook, you can expect more unpleasant surprises in the future.

At least Bold knows (usually) to check with somebody who knows the rules before trying anything that might be against the rules (this Italian attack notwithstanding)

but you guys have no excuse for not reading the rulebook yourself.  Shame, shame

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

you CAN’T fly over any neutrals unless you are attacking them!

OK, I paraphrased it and I shouldn’t have, because the actual rulebook is clearer.

“Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it”

“unfriendly neutral” is singular
“attacking it” is singular

You were duped by TripleA saying “declare war on the neutrals”.  Don’t trust TripleA - it was made by a guy who doesn’t know the rules any better than you do.

I had to explain to Veqryn why his program should force you to roll dice on all amphibious assaults before other battles.  He was completely unaware of that rule.

TripleA lets you conduct combat in the wrong order.  It screws up sub warfare, making you choose casualties before you see how many hits you score.  It screws up SBR’s and mixed planes and AA….

He made it very clear in his program - it is the responsibility of players to know the rules.  This is a clear blanket disclaimer that TripleA does NOT follow all the rules correctly.

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

TripleA lets you conduct combat in the wrong order.  It screws up sub warfare, making you choose casualties before you see how many hits you score.  It screws up SBR’s and mixed planes and AA….

And, obviously, the programmers were clueless about properly applying many of the neutrals rules, as you are now painfully aware.  :-)

[boldfresh]

interesting situation in our XDAP game.  USA attacks a fleet in z33 (caroline islands).  simultaneously it is sending a bomber over the carolines for a strategic bombing run.  tripleA should FORCE the plaer to roll the bombing run first per the rules.  it’s significant in this case because anzac can do a follow up attack.  if they were allowed to attack the fleet first, then depending on how that battle goes (say we want to land a bunch of fighters in carolines to scramble against the follow up attack) he could then decide whether he wants to bomb our AB or NB.  rather, per the rules, the defender is entitled to know what was bombed and how much damage was done prior to conducting the fleet war.

[boldfresh]

@Boldfresh:

interesting situation in our XDAP game.  USA attacks a fleet in z33 (caroline islands).  simultaneously it is sending a bomber over the carolines for a strategic bombing run.  tripleA should FORCE the plaer to roll the bombing run first per the rules.  it’s significant in this case because anzac can do a follow up attack.  if they were allowed to attack the fleet first, then depending on how that battle goes (say we want to land a bunch of fighters in carolines to scramble against the follow up attack) he could then decide whether he wants to bomb our AB or NB.  rather, per the rules, the defender is entitled to know what was bombed and how much damage was done prior to conducting the fleet war.

oh and of course the point is, tripleA allows combat to be conducted in any order (except that it requires fleet wars to occur before a land battle involving an amphibious assault).

but STILL tripleA is invaluable.  i should think that many of these issues would be very easy to implement as well.  another thing you didn’t mention that tripleA doesn’t do correctly is it does not distinguish what fighters are on what acc when there are mixed powers.  one would think this would be no different than the transport function where the transports keep track of exactly what is on each.

[Karl7]

Statements like Karl made that “I would have just assumed” are inexcusable!  Read the rulebook!

Ha, ha… I am “inexcusable” :wink:

Actually, I am worse off than that.  Now that I’ve looked at the rulebook, I knew that rule, and assumed actually nothing.  I just got confused reading these posts and thought I didn’t know what I actually did know… go figure.

[boldfresh]

let’s just wait to see what Jeff says after he’s had a chance to consider everything.

appreciate the comments guys, quite a community we have here.

MM, are you still on sabbatical or are you back in action?  gotta jump right back on that horse when it throws you man!  :wink:

[miamiumike]

Why - you up for a game Bold? :)

[boldfresh]

@miamiumike:

Why - you up for a game Bold? :)

i would be sure.  not at the moment, got about 4 hotly contested league games going, two with over 6000 TUV on the board, and the XDAP semifinal game.  pretty nuts.  but i’d play you when a spot opens up  :-)

[boldfresh]

oh, make that 3 games that are deep deep into the action, forgot about
Axisplaya i think it’s in 20+.

[gamerman01]

@Boldfresh:

got about 4 hotly contested league games going, two with over 6000 TUV on the board, and the XDAP semifinal game.  pretty nuts.  but i’d play you when a spot opens up  :-)

That is impressive.  A lot more than I could handle.

[gamerman01]

@Boldfresh:

oh and of course the point is, tripleA allows combat to be conducted in any order (except that it requires fleet wars to occur before a land battle involving an amphibious assault).

but STILL tripleA is invaluable.  i should think that many of these issues would be very easy to implement as well.  another thing you didn’t mention that tripleA doesn’t do correctly is it does not distinguish what fighters are on what acc when there are mixed powers.  one would think this would be no different than the transport function where the transports keep track of exactly what is on each.

Excellent points.  Yes, TripleA is invaluable, because you could not possibly be playing 4 hotly contested games at the same time without it.

The fighters on carriers is a problem, because it does matter.  I dread the day it becomes an issue in one of my games.  Chances are, it will cause a problem for you before it does me, because of volume of exposure  :-)

[Cow]

When Boldfresh plays the axis, he does not know how to attack Moscow or London. He skips that shit to make a 30 round game.

[boldfresh]

Youre right cow.  :wink:

[boldfresh]

@Boldfresh:

Youre right cow.   :wink:

If I had cow dice I would just rush in headlong  :lol:

[Cow]

As far as edits go. You have a friendly game or you don’t. There is no in between. Edit for bugs only or casual.

Still there are general guidelines. 1) no edit after another country took his turn. 2) no edit after combat stuff, none of that “I forgot to take this island now that I see your fleet is sunk.”

Sometimes rule clarifications or disputes come in and people make exceptions.

[Cow]

Does china have an infantry cap or something? not sure why that is not spent… would totally have moved in on the burma road, that is not closed off from China.

This is such a strange game.

The only way you could lose this is if the axis took london, east usa, or russia. Yet I do not see that emphasis. With a 1k tuv and an income advantage you don’t have to hoard transports or other units.

Plus you should have had the other usa fleet at least at union, not like Japan would back to the pacific… he ran from the pacific, going back to die would not accomplish anything for him.

For this turn, I would have cut my losses, just block japan in at 91 with 3 dd 3 carrier 4 fighter or something… shove everything in london. You could hold out for a long time. Especially if you can pick up from 106 and dump truck on london later on.
~

you should move those aa guns from west usa to east usa… that attack might come.

[Cow]

As it stands, even if Jeff loses uk, this might turn into a stalemate. Provided he acts quickly or gets some lucky dice.