B.O.B.C.A.T. vs Beancounter Challenge (players needed)

Yes as some neutrals that have no markers have no military according to G40.

If we’re talking about just one ship in a sea zone carrying just one or two units, there’s not much potential for confusion.  If we’re dealing with a situation in which a large number of transports in a single sea zone are carrying a large number of units, the simplest solution would be to keep all the transported units physically off the board and to represent their presence on the board via one or more markers.  This is basically the principle of the task force markers that were used in the original A&A Pacific game.

There would be two basic approaches.  If you consider the transported units to be a single group, all you need to do is plunk the sculpts into a pile off the board and to put a small marker – anything would do – next to the group of ships transporting them.  If, on the other hand, you want to track in detail which-unit-is-aboard-what-ship (so you can figure out what troops and equipment get lost when ship X gets topedoed, for instance), then you’d need to put a little numbered (or lettered) marker next to (or under) each ship, and a corresponding marker off the board next to each unit or pair of units being transported.  Scrabble tiles could be pressed into service in that role, as one possible quick-and-dirty solution.  For a more elegant, you could use HBG’s cardboard naval task force markers, of which it has a wide selection.

In any case, this would fix the transportation problem without having to replace the ships themselves (or until replacement ships become available, if you want to look at it that way).

I agree with both Bold and Cow.

Bold is right: 99INF is not a viable bid to demonstrate anything. It does not take away the risks (at all!) against a top axis player.
I also agree partially with Cow (after some more study) about the USA. Cow feels the USA is outright bad. I feel that the USA is indeed off-balanced.
This is because A). Japan can take Calcutta and keep it untill ~J9 when it attacks Hawaii with a fleet/invasion force worth ~600TUV and B) this cannot be dodged by US DD blockers, since Germany can fly some STR to Japan to remove them.

In other words: the USA cannot block off Japan indefinately, attacking the IJN if it moves forward in order to get in range of Hawaii. Therefore the USA must defend with a fleet worth ~570TUV (considerably more than what is needed for an attack on a blocked-off IJN) to prevent a Pacific loss for the allies, which leaves the USA with no more than a ~100IPC investment in the Atlantic for the first 9 turns…

The charm of A&A just dropped from 10 to 3 points on a scale of 0 to 10 for me. The 3 points left are for playing against players who are not aware of this loophole, thus not forcing me to go KJF.

I admit that this is not spelling doom for the allies because they can still go KJF, playing the allies in Europe like Gamerman said in another thread, but I find it highly disappointing that a KJF is the only way to go for the allies against this Japanese exploit (of what I call a loophole).
I’m afraid the easiest way to fix this while keeping all other rules intact, is to correct/improve the current victory conditions (G40.2) in such a way that the USA regains the option of going Europe heavy. To a certain extend, ofc, because largely ignoring the Pacific should still be punishable with loosing the game.
Brainstorm: why not set the axis victory conditions to 13 Victory Cities total. Europe heavy allies can prevent the Euro-axis from getting >6VC but then Japan will take 6VC (Hawaii), totalling 12 for the Axis and the battle for that 13th VC still looks like a tough way with a LOT of options to go for both sides…

@Dark_Destroyer:

RAW = Says nothing about air units, just “additional units”.  RAI = Means air included.

It says nothing explicitly about sea units, either.  The type of units is unspecified, implying that any type of unit that may legally move there is allowed.

@Dark_Destroyer:

RAW = Can not move into a territory unless it’s occupied by enemy forces.  This would include sea zones that don’t scramble.

An exception for an amphibious assault where scrambling may occur is explicitly made here.

@Dark_Destroyer:

If you don’t scramble and don’t have any enemy forces and don’t amphibiously assault, moving airplanes into that sea zone is not a valid move.

True.

@Dark_Destroyer:

RAI = You can always bring air into sea zones just to cover what if’s.

No.  RAW = You can always bring units (sea and/or air) into sea zones from which you’re doing an amphibious assault, if there is a potential for the defender to scramble.

Thanks for the answers, I had figured as much.  I might have to re-print the rules and go over them again with the gang next Saturday.

I guess if Japan falls so do the Kamikaze pilots?

I feel that the potshot rule adds most to gameplay. (also blocking makes no sense)

Subs, the AA of the sea  :wink:

@Gargantua:

Where does your playgroup live? Maybe we can how and play a game?

We all live in Northwest Ohio… Toledo specifically. It seems that not many people on this site live near us, otherwise we’d love to expand our group. You are cordially invited if you ever pass through.

Well, it seems that Darth Maximus made an error. I agree that no transports means absolutely nothing. That is, it means America can do next to nothing with real meaning. I didn’t say we/I don’t build transports early with the US, we simply believe in defense first: more combat ships than transports. It isn’t impossible to fight America, they are fallible and you do have to exploit their mistakes. It just isn’t always easy to see.

It is hard to fight America due to distance and economics. Ultimately, there is no stopping them. You simply have to delay them. Yes, I am reiterating what you have said and what we have been discussing; delay is the only way.

One just has to be wise about it, not wasteful. And it isn’t an easy job if the Americans know what they are doing. If one’s aim in the game is to strike the Americans I find it typically to be a distraction and a diversion for the Axis, one they cannot routinely afford.