Clarification of rules

@krieghund Thanks again!

@Panther tanks

@Faramir said in Cruisers vs fighters [House Rules]:

What would you say to cruisers attacking and defending on a 4 without changing anything else?

Is this question for me ? Then make battleship A5 D5

I don’t think any of that stuff would have been immediately apparent to me either, it’s just hard to parse the rulebook sometimes, and the official wording. In TripleA you get a clear visual, like the first time you see Karelia or Caucasus or Soviet Far East turn from Gray/Yellow to Green! and it opens up this whole other world of the endgame, post Moscow collapse. Or if you’ve ever played long enough post KGF to see Japan take control of Italy, or long enough in KJF to see Germany take Manchuria. Then it starts to make a lot of sense in the 2v2 match up, why sometimes it makes sense NOT to take certain territories from a vanquished enemy. Similarly if you still have Russian ground units alive, who could conceivably retake a place like Caucasus, but there’s just no point if the Germans already hold Moscow, better to leave it alone for UK or America to take, so they can collect the income for it :)

The stuff is kind of weird to be honest, and can definitely change the situation on the ground, once capitals start falling.

Like Hobbes said the games I’ve been in have slight mods but we talk about them first before any bidding starts.
We do bid up for Axis. So the number that is settled on and wins that is the amount the allies get.

@UrJohn:

I have read some criticism of the standard 9/10 VC victory condition, and it made me think about the victory cities.

Here’s what I came up with:
–The VCs don’t matter at all unless it’s the 9th for the Axis or 10th for the Allies for the standard victory or unless it’s the 13th one for the total victory. The IPCs, Industrial Complexes, and Capitals attached to the spaces matter, but the VCs themselves don’t.
–That last VC means everything.
–Players don’t necessarily worry about every single VC. Whereas, in the real war, both sides were majorly concerned with protecting all of those cities that belonged to their sides.
–Players will sometimes make otherwise ridiculous attacks on a VC when success in the attack automatically wins the game.

VCs on the 1st Edition of the game were useless, no one plays for the all-VC victory and the Axis could only get the 9 VC by conquering Russia, which pretty much meant game over since the Allies would concede at that point.
But on 2nd Edition, with Honolulu as VC the scenario completely changes for Axis. If the Axis retain Berlin, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai and Manila, while conquering Honolulu, Calcutta and Leningrad at the end of the US turn, they win without having to conquer Moscow. This makes the 9 VC scenario a lot more attractive for Axis - specially when the Allies go KGF and leave Honolulu up for Japan to grab.
And you need to worry about all the VCs - otherwise the US can land and liberate one for a single turn and deny the Axis victory.

@knp7765:

In the latest Alpha+3 rules, Larry changed the SBR rules for escorts and interceptors.

This game came out 10 months after that 10/10/11 post on his site, so it has changed again. That’s one thing that makes this game frustrating - it’s not like chess where the rules have been around for hundreds of years. The rules are still fluid and keep changing.

@UrJohn:

I was just rounding to 1.

Agreed!

@WILD:

Would have liked to see a 3rd optional rule for no ICs on islands (Oz has brought this up on another tread). We really liked that in G40, and I kinda expected it to be brought over to 1942 2nd edition. Maybe it will be added as an option in the official faq

Smo63 will that be the case in the tourney’s, will you outlaw island ICs? Didn’t see anything about it in your pdf file about 1942 2nd ed tourney rules.

Didn’t plan on it.  Why would we?