2015 League General Discussion Thread

axis-dominion

sure it’s arbitrary, but the 0% mod at least makes it proportionate, since it’s a threshold percentage. using your example of subs:

calc says:

1 ss vs 1 bb: 6% chance –> so it’s ok per our mod
1 ss vs 2 bb: 0% chance --> so it’s not ok
2 ss vs 2 bb: 1% chance --> so it’s back to ok…

it was relatively easy to overcome the 0% threshold, since the hostile fleet in this case is relatively small.

BUT now imagine instead that there are 10 bb. in this case, it’d require significantly more subs to raise it above the 0% threshold. in fact, a whopping 15 subs would be required, which could be a deal breaker for the attacker as it’d require substantially more to turn the hostile sz into a friendly one. it’s more of a commitment on the attacker, proportionate to the commitment by the defender. without the mod, the defender can have a GOD fleet yet it wouldn’t even matter, as the attacker can just commit a single sub. silly and completely unreasonable.

so this mod seems much more reasonable as it takes into account the relative size of the blocking fleet.

@DizzKneeLand33:

@rgp44:

We’ve established that the rules as written allow the attack, that’s one item down. The point axis dominion and I are making is that it is a loophole or “exploit” and it ought to be adjusted. To just say “that’s always been the rule” is not the point. Every out-of-the-box rule was “always the rule” until they were changed or adjusted and countless numbers of them have since the beginning. You should make an argument for why you think the rule is good. The 0% rule may be arbitrary but that doesn’t make it a bad idea, since many of you have argued that logic is not allowed in determining the rules I would suggest that all the rules are therefore arbitrary. I would prefer an arbitrary rule that is reasonable to a rule that is silly.

My comment that this has always been the rule is to those people who found it a surprise that this was the rule – I don’t know what was surprising about it.

It’s a good rule in combination with the other blocking rules (some described above) such as one destroyer holding back entire fleets and so forth. Is it good otherwise? No, but your 1% is more arbitrary than the “possible (however remote)” rule because the “possible (however remote)” is easily defined. Now, if you want to create a game where 1 infantry doesn’t hold back 50 blitzing tanks and so forth, by all means create it, and I’d love to play it. But some of these rule changes in recent times have been really game changing rules (not subtle, large, almost an entirely different game).

Why is 1% arbitrary? Because, does that mean in a particular example that I send 2 subs into the fleet stack instead of one, or 3? And, is that 1% cumulative – what if there are multiple battles involved and any one victory would allow the planes to land? Should it be 5%, a statistically non-significant outcome?

This is a league where people should be playing by substantially the same rules. Otherwise, I don’t see the point of the league, since every game seems to be played by different rules…

Soulblighter

I like the rule as it is. It teaches players to become sneaky little bastards :P.

rgp44

Maybe 1% is too high, maybe a force ratio or attack/defense ratio guideline is better and fairer. Â The odds calculator may indeed be a flawed way of determining reasonable attacks but I think the general point of using an unwinnable attack to make a suicide mission legal is a bad rule and should be changed. Â This is really the first time I have noticed it so it probably doesn’t occur that often so not that big a deal but a general league convention I think would be easy to apply to the situation.

gamerman01

Right - better than the odds calculator would be to say you need a certain percentage of attack power compared to the total defense power of the fleet. For example, 1/10.

Soulblighter

Suicide attacks happen in almost any war. Sometimes voluntary and sometimes brave men were send into battle knowing they wouldn’t come back. I see no issue with the rule. It means players simply need to be more careful.

Bjergmose

@Soulblighter:

Suicide attacks happen in almost any war. Sometimes voluntary and sometimes brave men were send into battle knowing they wouldn’t come back. I see no issue with the rule. It means players simply need to be more careful.

Short, precise and to the point…well spoken!

gamerman01

Some people don’t like it because kamikaze air attacks are not allowed (flying fighters to attack land territories with no remaining movement points). Basically, this is a legal method to effectively fly kamikaze missions (as Dizzkneeland pointed out, this has been the A&A rule for, like, forever) and I can understand that some players don’t like it.

Soulblighter

@Gamerman01:

Some people don’t like it because kamikaze air attacks are not allowed (flying fighters to attack land territories with no remaining movement points). Basically, this is a legal method to effectively fly kamikaze missions (as Dizzkneeland pointed out, this has been the A&A rule for, like, forever) and I can understand that some players don’t like it.

True, but this is a matter of preference. Which has nothing to do with something that needs to be fixed. There are plenty things that could be fixed in AA global 1940, but this isn’t one of them. However if rpg and axis and others wish to play differently in their games and their opponents agree… well who I am to judge that. It doesn´t require a rule change, because it is basically a slight adjustment in the way the game is being played. That is all.

rgp44

Soulblighter, it doesn’t require a rule change, it deserves a rule change.

bmnielsen

It’s not even kamikaze though, since they would just ditch their planes and usually at worst risk spending a couple of years in a POW camp. Not necessarily something I’d be itching to volunteer for, but rather that than being in the front lines at Normandy :)

I would guess that the primary reason for not allowing one-way attacks in the game is for balance. Bombers are already powerful enough, if they could suddenly always go 6 (or 7) spaces without needing a landing spot, you’d end up having to protect transports everywhere and not just close to the front lines.

The rule about just needing a theoretical landing spot swings it back the other way a bit, by making sure that carrier-based fighters can always move at least three spaces away from the carrier, which I think is reasonable with respect to game balance (they should have larger range than the carrier itself). Yeah it’s kind of silly when you have to sacrifice a unit against a huge fleet, but all of the game mechanics are weird if you think about them for long enough :)

Soulblighter

@rgp44:

Soulblighter, it doesn’t require a rule change, it deserves a rule change.

No it doesn’t. At most it requires testing to see the impact of the rule change. Rules exist for a reason. Just changing them, because you don’t like them is not the right thing to do.

gamerman01

Nothing wrong with house rules when both players agree
Name of the game is fun

calvinhobbesliker

The rules say that I can play a single player up to 3 times, for a best 2 out of 3 match. If I get 2 wins, does that count as 1 game or 2 games?

gamerman01

It’s not up to 3 times that you can play, it’s best of 3.

So you can only play a 3rd game that counts, if you each won a game first and are split 1-1.
If you go 2-0 or 0-2, you are done.

Until you both get to 10 games played, when it is expanded to best of 5 (first to 3 wins)

majikforce

I have heard about people rolling dice in the forum. Can someone kindly explain to me how this is achieved? Thank you.

gamerman01

;aaa 2@1 2@2 1@3 1@4;

Where semi-colons are colons instead

This would be a roll for 3 infantry, 1 artillery, a tank and a bomber

You can also roll any number of 6 sided dice with ;dice X; where X is the number of dice you want to roll, but be cautioned that it will always automatically sort the results in numerical order, not in throw order

You can roll non-six sided dice with ;dice Xd20; where X is the number of dice you want to roll and the 20 can be whatever number. In this example, that’s a 20 sided die

majikforce

Thanks gamerman! Enjoy your weekend!

axis-dominion

rules question:

japan has a ss in 19 and US is bringing in a dd + tps to do an amphib on several coastal territories. the dd is brought in just to escort the tps past the ss, but is deciding not to attack the ss. if japan sinks the dd with a kami, will that block the amphib from proceeding?

gamerman01

Yes, because the kamikaze forces combat in the zone, which means the sub cannot be ignored if the Japanese player uses at least 1 kamikaze

wheatbeer

Krieghund said that kamikaze’s do not trigger a sea battle in this thread, and that ignoring the sub occurs during combat movement phase while kamikazes happen during the combat phase:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35967.0

@ColonelCarter:

I have a follow up question. What if the empty Philippines is guarded by a single sub, and the Allies send a transport guarded by a destroyer, intending to ignore the submarine to conduct an amphibious assault? I would assume Japan can use its kamikazes because of the amphibious assault, but would the destruction of the destroyer prevent the landing (as lone transports can’t amphibious assault against subs), or would the landing go through since the destroyer already ignored the sub?

@wittmann:

Morning Colonel Carter.
The Japanese player can use a Kamikaze and if the DD is eliminated by the Kamikaze, the Sub will prevent the landing.

@Krieghund:

Sorry, wittmann, but that’s incorrect. Kamikaze strikes, while they do prevent offshore bombardment, do not provoke a sea battle by themselves. As the destroyer was present in the sea zone at the end of combat movement (kamikaze strikes occur in the combat phase), the sub could be ignored, and as there is no sea battle for the sub to be drawn into, it will not prevent the amphibious assault.

2015 League General Discussion Thread

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

2025 PTV PO#2-Max (L) v AoW(X+12)

2025 OOB Playoff round 1 Simon33(L+40) vs Booper

L26 OOB Martin (X) - elche (L+40)

PTV Booper (X+11) vs aequitas-et-veritas (L)

AetV (L+15) vs Simon33 (X) BM

L25 PTV #3 ArtofWar (X+10) v Mika (L)

L25 BM4 Surfer(L+16) vs Omni (X)

Post League Game Results Here

58

17.9k

40.7k

1.8m