How many people allow this cheezy @$$ move?
Don’t you mean G1? And what is there to allow? It is a legitimate move within the ruleset.
@andrewaagamer
Assume G1 most all armor go to assault France.
Yugo is not attacked
G2 Yugo is attacked by all armored units from France via N Italy and one unit from Romania.
After one impulse all units are retreated to Romania, thus giving the armor a 3rd movement.
Thanks for the explanation. I have never seen anyone do this. Let’s see…
Assuming 6 armor and 1 infantry vs 5 infantry for one round of combat:
14.9% take Yugoslavia
32.9% chance lose one armor
16.5% chance lose two armor
4.5% chance lose three armor
1.7 attackers die on average
3.1 defending infantry die on average
I would bring one mechanized infantry to alleviate the chances of losing an armor even though it slightly increases the odds of taking the territory. (18.9 vs 14.9)
What is the advantage of having the armor in Romania versus Germany?
@andrewaagamer
it positions all your armored forces with the ability to hit Ukraine on turn 3 if you want
@seancb said in The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2:
@andrewaagamer
it positions all your armored forces with the ability to hit Ukraine on turn 3 if you want
Okay. So they can be killed by a Russian counter attack? I don’t see the reasoning behind it.
@andrewaagamer
i dont think you get it.
its the fact that you are giving the units a 3rd movement regardless of what they do.
@seancb said in The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2:
@andrewaagamer
i dont think you get it.
its the fact that you are giving the units a 3rd movement regardless of what they do.
You have always been able to do this in every version.
@seancb said in The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2:
@andrewaagamer
i dont think you get it.
its the fact that you are giving the units a 3rd movement regardless of what they do.
Ahhhh, now I understand your point. It is not the particular scenario of attacking Yugoslavia you object to it is the additional movement gained by making an attack from both sides and retreating one side to the other side gaining an additional movement point.
This is certainly allowed and frankly is a maneuvering tactic good players use to their advantage.
if you all think this is a good thing go ahead. we dont allow cheeze in our games. the maximum movement they have is 2. I certainly wish a new “official” rule addendum would fix this. we just dont allow crap like that
as such i choose not to play with folks that think this kind of stuff is OK
@seancb said in The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2:
if you all think this is a good thing go ahead. we dont allow cheeze in our games. the maximum movement they have is 2. I certainly wish a new “official” rule addendum would fix this. we just dont allow crap like that
as such i choose not to play with folks that think this kind of stuff is OK
It is a valid tactic since Classic. There won’t be any official rule addendum coming. And I dont agree with your assertion that people playing by the actual rules are somehow cheating or playing unfairly.
You are going to have a very long list of house rules if this tactics falls below your threshold of acceptable play. There are far cheesier things such as sending a big wave of strategic bombers against a naval armada. Nothing wrong with house rules, with more power to you if you want to totally rewrite much of the playbook, but is usually out of scope of this main message board.
@seancb said in The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2:
if you all think this is a good thing go ahead. we dont allow cheeze in our games. the maximum movement they have is 2. I certainly wish a new “official” rule addendum would fix this. we just dont allow crap like that
as such i choose not to play with folks that think this kind of stuff is OK
to everyone here. I was simply asking for opinions. I think its BS and wondering how you all handle this. Our method is you retreat the direction you came from. maybe this is house rule crap. I dont know. I’m not some rules expert.
@seancb said in The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2:
to everyone here. I was simply asking for opinions. I think its BS and wondering how you all handle this. Our method is you retreat the direction you came from. maybe this is house rule crap. I dont know. I’m not some rules expert.
Ya seancb. I get your point but it’s allowed in game based on the official rules.
Ain’t changed since Classic and don’t see it changing ever.
So if you do what you say and retreat why is ok for the units to move a 3rd time west ?
If tanks move 2 to Yugo from France, do a 1 impulse then retreat it’s still a 3 move. So it has to be for all moves in any combats based on rule.
My opinion is if you own the territory at start of combat you should be able to retreat to it whether 1, 2 or 3 move.
As u said u housed ruled it.
If it helps, remember this is an extremely abstracted war game. It doesn’t make any less sense that an army taking the same amount of time to travel from Paris to Berlin as Calcutta to Kunming or New York to San Francisco.
However, to everyone confident that this is completely fine and will never change, remember that Wall 'o Transports was canon for 2 decades before that garbage was finally addressed.
@nishav agreed. There are games that are far more historically accurate compared to G40. Most are focused on small theaters of operations to accurately match the tactical reality. I am not going to sit down for 100 hours to play World in Flames. Too long for me personally.
I don’t see a way to have a 4-10h game that allows flexible decisions on a global basis that are much more realistic as it becomes increasingly scripted on valid strategies. We already have so many constraints in League play that you don’t see moves like Sealion or Pearl Harbor as they are rarely viable against high-level opponents.
What’s the wall of transports? I’m a newer player so I don’t know what you’re talking about-you’re right with the abstraction of distances. It takes four times as long to travel by car from New York to San Francisco as Berlin to Paris.
On the subject matter, I think that there is no need to be corrected. That’s one of the reasons that makes the game so fun, using loopholes to do cool moves like that. Like I do, if you want to amend the rules to make things more accurate, energy is far better directed at differences of quality in units and making Vichy France, for a start (I made a long article talking about how The Captain’s house rules can be more accurate).
@superbattleshipyamato said in The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2:
@nishav
What’s the wall of transports?
In the original Classic (2nd Edition) and Revised rulesets transports defended at 1 and could be taken as casualties. Thus with a large enough fleet of cheap transports it was almost impossible to attack them. This was changed with the Anniversary Edition ruleset, and later Global 1940 ruleset, that removed both capabilities.
@superbattleshipyamato Your transport question was already answered above but I will say that every group is different and thus every house rule set has to have different bounds. While I grew up playing Age of Renaissance, Hero Quest, D&D, and Kingmaker our longest tenured player is 70+ and doesn’t adapt to significant rule changes quickly. So while I’m perfectly down for World in Flames or Battle for North Africa many of our house rules have to remain within the bounds of Axis and Allies. There was an old Xeno Games expansion/alternate ruleset for A&A called World at War that was quite fun you might want to look at. Had a rule for Germany to assassinate Hitler that I always loved.
@nishav said in The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2:
Had a rule for Germany to assassinate Hitler that I always loved.
Yeah, you had to roll a 1 or 2 if I remember correctly and if the assassination attempt failed you lost, what was it, 2 infantry and an armor? If you succeeded you collected $5 more each Turn.
