KGF with optional rules

@bb82:

I think it’s:
1)Yes
2)No
3)No
4)Yes

You’re right, whether using the box rules or LHTR.  Taking a power’s IPCs by taking their capital is not income, so you can collect it even if your capital is held by the enemy.

Actually Cragi, he stated that they flew over Western to attack, and back over Western to retreat.  For that to be the case (in the #1 example at the start of the thread) the FIGs would HAVE to be attacking, not defending.

And under LHTR, Attacking aircraft retreat as I specified.

Thank you for answering my questions  :-) !

The only difference is that you’d be forced to hold off one turn.  No biggie.  5 Bombers is 15 IPC you’re down anyway, and since it’s going to take at least a round to get into position, waiting 1 round for units to save up is nothing.

BTW, the Flames dicey is screwed up on rolling the damage.  They say attacker does 3 all the time, defender does 2 or 3.  I already notified them it needs to be fixed to come into accordance with the actual description of LL SBR.

Yeah, I CAN write a good AI program.  Or at least, if not GOOD,  not bad.

But even writing the algorithm would take a whole chunk of time.  Writing the code, debugging it . . . another chunk.

Time = money.

I have no problem with the wildest requests (“I want Alaskan king crab straight from Alaska, and I want it in three hours!”) . . . but without allocated resources and/or manpower, it’s no go.

Yep… I had that argument with Tri in one of our earlier games…  I was using the box rules which implied somethign else, he was using LHTR, which are explicit.

Heh I really can’t understand why both you and donmoody keep using the word “arbitrary” like it has any meaning. Arbitrary means without reason, and I’m sure that the designer had some sort of reason to change the rules. Larry doesn’t like changing them very much, and for him to have done so in the first place means that he was receiving some sort of complaint or player feedback, which is more than a valid reason to tweak the game to be more understandable/accessible. Doing something for a reason, even if some people consider it “dumbing it down”, is not arbitrary. You can use the words “superfluous” or “irrelevant” or “unnecessary”, etc, but using “arbitrary” is just a wrong use of the English language. You can say the change did not improve the game or is not needed, but to say that there is no reason behind the change (arbitrary) is entirely a subjective and uninformed view of the matter. I would really like to know why both of you like to incorrectly use this term, it really bothers me. I can respect that you think the change wasn’t needed or that you liked the previous ruling, but to say something else entirely different, that it had no reason behind it, just makes no sense to me.

I can just as easily say that I think it’s more intuitive for fighters to land in seazones for carriers than it is for them to land in territories with complexes. To me, hey that’s where the carrier is going to be, so why not just have the fighter there already so you don’t forget to redeploy onto it? Why move units during the mobilization phase? It could very well be that you’re smarter and both are equally intuitive to you, but again, this does not make the change arbitrary (only to you perhaps). I’m sure Larry changed it based on player feedback, and since it is a game after all that requires changes and tweaks, that is hardly a reason to call it arbitrary.

Actually, it gives 5 spaces of movement either way because suddenly you can ‘land’ in an illegal spot.  Your range has still been extended by one.

By the way, more flawed reasoning. Extending a fighter’s range by one by allowing it to land in an illegal spot does not increase its range to 5. Prior to “illegal” landing, you could theoretically only move 3 spaces, since the 4th would be illegal. Thus, with “illegal” landing, you have increased the range to the full 4, not 5. You can never make it look like a fighter is moving 5 spaces under LHTR, while you can do so under box rules (deploying on a territory with a complex). And the space is nt really seem illegal because a carrier is going to be there, which is consistent with the other rules about fighter/carrier landing.