Want to play me online Colonel and test your goofy theories??
My pleasure, but I’m sorry, I don’t have the boardgame right here with me, (I play it with friends i visit regularly)
But as soon as I get it over to my place, or even get to buy the revised version……I’ll let you know.
Thanks :-)
Don’t forget that LRA with a US tech buy is possible too<<
The most vicious development one can imagine - right from the start of U.S. turn :-o
I believe hovever that even a nightmare like this, will not rule out any of the Eight Principles of Cool’s Law as presented above, since there is no interference. The tactical choice of taking advantage of increasing possibilities on the battlefield is not contradicted, or at this point even influenced by a subsequent choice of a B-29 strategy.
But sure, i agree; using a U.S. long range bomber strategy is indeed one way of responding to a strong Japanese Navy, but most often it is not considered the cheapest effective response to Imperial Fleet movements.
As we all know, supporters of Mr.Churchill’s and Comr.Stalin’s “Germany first” strategy (arguably good for beginners) will demand the cheapest possible effective response against The Imperial Fleet, - fighting with what is already at hand in the pacific and only reinforcing when necessary. …and not to forget; praying for the australians :|
_>>Aggressive America - how to stop it?<< _
Sorry, it’s a monster, it can’t be stopped. :-P
_>>However, one of the people loves to play a REALLY aggressive America.<< _
replace the guy! :evil:
_>>Anyone have any suggestions?<<Â _
Try maybe some of that oldfashioned “PSYOP” - a good clean family activity. :roll:
Hi Wazzup
More than likely, China figher is gone.<<
Yes - name it! Anticipating the theory “More than likely, China figher is gone” the average Japan player will consider the carrier free of all protection duties and ready for fight, and as a result a tranny may be left unprotected as a target of opportunity for the sub.
More than likely, 3 hits are almost gauranteed in Pearl Harbor Japan attack<<
Well, since (in any case regardless of editions and rule versions) the outcome of the very first round of japanese fire logically is considered beyond the sphere of influence of U.S. tactics, let us then academically reduce the possible
effective tactical extension of the aforementioned U.S. initial choice of tactics (we can call it “Colonel Cool’s Manoeuvre” to simplify reference) by agreeing to the logical deduction which we may from now on, refer to as:
:wink: COLONEL COOL’S LAWÂ :roll:
(Law on the US choice of tactics during the very first possible Japanese attack on US Pacific Fleet in the strategic boardgame Axis & Allies classic)
Saying that:
§1: Proposition: There exist a threat to Japan, a choice of move here labeled “Colonel Cool’s Manoeuvre” that has an element of possible tactical surprise that can be exploited to increase the US Pacific Fleet’s tactical influence of the battle outcome, given a first possible Japanese attack on US Pacific Fleet.
§2: The definition of Cool’s Manoeuvre is to retreat the U.S. sub to a sea-zone adjacent to Sea Of Japan (e.g. N.W.Pacific) at first possible chance to do so. The move represents a genuine threat to Japan during a given first Combat Move attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet with reference to §3-5.
§3: When attacking the US Pacific Fleet in first Combat Move, Japan can NEVER be absolutely certain to hit all three units during first round of fire.
§4: If the U.S. are allowed to retreat the sub, it can IN NO CASE be blocked from retreating to a sea-zone adjacent to Sea Of Japan. (threatening the important staging point of Sea of Japan, and thereby achieving a strategic victory which cannot be achieved otherwise).
§5: because of §4, Japan has no possible way during the following non-combat move to intercept a subsequent U.S. strike capability on the Sea Of Japan (or any vessels in adjacent territories except by moving these out of range during non-combat - which is not always allowed).
§6: To nullify the threat tactically: The potential effect of the possible element of surprise in Colonel Cool’s Manoeuvre will decrease only as skilled japanese opponents takes §1-5 into consideration.
§7: Strategic implications: When skilled japanese opponents takes §1-5 into consideration, they aknowledge the tactical potential of Cool’s Manoeuvre BEFORE the rolling of the dice, giving the tactical implications of the manoeuvre some independent strategic influences (e.g. encouraging Japan to avoid landings on russian territory with unprotected tranny, or keeping Japan from purchasing a tranny that will be left unprotected in the Sea Of Japan, etc.)
§8: Consequently Colonel Cool’s Manoeuvre represents THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY (given §4 during Japans first combat move) TO TACTICALLY INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME and the subsequent tactical drawing of the battlefield BY TACTICAL SURPRISE. In other words; If U.S. do not move the SUB when it’s possible to do so, then the outcome (the subsequent tactical drawing of the battlefield) will in reality be determined only by the rolling of the dice, and the U.S. will most surely be forced back to play a passive role, during the following U.S. turn.
If anyone has a critical comment or analysis to this law of nature, please come forward. The important question concerning Cool’s Manoeuvre is: is it worth it?
-or as Wazzup put it: What is the bid?
If convenient anyone; then check out the move a few times to analyse what possibilities comes up - or what heavy consequenses comes down, then be kind to come back and share ya thoughts.
Will Cool’s Law prevail? :|
Right, here it is:
–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blockquote:
   Please Note: if the captured territory was originally owned by a member of your .alliance, you are not considered the victor even though you attacked successfully. You are the liberator only! Your ally, who originally owned the now liberated territory, is once again the owner and earns the income value of the ter¬ritory on the National Production Chart. EXCEPTION: If the original owner’s capital is in enemy hands at the time of such a liberation, the liberator collects the income value of the newly captured territory and can use an industrial complex there until the original owner’s capital is liberated (at which time, the production levels would be readjusted)!
Source:Â
page 20 - Second Edition Rules - 1986 by Milton Bradley Co. All Rights Reserved. 4423-X1
http://www.aamc.net/bunker/doc.htm
–-----------------------------------------------------------------
I Admit that the strange EXCEPTION above it’s pretty clear - I wonder why this exception was not published with the original rules included in the boardgame - and not least: why it is not mentioned as differing from 1rst edition rules in the introduction of Mr. Bradleys rule book.
Is it supposed to be a 1rst edition rule as well, now?
And one more thing: What about the AA gun, then? I can see no exception for that, so how does online gamers interpret the rules for the Karelia AA gun?
Hmmm, I wonder what will really be the motivation for liberating moscow if it means UK will loose a factory. I feel a little indignation on behalf of the russians here :wink:
All right, maybe I could be wrong with the boardgame - I will check again. The 2nd edition boardgame is at my friend’s place were we play every sunday. But again, for sure this way of playing is in NO WAY possible in the cdr-game’s 2nd or 3rd edition rules. No british weapon can ever be produced in Karelia.
pretty weird…
well …aye aye…Â Â :mrgreen:
Ok - i found Milton Bradleys AAORG.DOC
I will read it carefully and then turn back ;-)
Hmm. Even after playing with friends for years, this is completely new to me. Im sure its against the rule in the original book included with the boardgame.
can you perhaps make a precise quotation?
Or is this rule book online?
Cheers!
Check this out!!!
There exist a very good move that can take many average players completely by surprise. Their face will turn green, their hands will get sweaty!
in far most cases of the initial japanese attack on Hawaii, Japan will maximum get two “first” hits regardless of how strong forces (even everything available) she engage in the battle. The popular japanese move is to use a force big enough to secure the fleet against counterattack.
When you select your casualties you choose your two most expensive items (they would be worthless anyway). But yes it might sound counterrational, - but that is exactly why, it will become a grim surprise for your opponent. What you do is to sacrifice your carrier and fighter and instead save your sub by retreating it to N.W.Pacific within striking range of SEA OF JAPAN. Since Japan presumably used all naval forces during the attack on Hawaii, nothing will be left to protect japanese trannies in Sea of Japan (well alright, maybe she left the CV in Sea of Japan to protect one or two trannies against a certain fighter plane - but that means China is still yours)
If Japan (maybe prefaring attack on India) did NOT attack China in her first move (where you got your fighter), then attacking with your fighter + sub …… he he… you will get a very nice icecold revenge, my friend  :-D
Officers & gentlemen!
I nearly get confused with this discussion between experienced players about such a basic rule. :?
I’m not playing online tournaments but I’m pretty convinced that according to 2nd or 3rd edition rules, No capture of former ORIGINAL allied territory will in any way give the invader any authority over such territory. You simply liberate that territory for possible use by your allied partner, regardless of whether your partner’s capitol is captured by the enemies or not.
You will NOT be allowed to use the IC which is still owned by your allied partner, and you will NOT recieve any IPC’s from that territory. This goes for the AA gun as well, Its works alright for you when liberated, but it is NOT yours and therefore you won’t be allowed to move it away.
Any liberation of original allied territory is exactly just that - a liberation. The idea of the british having control over former russian IC is not part of the classic rules - the territory will be liberated for the russians giving no authority to the british whatsoever. The british got the right to liberate it, to stay and to die for it - and thats it. This is what the classic boardgame rules says, and they are actually very well enforced on the cdr-game as well (witch features both 2nd and 3rd edition rules). After british liberation the territory of Karelia becomes red brown - not khaki.
It happens that I actually forget this rule when playing the PC game. It can be a huge drag when fx. Japan succedes in liberating Italy after a total german defeat. You will get nothing: no IPC’s, no AA, no IC.
And, yes, I know that the cd-r game actually break many rules (tanks can move 2 squares - even over sea to a tranny - great thing!! -And trannies can disembark infantry unto two different territories simultaneously - even greater!!)
But that said, I still haven’t seen anything in Mr. Bradleys clarifications that effectively contradicts the above interpretation of 2nd or 3rd edition rules.
Well, maybe somebody will solve the dispute once and for all by consulting Mr. Bradley personally? - or even better: game designer Mr. Harris himself? :|
Salute!
Cheers y’all :evil:
Playing A&A, my favourite strategy for germany is the “kriegsmarine” approach. Although this choice of strategy is VERY risky indeed, it is one of the most funny when it does succeed. (Well, if you desperately NEED to win, the german north fleet strategy - with its “all or nothing” approach - can NOT be recommended)
However: Depending on the war situation (Russia’s first turn) this Kriegsmarine strategy can be pursued purchasing fx. 4 subs on Germany’s first turn. Following this approach, here is a possible scenario:
Round 0: Russia attacks and takes Norway/Finland
Germanys turn: Germany attacks british home fleet with subs and available planes and after just one shot retreat subs to the baltic sea while the planes finish off the job. During “Place Units” Germany places 4 subs in the baltic sea.
UK and US (during their turns) try to hit as many german subs as possible (+ the tranny).
round 1: Russia’s turn: trying to hit as many german subs as possible (+ possibly taking ukraine)
Now, if any german subs managed to survive, germany will use these, together with all available airplanes, for yet another (hopefully decisive) attack on the reinforced allied fleet in the north sea.
Using the same tactics as in round O, - retreating the subs to the baltic sea after just one shot (to help protect future shipbuilding), and let the planes finish the job - IS NOT POSSIBLE!!!
Yes, you WILL get the message “attacking subs may retreat” and you can definitely hit the “RETREAT” button and thereby selecting the “baltic sea” which is marked with green colour as it should be, highlighting the baltic as a perfectly legal retreat-zone.
But when you do this - OH BOY - the subs not only STAY in combat, BUT THE HOLE GAME FREEZES - And you will have to reboot your PC the hard way. - Check for yourself.
The really weird thing is that this “secret weapon” (the bug) is apparently only active against the Kriegsmarine during round 1 (second round).
I’m aware of the AA Starter Pack v4.1 patch, - but reading the info about the patch, I find nothing indicating that THIS specific error has been found and repaired.
I think it’s a very serious issue, as this illegal combatant (the bug) is trying effectively to destroy the Kriegsmarines unmatched superiority ;-)
Does anyone has anything to say about this strange bug ?      Â