Posts made by eddiem4145

elevenjerk,

As to what makes sense or not, anyone can point out why one rule makes sense for good play and why it doesn’t. Where one rule may create better play in one aspect, in may hurt it in another. Some rules like allowing allies to take control of their fallen comrades territories would make sense but would pile on other rules and specifics that would complicate things making them better not to do. Of which I had acknowledged so I don’t understand the necessity of your feel of your post.

As to Krieghund not responding anymore. If you mean to this post, I would agree. So why you needed to clarify that puzzles me. I think I made it clear he answered my question and I clarified how I misread some things. The purpose of my last post was to address the manner in which responses are made. Kind of like yours, but then you are not a moderator, and by your username, don’t expect much from your posts.

And just because you haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. I have seen much of it. A lot of it. From one particular moderator whose name I won’t mention, avoiding any negative feelings. To be fair, it was some time ago, but then again I hadn’t been on this forum for quite some time until recently.

Yikes, I can’t believe what I am reading?

First off, though I only partially agree, many claim the axis now have the advantage with the 2nd edition so if that is the case, the axis will win most of the time.

2nd, if your city victories are being achieved by successes in Europe by the Axis, then it does not apply to my example. My point against the victory cities is that Japan can claim enough cities just in time before the beginning of the end occurs against Germany, where the real war is won and lost but yet lose the game. That is why I don’t like playing that way. It makes KGF strategy dangerous which is the logical thing to do and what played out in history as well.

3rd, if you are not playing with victory cities, going after Japan first, in a game played by two competent players is disastrous. There would be not reason why a German victory in Europe wouldn’t be a given.

But if you are playing with victory cities, then se la vie.

Eddie Moreno

Unfortuneately, when playing with victory cities, this is the case. But we never play as such, and im my opinion, a realistic game should be played without it.

Other than that, KGF is the only realistic strategy to win the game. Ignore Japan as much as possible. Yes send the Pacific fleet over to the Atlantic. It gets their in one turn. Then spend what you have to, to slow the Japs. How much, it really depends on how efficient the Japs are and some luck against the Germans. You cant totally ignore the Japs, but I would in the beginning.

To anyone who would say that a good Japanese player would take the first few rounds of being ignored by the US to achieve a complete Axis victory, I would reply, a good German player would achieve an easy victory for the axis by the US ganging up on Japan.

The real action will always be in Europe being careful to not let Japan run wild.

Silly and unrealistic National Objectives have changed the extent to which this is true, but most of all is the Victory city condition. I have seen many victories by the axis based on the number of cities they captured at the end of the turn, that by no means were obvious victories and worse, inefficient uses of resources for temporary gains that could never be sustained and easily lost.

But whether or not the city victory conditions make sense i guess depends on your definition of a victory.

As humans, when we want to do something that to us makes perfect sense, and due to the fact we are inherently biased towards desires, it affects how we read things.

In the rules, it states how you can take control of an allies territory. That fact that I read it as “a way” you can take it, and not “the only way you can take it” is either a logical misread, a legitimate interpretation, or according to you it seems, an assinine take on the rules. Before I put up this post, I looked for clarifications within the rules, and misread the Dutch East Indies. As I pointed out earlier, which I hoped I did clearly, the “exception” label in that rule clearly shows it is in fact an exception, making my take that it could be possibly allowed wrong. And that clarification is what I was thankful for.

Lastly, to a degree, in these kind of forums, playful banter, reasonable put downs regarding others use of thier logic can be enteraining to a degree. But I expect that those who are official moderaters refrain from structuring thier sentences in a manner that could make those asking a question or promoting a point of view from feeling unintelligent. Kriegmund, even though I kind of shoot back in the same manner, considering you are someone I am acutally going to rely on to help clarify rules, I guess I don’t feel comfortable with that kind of back and forth banter with you.

I have seen some other posts by official moderators who have that kind of back and forth banter with those pushing ideas or arguing a point of view regarding the rules, and it turns into extreme statements that restate the other persons ideas into ludicrous thoughts.

I hope I am not being overly sensitive, but I just realized that if I have an idea that is wrong, or have seriously misread something, you are someone I would rely on to take the time to explain the rules, its proper widely excepted interpretation, and maybe even the pages where the interpretation comes from.

Lastly,

Without the word only, it seemed to open up the possibility that it would be allowed. I understand that due to the label, “exception”, the Dutch East Indies could not be used as evidence to support allowing it.

But as to whether it makes sense? The example of London falling, well, what if that really happened. Would the entire british empire just roll over and die, surrender, become nuetral? Would they continue fighting? If they couldn’t, why wouldn’t the US then take control of the territories in North America immediately and use those resources for the war effort? In fact, why wouldn’t the governments of Canada, South Africa, ect…decide to join America.

I am not saying the would, but it is perfectly reasonable to think they would. That might make things to complicated, but a simple rule that allows an ally to take control of any territory they move troops into when that allies capital has fallen I think is perfectly reasonable.

Anyways, I got the clarification I needed regarding the rules as stated and I am thankful.

And I will make sure that on the verge of defeat, I don’t literally murder my opponent to keep from losing just because the rules don’t state that I can’t murder him. Although I don’t think that was an oversight since that rule is written in the California Penal Code. ;)

Oh and FYI, if that rule was not written in the California Penal Code, I in fact could murder my opponent.

No offense Kriegmund, but in each of your examples, you can point to a rule that prohibits those acts.

The rules tell you what troops you can start off with, so placing extra troops is a violation. The rules state how to get extra troops and how to place them. Anything outside of that is a violation. The rules state how to eliminate your opponents pieces. Doing so outside of that, is a violation.

Phrases like only, without exception, or the only exception, or a label like “exception” all provide for clarification. If something is not prohibited, that by default it is allowed. To not allow it, one must provide a reasonable interpretation of the rules as to why it is not allowed. The burden of proof then becomes the side that wants to prohibit it.

The fact that the Dutch Indies is listed as an exception, most likely provides that missing piece. Even without it though, you could argue that the proper interpretation is, the “only” way to take control of an allies territory is to recapture it ect… The term “only” would have been useful, but I understand to ensure no misinterpretations, the rule book would have to be thick enough to be  impractible.

It seems odd to me that once an ally has fallen, you have to wait until the axis takes the territory before you can take it back and control it.

So imagine the US lands on Morocco that is occupied by Italy, it takes it and controlls it. But the next French territory was not taken by Italy, and the US cannot control it. Side by side but one can be controlled and the other not.

The rules simply state that you can control and allied territory when there captial has fallen and you liberate it from the enemy.
That does not mean you cannot take control of a territory that was never lost to the enemy once the capital has fallen.

But it is not clear it means you can.

It seems like a real flaw in the rules if you can’t take control of allied territories once they have been conquered just because the enemy has not first taken it.

For example the Dutch East Indies. They do not require that the Japanese first conquier the territories for the allies to control them. That could indicate that it is allowed throughout the game.

Can an expert in the rules please clarify.

And instead of giving the US an extra $10 for having the Philipines and Hawaii, they should start off with $10 extra and lose $10 due to a massive loss of morale when they lose them. A penalty as suppose to a reward. The loss of morale can truly result in a loss of production. That would make it more realistic.

I am probably going to post this topic in another section. I would like to build more support for this for any future revisions to the rules.

Well I am truly surprise there isn’t any more support for making Navy’s cheaper. To be fair, they have been already made cheaper from the days of $24 Battleships and $16 Carriers and $12 Planes. But to build even a small diverse Navy eats up so much of your resources compared to what you can buy with land troops, I really think going cheaper would be good.

Now an alternative idea, even a realistic one, would be to require at least $10 IPC’s to be spent on their Pacific complex in the form of ships, to represent their Naval Shipyards. If they don’t spend it, it is the equivalent of those shipyards just gathering dust.

Just and idea, but I would much prefer cheaper navy’s.

Transports (defenseless, remember) $4
Subs=$5
Destroyers$7
Cruisers=$10
Air Craft Carriers $13
Battleships $18
Planes $9

and improved shipyards make them slightly cheaper.

May I suggest a solution.

Make transports cheap. Like $4 cheap now that they are defenseless. It may require an adjustment to the beginning set up but I don’t think so. It would require Britain to spend more on defending its island on the first turn which may alter N. Africa more than it should, but ultimately those transports would be useless to Germany unless it spends foolishly to defend them, but then again, it would cause Britain to spend more to go after them.

With that idea, KJF I though was always foolishly unrealistic. BUT, I also agree that the lack of Pacific action is a problem. I do not like the unrealistic NO’s in the Pacific needed to entice SOME Pacific action.

I think if Navy’s as a whole were dramatically cheaper, that could solve the problem. What do you guys think. It would be less expensive to defend defenseless transports.

The book states that you can only put a major complex in territories you have owned since the beggining of your turn. Manchuria fits that description for Japan.

But it also has a Chinese national marker so is it played like it was not an orignal Japanese territory.

Can Japan build a major complex in Manchuria?

What makes all of this so mute as to the opposition to my idea and the references to being unrealistic and FACTS, is that historically, I am absolutely right.

The US spent 90% of its resources on Germany until they reached near defeat. That was because that was where the prize lay.  Japans attempt to take Midway was to extend its DEFENSIVE perimeter to avoid another Doolittle Raid, not take the US or WIN THE WAR FOR THE GERMANS WITH A DECISIVE NAVAL DEFEAT. If the US lost the battle of Midway, any idea that would end the war with all of us today speaking German would be laughed at by any historian. The Pacific was a side show but nevertheless, an entertaining show.

PERHAPS, if the Japanese suceeded in taking India, then Australia, its actions then would have been a great concern. Would it go after Russia next? or target Los Angeles? These are hard questions to answer that take a great understanding of the political situation between Japan and Germany.

But nonetheless, there was Pacific action in the real war. But with the current cost of a navy, if the US only spent 10% of its income on a navy in the pacific, what could it buy. Very little.

I say slash the cost of all Navy’s

Until transports cost as much or less than the infantry they are transporting? Let’s be realistic.

Why shouldn’t transports cost less than the men they transport.

There is a question as to what transports are suppose to represent. There have been many posts on this subject. In the old rules, where they had a defense, where they suppose to represent a group of transports with escorts? What do they represent now. Completely defensless boats that can’t even defend themselves against one single plane. That is not a very expensive boat. And i have a feeling that submarines are suppose to be significantly more expensive then a defensless boat.

But then agian, one submarine may not represent just one submarine, and one transport is not suppose to represent just one defensless boat (though there has been much on this topic as to what they are suppose to represent with the new defensless rule), and one infantry does not just represent one soldier.

So as to what is realistic, what is realistic is whether the cost to transport material and supplies is an accurate representation of what was at the time. I am no expert in that field, but my guess is that since they APPEAR now to be just defensless boats, they should cost much less. Remember, they used to cost 8 and could defend at a 1.

Lastly, I am not saying the US should never by any Naval units in the Pacific. That would be an ignorant statement. There are countless possibilities where the purchase of some naval units could efficiently counter act the Japanese. But the Japanese would have to be acting inefficiently.

So my ultimate point is that the cost of naval units is so great, the efficient action by the US is to play defensively in the Pacific and aggressively in the Atlantic.

It is efficient for Japan to play defensively in the Pacific, ONCE THE US ENTERS THE WAR, and play aggressively everywhere else.

If Navy’s were cheaper, it would increase naval actions.

And I am not sure how inexperience you are with Axis and Allies, but apparently very inexperience.

The whole purpose of the National Objectives, the entire purpose, was precisely because in every game played by experienced players, there was not, or virtually zero naval campaigns between the US and Japan, except very early on in the game. Japan solely focused on Russia and the US soley focused on Germany. These NO were to encourage some action.

And by the way, should the island of Hawaii rely be worth 6IPC’s, or the Philipines worth 7IPS’s. Because with the National Objectives, that is what they are worth. So Hawaii and the Phillipines are worth more economically than the entire eastern part the nation?

No my friend, it is clear that the resources required to build a navy are unrealistic when compared to the resources required to build ground forces.

The US stands unopposed in the Atlantic and therefore spends much less resources on building a Navy in the Atlantic and can spend more on ground troops for actual invasions of territories worth something much sooner when it matters.

Japan can concentrate on Anzac, or Russia, or Africa or wherever else it wants and has the already necessary Navy, except transports.

Until recently, and in the history of axis and allies spanning over 20 years, the name of the game was always, ignore Japan, slam Germany, and the game is over within 6 turns. I have been playing since the 80’s. And all the tournament websites where you bid for the axis was the same.

I would agree that if Japans fleet was defeated, it would lose, but Germany would then win, UNLESS, you have a novice playing Germany because of the VAST resources the US would have to spend.

I would disagree that if all the US did was spend minimally on its PACIFIC navy, purely a defensive and buy time role against an all out assault from Japan it would lose the game. Are you seriously suggesting that Japan would be able to easily march on Washington if they wiped out the US navy. Absurd. Any serious US player would hope for such an attempt by Japan.

At worse they lose some income from Hawaii. The rest it to easy to take back, and the time and resources spent by Japan takes away so much effort that would better be deployed elsewhere.

You are making very general statements of FACTS, that barely apply. I would agree that it would be smart for the US to spend some money on its fleet in the face of an all out Japanese assault. Give them a reason to inefficiently spend their resources. But my ultimate point is, considering the vast resources needed to build a Navy, when two sides are both efficient players, the result is very little Pacific action.

How about reducing the cost of these defensless transports to say $4 and keep the rules.
How about reducing the cost of all Navy’s significantly and introducing the escort at say $4. That brings you back to an $8 transport that can be defended and it is an actual warship(escort) doing the fighting.

Be reducing the cost of all Navy’s, maybe you can have a realistic battle of the Atlantic.
Subs cost $4 and base the cost of all other Navy’s off of that.

Victory Cities,

You can argue that the taking of Honolulu, can mean the difference bewteen success and failure depending on how the axis do in Africa and Russia, and that one city can tip the balance forcing the US to build a significant Navy, thereby reducing pressure on Germany, thereby forcing major Naval action in the Pacific, thereby tiliting the game heavily towards the Axis as some would argue.

I have never played with the city victories nor have any of my buddies wished to do so. It is incredibly unrealistic and creates winners who have no hope of victory because for a brief moment they used tactics to give them a momentary short term advantage.

But alas, if a victory through the capturing of a certain number of capitals is your idea of success in a global war, then my post may be irrelevant, but even still, the vast resources such a Navy would require from the US, takes so much away from thier operations in the Atlantic, thereby giving such a stark advantage to the axis, leave a lot of room for the arguement that Navy’s are just to expensive.

Transports=4
Subs=5
Destroyers=7
Cruisers =10
Carriers =13
Battleships =18
*Improved shipyards should bring that cost down more

If some adjustments need to be made in terms of troop placement due to Opersation Sea Lion then so be it.

I am not saying a defensive Japan forces US to spend. I am saying if the US decideds to mount a major Naval offensive against Japan, Japans efficient response is not to meet that threat with its own Naval offensive but to play defensive and use that time the US is not concentrating on Germany to mount an all out offensive on the continent. Use the navy it already has to merely slow down the US as much as possible.

And my argument is that Japan only add to its Navy as “absolutely necessary” to slow down the US. Anyways, they start out with such a large Navy, I don’t think they would need to add to thier Navy outside of some transports. But that is irrelevant. My post addressed Naval action in the Pacific, or lack thereof, so I am talking about once the US enters the war. And if Japan hasn’t already taken India buy the time the US is at thier back door, you have lost already. LOL!!!

Again, I am not talking about transports. That goes without saying. And if you have not purchased all the necessary transports before the US enters the war, you have already lost. LOL!!!

Japan has all the Navy it needs for Australia and India, even Hawaii. My ultimate point is that if, the US decides to mount a Naval offensive, it would then be more efficient for Japan to surrender any gains i Hawaii or surrender any objectives in Australia to focus entirely on the continent and usse its current massive Navy to merely slow down the US.

Again the point is that a Navy costs so much, that it makes purchasing NEW NAVAL UNITS  for offensive operations in the PACIFIC, an inefficient option.

So the US allowing Japan to ultimately take the Pacific islands by buying only the necessary units to SLOW THEM DOWN, is the only efficient option for the US as it can use those resources in the Atlantic where the need for such a large Navy is minimal.

And again, Japan already has the necessary Naval units to take India and mount an offensive in Australia.

And any major offense against the Main Island of Japan is foolish. It is to easy to defend. And what I mean by that is not that it can’t be done, but that the cost to do it is so great, you might as well as give Germany the win in Europe, UNLESS, Germany is really screwing up.

The cost of a major Naval offensive against Japan is foolish, ASSUMING, you are playing an efficient German opponent. Navy’s simply cost to much. You would have to put it all against Japan to do it.

As far as balance. That is not how you win wars. You pour the vast majority of you resources where the rewards are the greatest and spend minimally as absolutely necessary. And what that means is very little action in the Pacific, ONCE THE US ENTERS THE WAR.

Going back to my invasion of Anzac by Japan. If Japan tries it, it does not need to purchase any more Naval units except transports. Anzacs efficient defense can only be land units. The resources it would take by the US to mount a necessary Naval force to stop it would cost to much in terms of what it could pour against Germany.

If Navy’s were less expensive, it would allow for more action in the Pacific.