Posts made by eggsaladsandwich

However, Anzac and UK would have given US forces  “safe harbor” if we had decided to retreat from an area we suspected the Japanese may hit at any time with overwhelming forces, would they not have?

Thread has been hijacked by the dutch! :mrgreen:

In your faqs, you say that friendly powers who are not at war cannot move their pieces to each others territories (except UK and Anzac). However, it clearly states in the rule book on page 19 that during non combat movement you may move your pieces to ANY friendly territory…Friendly is defined on pg 8 as “controlled by you or a friendly power”. There should be no reason why the US forces on the Phillipines should not be able to move to Australia or even Burma during their turn 1 non-combat. The UK and the US were freindly to each other at this period in history were they not? :roll:

@frimmel:

The Allies certainly need a lot of stuff to live through turn 1.

I agree , your strategy seems to show a lot of promise, but only if the allies have quite a few units survive the German initial offensive.Last night i played my first game where Germany took 7 turns to win (all other games have ended in a turn 6 at the latest axis win).My opponent was using your strategy and if he had made better decisions with his air forces he definitely could have won the game as the allies.However i must attribute the allies near win to the fact that the german initial offensive was disasterous; I only killed 1 artillery and 3 infantry and the allies held all (i repeat…ALL) of their supply depots.
In short, i believe in this game that the most probable outcome is determined in the opening offensive….G1 goes good for germany = turn 5 or 6 win for the axis, G1 goes bad for germany= turn 6 or 7 win for axis if the allies dont win.

@Baghdaddy:

I must have missed the FAQs and Errata on AH’s website.  Anyone got a link?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

As for this called glitch that helped bring about LHTR rules, “Operation Sealion” was a historical possibility that could very well have been successful during ww2, so i say if Germany wants to attempt this on G1 then “Bring it on”.If i’m playing Allies and Sealion fails then i will annihilate Germany with “wrath of god” style and a smile on my face :evil:.If it succeeds (which i’ve never seen in any of the many,many games i’ve played) then i will take it as a challenge to get back on top of the axis powers.If i’m playing Germany, although i doubt i’d ever attempt the operation, it’s nice to know that it will be in the back of the allies mind as a potential distraction.This game should be all about possibilities, lets not limit them because we are worried about having the war end to soon, just restart and play again :-D.

How do you handle the “glitches” that allow for Strategic Bombing of a US IC in China to eliminate all US production?  Is there some “approved” revision to OOB that takes care of the “whichever is greater” statement for IC loss on Rocket Attacks?Â

AH has FAQs and Errata on their website that states the book is wrong and that sbr damage is limited to terrain value per bomber and an ic can only be attacked by 1 rocket per turn (so thats limited).True if someone attacks a US ic in china with 15 bombers they may be able to get 30 ipcs out of it but if someone (Japan) has more than 1 or 2 bombers then the allies dont deserve to win anyway :?.Just look at your particular example of the ic in china and think of the damage as representing the massive amounts of cash it will take the us to rebuild and maintain a factory system(IC) half a world away and all but surrounded by the enemy.

As for the other so called glitch that brought about LHTR rules, “Operation Sealion” was a historical possibility that could very well have been successful during ww2, so i say if Germany wants to attempt this on G1 then “Bring it on”.If i’m playing Allies and Sealion fails then i will annihilate Germany with “wrath of god” style and a smile on my face.If it succeeds (which i’ve never seen in any of the many,mnay games i’ve played) then i will take it as a challenge to get back on top of the axis powers.If i’m playing Germany, although i doubt i’d ever attempt the operation, it’s nice to know that it will be in the back of the allies mind as a potential distraction.This game should be all about possibilities, lets not limit them because we are worried about having the war end to soon, just restart and play again.

@Baghdaddy:

… is there a good reason for preferring LHTR over just out of the box and errata?

There are a still few of us who prefer OOB rules and balancing factors to house rules (LHTR).I have found that the NAs add alot of flavor to the games.In our groups experience giving the axis 10 to 12 advantages (chosen by the allies) and the allies 6 to 8 advantages (chosen by the axis) usually evens the game up pretty nicely .

@OutsideLime:

(I know, I know… nobody plays with NAs.  … let’s pretend for a minute like they do, ok?   :-P)

Ther are a still few of us who prefer OOB rules and balancing factors to house rules (LHTR).I have found that the NAs add alot of flavor to the games.In our groups experience giving the axis 10 to 12 advantages (chosen by the allies) and the allies 6 to 8 advantages (chosen by the axis) usually evens the game up pretty nicely 8-).

@frimmel:

So if you have supplies and trucks in a hex you may only have 10 combat units in that hex. Up to 6 of which may be INF or up to six of which may be ARM and up to 3 of which may be ART.

however, unlike supply tokens, each truck counts against the stacking limit, ie if you have 2 trucks and 5 supply tokens in a hex, you only have room for 9 more combat units.When taking hits if you have more than 1 truck in peril, each hit on the “truck” space removes 1 truck (just like supplies in this sense).