Posts made by frimmel

If the Allies do not have the three cities by the end of turn nine. is the game over? Or are they allowed to get them by turn ten and then have a final round to hold them?
As they must hold the cities for a turn, if the Allies haven’t managed to take all three cities by turn nine, they have lost.

That is from the FAQ which can be found here–http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisdday

Hope that helps. That FAQ pretty much covers a boat load of stuff too. I printed a copy and keep it with my set.

Okay so Moscow is a little better defended than in Jennifer’s original post but G will now be stacked huge in UKR with All of the WRU troops and half the Belo INF (2 or 3) and the Balkans stuff coming down on it. That still leaves a ton of stuff to hit EE with. Also you could hit Kar with all of the NOR units. Might just try to hold in EE and push hard on CAU. Especially if the bid 2 INF went to BELO.

Also I think that while you wouldn’t skip EGY G1 I think an evac of the Africa corp (the Libya INF and ART from ALG) to UKR on G2 might be in order in this scenario assuming a succesful EGY retake by UK. Cau falls quick in this plan. Skip the first turn AC. Get 2 TRNs for the MED and come down hard on the CAU on G2. Hold in EE.

Turn 1 Attack KAR from NOR and GER. EE from GER and Balkans. UKR from WRU and BELO. EGY and UK BB, and DD after buying 2 TRNs and some INF and ARM? Hit UKR with everything that reaches. EE with whatever is left. Build in SEU.

Turn 2 Hit CAU although that stack will probably be 16 INF pretty quick vs ?. I don’t have a board on this computer to sort that out. Don’t have the skills to do it in my head. Bears some thought though. Well in case someone actualy trys this against you as the Axis.

I hadn’t realized that the build up for Revised had started so soon. I don’t remember it being very long with D-Day. I am getting eager for some more info though. It seems like everything I hear just makes me ask more questions. With the cat being out of the bag after Gen Con we should be getting some additional “official” word.

Indeed they are. Transports make excellent targets for the Japanese Kamikazes.

@Imperious:

Why are those white fences used for control instead of control markers? To symbolize the front. There are limitation of what you can do in a hex that borders an enemy hex. Movement for example. Behind your lines tanks, trucks, etc., have unlimited movement.

Isnt it a chore to keep changing them as the germans move up? Maybe. I guess that is a opinion. You could probably get away with not using them. Like aircraft movement markers.

Those will probably be easily not used after a game or two. Or even somewhere during your first game. At least for players who can keep “adjacent to an enemy hex” straight.

@Imperious:

Forget the AH site! They don’t support Axis and Allies over there. They have done nothing to promote the new bulge game. I think they just want axis and allies to fail. If it ain’t some stupid kiddy game made by some drip that once worked on some hot selling fantasy card game, they are simply not interested. The entire employee roster is made up of post D & D yeahoos who have no concept of historical simulations. Only a small core remains guided by the original mark left by Larry Harris and his Axis and Allies concept. Those people will run AH into the gutter.Of course they will never admit that Axis and Allies is the only thing that is keeping the company afloat. Just look at what eagle games is going thru. Once they started to make non- historical games they are finding themselves in financial trouble.

Not a big fan of Mr. Garfield IL?

Also I wouldn’t panic on the no promotion for Battle of the Bulge. I’m sure the marketing experts think it is a bit early. Release is still three months away and the artwork isn’t final yet so to me it seems a bit early to say they aren’t promoting it. If by say the end of the first week of October there is no news on the AH site then I will join with you and say they aren’t promoting it.

They are promoting the A&A minis game. Tons of stuff on that over at the AH site. But then that is “collectible.” As compared to selling one $45 dollar set every two years. Hundreds of dollars every what 4 months or so?

I suppose the question now is when does a core concept become a canned strat? Or does its very nature as a core of strategy sheild it from ever falling into the realm of being canned or a “sucker punch.”

For instance taking out the US fleet at Pearl on J1? Canned strat or core concept?

I’m with the core concepts crowd. Sound grasp of fundamentals will always serve you better than tricks.

I even have an Axiom about it that I recently disobeyed to my detriment,

Axiom 6 “Be more concerened with the sure paths to defeat than the uncertain paths to victory.”

You might check the house rules forum. I’m pretty sure there is some stuff there about alternate victory conditions.

If two capitols on one side are gone it is de facto over. If you had UK and Mos then you should have had no problem grinding out the victory. How could Mos and UK build new units? No capitols, no IPCs, no new units. You should also have been able to outspend them by tons. And not had any problem building units where you needed them.

Also your opponents didn’t pay you the courtesy of surrender when you captured the second capitol? Sounds like sore losers to me.

Perhaps there are attacking bonuses for flanking a position? Or what also seems likely is that the strip tells you which way you have to retreat. You probably don’t need as many of those as you would control markers. It also looks a little cleaner than I think control markers would.

So it won’t be simply a matter of getting your troops in the right place but of also getting your supplies in the right place. Neat. Were there separate ammo and fuel? And please tell us about combat.

They are good fodder in Pacific too. They participate in the battle even though they don’t roll. I think they have a space on the attacker side of the battle board with 0 next to it or no attack value or something. Shoot hold on let me go look….

On page 14 of the out of box rules, “Even though the transport has no attack factor, it may be selected as a caualty should the attacking force be required to eliminate a unit.” That is under the put all units on the battle board section on that page.

Just seconding Ms. Jennifer’s position.

It sounds to me like you are sinking too much Allied cash into ICs and not enough into TRNs and men. You do not need an IC in Africa. Heck just with the stuff on the board at outset the US can put 2 INF, 1 ARM and 1 ART into French Equatorial Africa or Belgian Congo on turn two without putting those TRNs in range of German FTRs. Unless G is landing them in Alg.

Or if you don’t mind risking them (sacrificing them) to German airpower you can land that in ALG on US1. Or in a move I use and no doubt needs some refinement. US 1 get an AC, a TRN, a ARM and a INF and whatever else you want to do with what is left (more INF for WUS maybe or a FTR.) Get your WUS and EUS FTR on your new AC and move the SZ20 (Panama) DD to the EUS. Turn 2 you take your fleet and launch “Torch” the landings in ALG. On US3  you now have a nice fleet, 3 TRN, 1 AC, 2 DD and 2 FTRs and lots of troops to move around with it to cleanse Africa of the Germans, or threaten WEU, or SEU or can combine with the UK in SZ6 and just start pumping troops into Europe thru NOR or KAR.

If you have built more TRNs on turn 2 and three and have been moving land units from WUS, to WCA to ECA on turn 4 you should be landing a minimum of 6 units (3 INF and whatever combo of ARM, ART and INF you like) into NOR. Back and forth with TRNs from SZ2 to SZ1 and from UK to whichever grey or red space you like.

The Allies don’t need new ICs. They need to manage a TRN system of INF, ART, ARM and FTRs into WEU or NOR, KAR, ARC.

The US can abandon the Pacific because you can see any Japan move coming in plenty of time and as you are building your US INF and ART and ARM in WUS and then moving it to WCA and then to ECA and then to Europe and Africa. Now that may not always be the most expedient route but by turn 5 “the shuck” is going. The US needs TRNs in the Atlantic. Lots of TRNs. Now my outline isn’t very refined but it should give you some ideas.

A move against the WUS is most often preceeded by a landing in WCA or Alaska. Easily counter-attacked and retaken. A move of a TRN into range of WUS usually ends up being a feint to land in WCA when US drops some new INF and ARM or a FTR or whatever into WUS.

While not privy to the details of your games if the Allies have a big donut in the win column the most likely culprits to me are poor logistics and planning on the part of the US and inadequate defense of Russia. If you can’t bring enough US forces to the front starting with round 4 or 5 if you are attempting to KGF then you are not establishing and guarding an adequate transport system with the US and UK. If you are stopping Japan in India it suggests a UK complex and holding that will be sucking all of UKs IPCs out of pressuring Germany and helping defend Russia in NOR, KAR, ARC. If you are splitting the US loot between Pacific and Atlantic navies you are also inadequately aiding Russia by not getting pressure on Germany.

Simple advice with out getting too much into details.

The US abandons the Pacific. NO new Pacific navy. Garrison the West Coast and rotate those units thru to ECA for TRN to European and African fronts.

UK or US must supply defensive naval units to guard the TRNs from German air and what may remain of the Kriegsmarine (which should be sank as soon as practical.)

Try to supply FTRs to Mos and CAU from UK and US without weakening your TRN defense or flow of troops.

Get UK troops to the Eastern front via NOR, KAR or ARC. Leave cleansing Africa to the US except to contest EGY with troops via TRN from India.

USSR should fall back from the BRY, SFE front and try to get Germany to overextend too quickly in UKR, BEL and CAU and then chop 'em off at the knees (this is very effective see my 2 on 2 tourney game) and dig in and wait for the UK and US.

Again I do not know what moves you are making but play a game where the Allies do not build any new ICs. Spend those bucks on ships and troops.

I think you are getting into an Apples and Organes thing. I don’t think it is a question of which one does or doesn’t suck but which you prefer to play. I think people who are drawn to Risk in search of a strategy game not chess tend to find their way to things a bit more complex (A&A) very quickly.

I think that Risk:Godstorm is a blast. Summon Gods to aid you in battle, wage war in the underworld, sink entire continents.  Lots of fun.

Where I think Risk sucks is the “custom” of not deciding how many defense dice to roll until the attackers dice are on the table.

Does the road to Ambleve still lead to Malmedy?

“Stay loose, stay loose.” And look at a compass and map not the road signs.

I was wondering about that too. Is it just for visualising the line or is it a fortification of some sort? Do you think it is an aid that you can do away with as you play more games? As to the map. I hope that isn’t it. Although it does “match” the box. It looks like a print out that has been laminated which might explain the white border.

Do you think maybe you can only capture enemy fuel? That maybe you will need to manage a supply line to keep ammo and fuel moving to the front? That you could hamper the opponent by hitting his ammo dumps? And that as Germany you will be very dependent on capturing the Allied fuel depots? That fuel depots may prove as important an objective as gaining the enemy cities?

I thought I was kinda curious about this game. I was thinking that will be neat to pick up when it comes out. Now I’m ready to buy a set today and want a rule book and want to know how it works. I so should have gone to GenCon. I will be patient and watch however. I will wait for IL to keep posting the cool info.

Looks like there will be separate fuel and ammo tokens. Also the new tanks look pretty cool. I trust that we are also not seeing the final graphics on the map. I know it is winter but that blue-gray looks like it might get a bit fatiguing to look at. Maybe it is just the lighting?

I would agree that it is probably not out and out plagerizing IL. To create a playable and histroically accurate game designers will undoubtedly make similar choices.

This is from page twenty of LHTR pdf file

Strategic Bombing Raids: a bomber can make an economic attack against an enemy industrial
complex. During the opening fire step of combat, bombers that survive any antiaircraft
fire may attack the industrial complex. Roll one die for each surviving bomber. The
opponent must surrender that many IPCs to the bank. The maximum combined damage inflicted in one turn by all strategic bombing raids on one industrial complex and any rocket attack on the same industrial complex is the territory’s income value.

Italics mine.

This from the out of box rules page 28:
Special Abilities
Strategic Bombing Raids: A bomber can make an economic attack against an enemy industrial complex.
During the opening fire step of combat, bombers that survive any antiaircraft fire may attack the industrial complex. Roll one die for each surviving bomber (the maximum each bomber can inflict is the territory’s income value). The opponent must surrender that many IPCs to the bank.
Weapons Development—Heavy Bombers: If you have the Heavy Bombers development, all your
bombers roll two dice on an attack instead of one. That means each bomber can score 2 hits in a regular attack, or inflict two dice of IPC loss in a strategic bombing raid. (It still cannot inflict more loss than the territory’s income value.)

Italics and bold mine.

If you are playing out of the box SBRs can do some hurt. Not as much hurt in “tourney” rules. Those are the out of box rules pdf from the Avalon Hill website. I think those are the latest LHTRs but it is from the link to the pdf version in the sticky thread. I guess that leaves the question of if in LHTR by turn they mean UK’s move or R thru US moves. My earlier post while not quite wrong is misprecise.