Posts made by gamerman01

Thanks for posting this, gtg.  I also am interested in one, and am not aware of one yet.  Hopefully a good one exists.

Thanks, gnasape.  I appreciate your reply, which was well worded.  However, I’m not 100% convinced yet.  Thanks also for posting it up for Krieghund again.  I would like to hear him weigh in on this issue again.  Perhaps he can word it a bit differently so I can understand how your answers (lone subs can’t hit lone subs on attack if defender wants to submerge) are definitely in line with the rule book.

@Krieghund:

In theory, firing is simultaneous, so when both subs fire the defending sub’s torpedo is in the water before it is hit.  This allows it to fire even if eliminated.  However, in practice actual simultaneous action is not practical, so the attacker acts first, but the results are still simultaneously applied.

This principle also applies to submerging.  Since fire is simultaneous, the decision to submerge instead of firing is also simultaneous.  In your example, when the attacking sub fires, the defending sub is already submerging, so it can’t be hit.

Krieghund, I’m having trouble with this one.  I was poring over the rulebook on subs and combat this weekend to answer this very question.  I attacked a sub with a sub. 
I don’t have the rulebook with me right now, but I remember it said (under submarines) that attacking subs roll first, and casualties are chosen.  Then defending submarines roll and casualties are chosen.  (Then “normal” units roll)  It also says that anytime a sub can roll, it can submerge instead.  I only see one way of interpreting these rules, and that is that an attacking sub would roll, and if it hit (yes, mine did) then the defending sub would be chosen as a casualty.  Then it would be the defenders turn to roll, and since his sub was hit, of course he would roll.
This is a significant rule interpretation, because if subs can’t hit a sub-only seazone (because they will usually submerge immediately), then a destroyer is the only unit that can possibly attack a sea zone with sub(s).
According to your answer then, a sub doesn’t really have a surprise strike capability against enemy destroyers OR sub only sea-zones.
Do you still stand by your original answer?
Thanks.  I really appreciate all the clarifications you’ve given us in the past.  It’s unfortunate that so many clarifications are necessary, but it’s amazing how many different situations arise in this game.

Thanks for the reply.  That is the same FAQ I was referring to.
Was just getting on to post that I thought fighters could defend each time, because they can do the same vs. conventional attacks, and you confirmed it.  Good to know Krieg confirmed it.

And now I have another question!
Now that I’m starting to play with interceptors and escorts….
Official errata says “Fighters participating as either an escort or a defender cannot participate in other battles during that turn.”
It is unclear what exactly “turn” means.
Let’s say Russia, UK, and USA are all strat bombing Germany every round (turn?).  Germany has a fighter in Germany.  Does the fighter only get to defend against one SBR per Germany turn, or per enemy turn?  That is, can the same German fighter attempt to intercept up to 3 times between German turns?  Or only once?

I think I can answer this one.
Since Japan does not want to lose a fighter and decides to retreat, the submarine must retreat to either SZ51 or SZ46.
The sub cannot submerge, because submerging is done in place of rolling an attack die.  For the sub to submerge, there would have to be another round of combat.
Page 30: Submarines - Submersible: Anytime a submarine would otherwise roll the die to attack or defend, it can submerge instead.  Whenever a round of combat starts and a submarine is in combat with only aircraft, it can submerge (before aircraft fire).

The retreat would be before “a round of combat starts”

I agree with you.  Hopefully Krieg or someone will weigh in on this.  Turned out it didn’t matter in my game - I didn’t engage the sub.

The interesting difference is, with the sea example the enemy units are in the same zone to start with.  So if the Battleship doesn’t leave and come back, does it forfeit it’s retreat option, since it didn’t come from anywhere else?

Did I ask a question that doesn’t have an answer??

Agreed.  It would be interesting to play a VC game sometime.

New warships can be built in a hostile sea zone.  Let’s say, for example, that Japan builds a submarine in SZ62, where there is an American Battleship.  On America’s turn, the Battleship engages the Sub in combat.  The sub hits, and the battleship misses.
Can the battleship retreat?  Can it retreat to any adjacent sea zone that was not hostile at the beginning of the turn? (See bottom of page 19)  If not, then couldn’t the Battleship leave the sea zone 62 in combat movement and re-enter, thus establishing a sea zone that it came from, giving it a retreat option?
I can’t find this addressed clearly in the rulebook or errata.

@Corbeau:

I prefer Germany as axis and Russia as allies.

The war is really decided between theses 2.

I agree, whoever wins the Eastern Front of Germany usually wins the game.  +1 to you

@Bel:

-doing 12 IPC takes on average 3.4 bombers.

Look mate I’m not sure why your so worked up but your plainly putting little thought into your replies. If Italy waits to turn 2 after the SBR to bomb again they have 18IPC - 12IPC to fix allowing them to build 2 infantry. Allies come in the next turn and it begins all over again.

The maths don’t support your logic.

If Italy has 18 IPC’s with max 12 damage, they’re not going to fix 12 damage and build 2 infantry.  Italy only needs to fix 7 to build something.  So they could build a fighter and have 1 left over.  Man, who have you been playing, anyway?

@dondoolee:

-Think I am getting off easy because you “only” role 2 dice for heavy bombers

-Am still filled with wonder by transporting an infantry unit AND ANYTHING ELSE I WANT!

-Still think it is a bit rude and unsportsmanlike to attack Germany with Russia on R1.

Hehe - what a great post.  Yes, I’ve played enough Revised (about 70 games on GTO) and Anniversary that I think all of the Classic stuff is actually expelled from my system.  However, the ones I quoted still resonate with me.  Although with Germany right on the doorstep, it doesn’t seem rude or unsportsmanlike to attack Germany on R1 (which was crippling in Classic, as you imply)  In Classic you had the Caucasus buffer zone.
I’ve got some new ones to add.
-  I still have urges to attack subs with planes for the free shots.

-  Still cringe at attacking transports with planes because I might lose my planes and still not hit the transports (actually, I got used to the Anny rule very quickly)

-  Still have the urge to attack Russia with Germany with all available personnel every turn, especially turn 1, to get that all important Karelia factory!

You’re right.  +1 and thanks for the post!

@Funcioneta:

It’s interesting how Japan received so much votes. Probably it’s due being overpowered and some people simply just want stomp opponents without thinking too much

In Revised the most voted usually were Germany and USA (the richer ones). See a pattern? I never take Japan if I can avoid it in FTF, it’s just too easy to be fun (specially in 1941). I prefer UK or USA (with their Coyote friends of ACME China  :-P) and maybe Italy (that only in PBEM, I love their short turns)

Uh huh - very good points.  Thanks for your post, and you too dandolee - +1 to both.
Yes, it’s always nice to have your power all set up to trample your opponents from turn 1 as opposed to, say, the USA who needs several turns of planning and intelligent play, typically.  In short, people don’t want to have to THINK too much, don’t want to have an immediate threat, and want to stomp opponents!  (I’m assuming)

@dondoolee:

Japan would be my least favorite power to play (not including China) as it is sort of a “gimme power”, in that there just is no major threat or opponent in most cases; yes it can be delayed and harrased semi-effectivly, but not at the peril of putting signifiant game breaking damage to the Japanase empire. Essentially the worst that can happen to her is preventing a super power from become a super duper power.

Thanks for your post.  I agree with your Japan assessment especially for 1941, but in a current game I’m playing by forum (against Omega and friends) Japan got completely dismantled in the first 3 turns, mostly by dice, but also from the full attention of US bombers and fleet.  I often give close to full attention to Japan with the US in the first few turns, and it causes major problems.  (Talking about 1942 start)
Like you said, (especially for 1941) it’s a question of whether Japan is a super power or super duper power.  I won a game (by forum) recently where it was Japan vs. the world, and the world lost (1941 start).

Welcome to axisandallies.org, supreme allied commander.  Here’s a +1 karma to get you started off on the right foot.

Um, thanks for your reply, but my post was right on topic.  I answered what I remember from the morning of 9/11.  Is it controversial to say Hitler and the terrorists were bad?  Wow.

@Imperious:

yes i was referring to you. Not Jermo.

And why didn’t you answer my question?  I think I have a right to your answer since you criticized my post as somehow being “political”.