Posts made by JamesG

@trihero:

Germany +2 then -1 = +1, then Russia is -3, so the net difference is -4 IPCs Russia.

I think that works out to -2 for Russia, not -4.  (+1-3=-2)

But -2 is still worse for Russia than -0.5.  Especially since the -0.5 also results in a dead German tank.

So the short term economics clearly favor allowing that German tank to blitz to Arch.

I do not agree that an Inf or 2 plus Armor going to Arch in R2 means that Russia has a lot of units out of postion to contest the South.  The Armor can still get to the South on R3, and any surviving Arch Inf can help trade Kar on R3, which you would otherwise probably be doing with WR units.

For the most part, allowing a German Tank to blitz to Arch gives me something to kill with Russian Armor on R2, Russian armor that otherwise would probably not be used.  And I’d rather kill that German tank now when its alone, than later when its backed up with Inf.

Lastly a point was made that allowing the tank to blitz to Arch forces Russia to react to Germany, ceding the initiative to Germany.  I don’t look at it that way.  By leaving Kar bare, I’m the one trying to trick Germany into blitzing to Arch.  So he’s reacting to me, in a way that I want him to react.  As Russia, I’m dissappointed if Germany does not blitz to Arch, it means he didn’t fall for my trap.

@ncscswitch:

An INF left as a blitz blocker in Karelia

I usually DON’T leave that blitz blocker.  As Russia I WANT Germany to send up an exposed Tank to claim Archangel, that I can kill in R2.  Germany loses a 5 IPC unit to claim a 2 IPC territory.

From the official FAQ at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised#movement

@FAQ:

Q-I attack and capture an enemy land territory in combat. Now, during non-combat movement, can my tanks that weren’t involved in combat move through the newly-captured territory and enter a second friendly territory on the far side?

A-Yes, this is legal.

@Shining:

      NoMercy moved 3 fighters from Norway to seazone 12…. with the plan to move his AC from SZ 5 to SZ 7 (between Spain and UK) to land the surviving fighters on.

Was there a potential landing spot for the 3rd Fighter, since only 2 could land on the AC?  You can’t commit three fighters to an attack and say “I know at least one will die, and the AC will pick up the one or two survivors”.  EVERY fighter commited to battle MUST have a potential landing spot.

I can’t find the specific rule either, but I do not think you can “call off” a combat.  You must fight at least one round.  LHTR even notes that in the case of an amphibious assault with ground and air units, the air units MUST fight at least one round of combat even if the ground portion of the attack is ‘aborted’ by the offloading transports being sunk or forced to retreat from the sea zone.

I usually land the Indian UK fighter in Bury with those 6 Russian Inf.  It can still be taken on J1, but it makes the attack more costly, often costing Japan a Fighter.

OOB Rules:
http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axis2004.pdf

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

Map:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/42540

There are other maps out there, that’s just the quickest I found.  The Caspian Sub group has a very clear map on their site, but I think you have to join (for free) to access it: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/
(Map is in Files-> Miscellaneous -> AArevisedMapV4.gif

I think there is a sticky thread with the LHTR, since that is the common ruleset for tournament play.

@Jennifer:

but the limit is only for a conquering country, or did that change in AAR?

Yes, the rule changed in Revised and the limit applies the same whether the IC is orginal, built, or conquered.

@Montgomery:

@Biofury:

Is it realistic to assume that USSR had a strogner economic value than what the starting map shows? I heard somehwere that the two biggest allied powers were USA and USSR, or was that an foolish source of info?

Assuming you mean historically, well, Russia basically threw a ton of unarmed men at Germany. So they spent and lost the most men. But not really for great return. It depends on how you want to interpiet that. But, also, Russia was economically a mess. Corupt communism and all.

Umm, historically, I think the russian t-34 was the most produced tank in the world during the course of the war, and Russia overall produced more tanks than Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

So Russia was doing a lot more than just throwing “a ton of unarmed men at Germany”.  So, to answer your question Biofury, yes Russia should have more IPCs “realistically”.  But that would throw game balance out the window.

PS - the minefield is a neat idea.

@jdeischer:

What I meant by INF tokens were the gray and red chips that came with the box to symbolize more units, but I didn’t know if you could use those on subs, fighters, etc.

Those aren’t INF tokens, they are unit tokens, and can be used for any kind of unit.  They are most commonly used for INF, but not limited to INF.

OK, let’s look at the notion that the new rules about loading existing fighters on new ACs are simpler than the old rules.

Here is the old rule in its entirety from the A&A Operations Manual, PHASE 6:MOBILIZE NEW UNITS section:

Newly built carriers can enter play with fighters aboard, whether those fighters were built this turn or were already in the territory containing the industrial complex.

Here is what we have in LHTR Rules v 1.3

@”Step:

Your fighter may also end its noncombat move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the sea zone where your fighter ends its turn.

and
@”Step:

Completing Air Units Move subsection:
Exception: Your fighter may also end its move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the seazone where your fighter ends its turn.

and
@”PHASE:

Exception to normal fighter landing spaces rules: Your fighter may also end its move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the seazone where your fighter ends its turn.

So the old manual has a single rule located in one place, while LHTR has an exception to a normal rule scattered in three places.  Also note the LHTR includes this line in the Fighters unit description, WITHOUT any mention of the exception.

If any fighter has no place to land by the end of the noncombat move phase, it is destroyed.

So not only is the exception scattered about the LHTR, it’s not even included everywhere it should be.  Lastly, if I was a new player and wanted to know how Fighters are placed on newly mobilized ACs, the first place I’d look is the Mobilize New Units section.  In the old rules, I’d find all the relevant rules regarding that right there.

But in LHTR, there is nothing about placing existing Fighters on board newly mobilized ACs in that section.  Only rules for placing newly purchased Fighters on board ACs are found there.  This could lead some players into making the false assumption that existing Fighters can’t be placed on new ACs.

(Side note – I do like the way LHTR now allows newly built fighters to be placed directly on existing ACs.  The OOB rules only allow new fighters to be placed on new ACs).

Anyway, I don’t see how anyone can credibly argue that an exception to normal rules scattered about the ruleset is simpler or less confusing than a rule clearly stated in one place, with that one place being the place one would be most likely to look for such a rule.

On the second point:

@ncscswitch:

Just one of those “tweeks” that makes it easier for folks to play the game but has no real impact on the actual game.

@mateooo:

actually, this rule of making Fighters have to “hover” over a sea zone before being placed on a newly built AC keeps people from manipulating the rules and getting fighters to move 5 zones in one turn.

I can not argue that there are circumstances in the OOB rules that can lead to a Fighter “moving” 5 spaces in a single turn.  But the LHTR rules introduce a new manipulation that players can do that, in my opinion, has a much greater impact on the game.  Namely, it allows Fighters to make attacks they otherwise could not in the same turn that the AC is purchased.

For instance, consider a situation where there is no Axis navy within two spaces of the Philippine’s (SZ49) and the closest Axis air units are Jap fighters in China and India.  The US player might send unprotected Transports to take the Philippines since he knows it is three spaces from China and India to SZ49 and so out of range of the fighters.  But if the Japanese player builds an AC in SZ60, those fighters can attack since SZ60 and SZ49 are adjacent and they can use their fourth and last movement point to land on the new AC.

I admit a situation like this is not likely to arise often, but neither is the “move of 5” situation.  And of the two, I’d say a gimmick move of buying an AC just to allow fighters to make what otherwise would be an illegal suicide attack is worse for the game than allowing fighters an occasional “extra” space of noncombat movement.

@ajgundam5:

i don’t understand how japan can capture moscow without being massacred in the pacific since america usually puts most of its economy in the pacific (assuming it builds a big fleet)

In most of the discussions about Japan taking Moscow, the premise is a KGF game (Kill Germany First).  In a KGF game, the US is not spending most of its income in the Pacific, it is setting up a transport system in the Atlantic and and ferrying as many troops as possible to Europe and/or Africa.

If you’ve been seeing the US spending lots of money in the Pacific then you are not seeing a KGF strategy from the Allies.  In this case Japan probably will not be taking Moscow, though it can still get a good presence in Asia before the US can build up a big enough fleet to force Japan into totally defensive mode.  But with all those US $$$ going into the Pacific, Germany should be running rampant in Europe and Africa and will be the one trying to take Moscow.

@mjkusn01:

So … does anyone have any suggestions of where to find opponents?

http://tripleawarclub.org/ladder/

@ncscswitch:

The squadron lands for a refit and flies to the new AC.

Since “turns” are about 6 months of time, I always thought it was rather silly to not be able to “load” carriers, either with new or existing FIGs.  In point of fact, all of my early AA gaming allowed for this in Classic.

So no, I have no historical accuracy issues there.  The South Pacific and FIGs being moved from islands to carriers and back again with combat in the cycle is enough to show that not only could it happen, but that it DID actually happen.

I think you misunderstand my point.  The OOB Revised rules allow for newly built carriers to be loaded with either newly built fighters or existing fighters that are in the same territory as the IC that produced the AC.  I think that accurately represents what you are describing.

But the LHTR changed this.  No longer can you load newly built carriers with existing fighters based in the territory with the IC that produced the AC.  Now existing fighters must end their movement “hovering” over the SZ that the new AC will be placed in during the mobilize phase.  This is what I question.  Somehow I don’t see fighters going into combat and intending to land directly on a brand new carrier on their return.

Lastly, if you want to talk about histroical accuracy and carriers, let me load Bombers on AC’s in friendly SZ’s and allow them to take off from Carriers (but not land on them).  April 18, 1942.

I’ve always thought that there should be some provision in the game for carrier launched bombers ala Doolittle.

@Craig:

The idea being that there was no need to change something that wasn’t broken.

I agree, but from the other side.  To me, nothing was broken about the Revised OOB rules on AA Guns and placing existing fighters on new carriers.  So I would have prefered LHTR leave them as they were, since as you say, no reason to fix/change what isn’t broken.

Apologies if my tone seems hostile, I appreicate all that the LHTR team has done for the game.  Given a choice between OOB or LHTR I’ll play LHTR every time.

PS to Switch - Given your penchant for historical realism, you must hate the LHTR rules on landing existing fighters on new carriers even more than I do.  Did a group of fighters EVER return from combat and land directly on a newly built carrier in real life?

@ncscswitch:

If you let AA guns fire every time they are overflown, then central europe becomes an AF dead zone, reliant purely on ground troops to push and push back.  It takes AF out of the equation for offensive purposes, and still more expensive than INF for defensive purposes, thus FIGs would nto get bought.

So, by limitting AA to combat overflights only, it makes aircraft slightly more attractive for purchase, making the game more diverse.

I think you GREATLY overstate the effects of “always on” AA guns.  How often do you really think planes are going to overfly multiple AA guns, even in Europe?  Most air strikes are launched from behind your front lines, and the planes are flying over friendly territory until they get to combat, and then friendly territory to get back.  There are exceptions, but they are rare.  Perhaps you misunderstood and thought I meant that planes should suffer AA fire on the way in and out of the territory being attacked by an AA gun in that territory?  No, that is not what I meant, I could see that making AA guns a bit too powerful.

I play in the TripleA WarClub which uses always on AA guns and believe me, in my limited experience, PLENTY of Fighters are bought.

It also makes it more histroically accurate since it allows for waves of aircraft, allied and axis, to fly again and again, with only minimal losses to AA fire.

As you may recall from previous discussions, I’m less concerned with “historical accuracy” than with game play and balance.  IMHO, AA guns are a fairly weak unit and could use the oomph that “always on” gives them.  Even then, nobody buys them for the most part.

I suppose that makes sense from a consistency standpoint; “all combat is taken care of in the conduct combat phase” is a pretty consistent rule.  But then again a rule of “any time a plane flies over an enemy AA gun it is attacked by the AA gun” would be an equally consistent position.  And it has the advantage of not straining believability by implying that all AA gun crews take a nap in the non combat phase.

Bringing things back in line with 2nd Ed is not a compelling reason for changing it at all, IMHO.  Why don’t we go back to tanks defending at 2 if bringing things back in line with 2nd Ed was a goal.

Got me on that one.  While I like many of the LHTR changes, this is not one of them.  AA guns were not overpowered IMHO and did not need to be downgraded.Â

Though this change isn’t as bad as the TERRIBLE way they changed the way existing fighters are placed on newly purchased ACs. :x

Switch’s answer is correct for the LHTR, and many other revised rulesets such as Caspian Sub’s.  It is not correct for the out of the box rules however.  The official Avalon Hill/WOC FAQ spells it out pretty clearly:

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

Q-IPC loss from strategic bombing is limited to the territory’s income value. Is that per bomber or per turn?
A-Per bomber.

So in other words, if the US with three Bombers bombs Germany and rolls 4,6, and 5 it does 15 IPCs of damage to Germany, since none of the bombers invidually exceeded the territory value of 10.

Germany bombing the Causus with two bombers with rolls of 2 and 5 does 6 IPCs damage to Russia, since each bomber can only inflict a maximum of 4.   So the roll of 5 is downgraded to 4.

I’m also pretty sure that in the out of the box rules, Rocket attacks and Strategic Bombing attacks are resolved separately.  So, for instance, Germany can launch a Rocket attack vs. the Causus to inflict 1-4 IPC of damage and do a Strategic Bombing run on the Causus to inflict 1-4 IPC of damage per bomber all in the same turn.  Switch’s comment that the two are combined is correct for LHTR though.

Yes for OOB rules.  No for LHTR.  The LHTR changed things so that AA guns no longer fire during non-combat movement.  So it depends on the ruleset you are using.