Posts made by kaufschtick

@Mino1124:

I was just curious as to why there is an ANZAC infantry in Malaya which is controlled by the UK. Is this just to try to entice ANZAC to declare war on Japan, or some historical reason? Not that it bothers me it’s just really interesting.

If I understand the NOs correctly, and from a reply to a question on this subject from Krieghund, that infantry can be potentially important if the ANZAC player can move it into Siam.

The second ANZAC NO says something along the lines of, gain a one time 5 IPC bonus for occupying an original Japanese territory.

I posted a question about this that Krieghund responded to, and he indicated that if the ANZAC player has a unit in an original Japanese territory at any time, even if it moves into a territory in the non combat phase that was actually taken by another one of Allies previously, then the ANZAC player collects the one time 5 IPCs. I’m guessing that since air units can’t occupy territories, that they wouldn’t count for this, but that one ANZAC infantry in Singapore could get the 5IPC ring from time to time.

A buddy and myself are calling this particular NO for the ANZAC player, the “Photo Op NO”.  :-)

From BGG:

@kaufschtick:

1.) For the second ANZAC N.O.; just for clarification, do ANZAC forces have to occuppy the originally owned Japanese island or territory", or do they “get paid” if any Allied force fullfils this N.O., as was the case with the British N.O. from AA50?

@Krieghund:

It must be ANZAC forces.  However, ANZAC doesn’t have to capture the territory - it just has to occupy it.  This means that it can either capture the territory itself or move units into a Japanese territory that’s already been captured by either the UK or the US.

@kaufschtick:

2.) This also says (one time), so 5IPCs, one turn, and that’s it, right?

@Krieghund:

Right.

@Stoney229:

my own question: if Jap is at war with UK/ANZAC and not with US, then can they invade Dutch territories without provoking war with US?  is the answer different for Dutch-controled dutch terits and UK or ANZ-controled dutch terits?

My guess would be that if the Dutch territory in question is still under Dutch control, if Japan were to attack it, then the US would be in the war. If the Dutch territory was under British and/or ANZAC control, then the US would not be drawn into the war.

Just my .02  :-)

@Krieghund:

Yes, it is.

Wow, that was fast!

Thanks!

Just in time before I head off to work too. Leaving straight away after work for Dayton and another 18+ hour game fest (many beers will meet their end :evil: ) tonight and tomorrow to see if we can find a way to play the Allies better and keep Britian in the fight.

We’ve been playing that New Zealand is an island as far as the island “scramble” rule, but I have not seen an “official” or “semi-official” ruling on this anywere…Krieg…what say ye?

:mrgreen:

@dinosaur:

Unfortunately we are getting off topic.  We should be talking about Cruisers.

The basic economics of using 2/2 units against 3/3 units that have the same comparative price point (a 2 : 3 ratio) is that the lower cost units soak up hits better than the higher priced units.  In case you have never heard of this before, it works something like this:

Buying units with $24 you have 4 tanks against 6 artillery
The four tanks deliver two hits the first round (4 x 3VC = 12 / 6-sided dice = 2 hits), and the six artillery also deliver two hits (6 x 2CV = 12 / 6-sided dice = 2 hits).
The tanks lost 2 units, and the artillery lose 2 units.
In the second round the tanks deliver one hit (2 x 3CV = 6 / 6-sided dice = 1 hit), and the four artillery deliver one hit (4 x 2CV = 8 / 6-sided dice = 1.3 hits).
The tanks lose another tank, and the artillery lose one unit too.
In the third round the tanks deliver one hit (1 x 3CV = 3 / 6-sided dice = 0.5 hits), and the three artillery deliver one hit (3 x 2CV = 6 / 6-sided dice = 1 hit).
The tanks lose their last unit, and the artillery lose one unit.
The artillery win with 2 units remaining because the tanks couldn’t absorb the hits.  This analysis also rounds everything in favor of the tanks, so in practice the results should be slightly worse for the tanks over the long haul.

Nice post.

@Krieghund:

I hate to burst your bubble, Kaufschtick, but this isn’t exactly a new idea.  Here are a couple of quotes from the original AAP rules (2000):

China also receives one additional infantry unit if the Burma Road is open at the start of its turn.

The Burma Road: This road is considered open as long as none of the following territories are under Japanese control: India, Burma, Yunnan and Szechwan.

Great minds think alike, eh?  :-D

Ah crud, there goes my 15 minutes… :wink:

:-D :lol: :-D :lol:

I’ve had AAP40 for a couple weeks now, and have been playing the heck out of it.

I had to go back and see if I could find the following thread I started about a year ago about a possible Chinese National Objective, after seeing the one in AAP40! :lol:

I’m telling all my buddies that was my idea!!!  :wink: :-D :-D :-D

At least the concept, anyway! :wink:

The fellow that posted right after me very nearly hit the nail on the head as far as how the rule actually came out! :-o 8-)

Here’s the link to the original thread dated last January.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13378.0

Hey Larry, can I get my name in the credits!!! Just a little teeny tiny one!!! Please!!! :-D :lol: :-D

I just had to find this thread on here after having recently been playing the dog snot out of AAP40.

I had to smile when I saw the Chinese National Objective! :-D

I told my good friend in Dayton, “Hey, they saw and used my idea! That was my idea!”

:-D :-D :-D

Thanks to all, I appreciate it.  8-)

Great timing on the answers too!

I just talked to a buddy of mine in Dayton, and I will be going back there tonight to start another 24+ hour AAP40 game-a-thon session. (many a glass o’ suds will be enjoyed as well! :-D )

This time with an air & naval base in the PI and only a minor complex in Australia. :-)

Maybe I should hurry up and paint the tails of some of my spare Japanese fighters red now, so we have enough Japanese TAC air (we used the Italian fighters last game day).

Situation: 4 US carriers with 2 fighters each, defending in a sea zone against an attacking Japanese force (composition uninportant), with no US territories or islands adjacent.

Round one, the US side suffers, lets say, 3 hits.

Is it legal to take one hit each against three of the 4 US carriers, even though this means that should the US side suffer no additional hits for the rest of the battle, 3 of the 4 carriers will not be able to land their fighters?

The point is, when you move aircraft, you have to move in such a way as to always have a “legal landing solution”. Do you have to maintain this “legal landing solution” during combat? Can you take hits in such a manner as to make a safe landing unfeasable? (like when you are facing an overwhelming opponent and you want you inflict the most possible damage)

I hope this makes sense! :-)

@Krieghund:

@kaufschtick:

Also, had the Japanese fighters come out into the sea zone to defend, some of the attacking US planes sent there were bombers. That would have meant that bombers would have been attacking defending fighters in a sea zone. I can see bombers attacking fighters in a land zone, as it would be like the bombers were bombing the fighters bases, but in a sea zone? (with an airbase, of course)

How is this any different than if the fighters were defending from a carrier?

We played it correct, and that was our final rationale on the situation. But with the lack of an actual carrier being present in the combat zone, it gave us the impression that many a B-17 & B-24s were swooping in on the defending Zeros and laying the wood to them! :-o :-D

When bombers attack fighters that are from a carrier or in a land zone, it seems intuitive that the bombers are actually attacking the fighters base or carrier, and that is where and why the action occurs. But in this unique situation, with no carrier or base in the actual combat zone, it creats the impression that we would’ve had bombers going after fighters! :-D

We’re good with it too, it just seems kinda funny to imagine (fade to dream sequence)… a flight of B-24 Liberators flying high cover at 20 thousand feet;  spotting a formation of Japanese Zeros below them; the Liberator formation leader calling out “drop external fuel tanks” (tanks punch off in unison); the Liberators winging over, one by one to dive down and attack the Zeros; One of the Zero pilots calls out to Saburo Sakai, “Break left Saburo! You’ve got a pair of B-24s hot on your tail!”; Saburo responds “I’ll break left in a minute, but first I’m going to eat lunch here in the cockpit…I’ll shake off the flying furniture trucks after I’m finished.” :-D :-D :-D :-D

Thanks for the clarifications! :-)

Krieghund- Help!

We just played our first few games of AAP40 a few days ago.

If Japan attacks the Allies before the US is in the war, and the Western US goes from 10 IPCs to 50 IPCs, does the US IPC level automatically go up 40 IPCs at the time of the Japanese attack? This would mean that the extra 40IPCs would be available that turn for the US to buy stuff with.

Or is the case just that the Western US goes to 50 IPCs, and the US then collects this extra income at the end of its next turn during the collect income phase?

Do Allied powers not yet at war with Japan still collect the bonus income for their national objectives?

We had a situation where there were just 4 Japanese fighters on the Caroline Islands, and no other Japanese pieces. The Americans sent in surface warships and transports to invade. Also, some US air units were sent to the sea zone to attack should some (or all) of the Japanese fighters come out to the sea zone to defend, while other US air units were sent to the island itself to participate in the invasion. As it turned out, all of the Japanese fighters stayed on the island, leaving the surrounding sea zone empty, and thus the US air units sent there (and the surface warships) had no combat to conduct.

Seeing as how the US air units that were sent to the surrounding sea zone wound up with nothing to attack, and it was the combat movement portion, shouldn’t the defender have to declair the intention of air units on an airbase to remain on the island portion, or to defend the surrounding sea zone?

Also, had the Japanese fighters come out into the sea zone to defend, some of the attacking US planes sent there were bombers. That would have meant that bombers would have been attacking defending fighters in a sea zone. I can see bombers attacking fighters in a land zone, as it would be like the bombers were bombing the fighters bases, but in a sea zone? (with an airbase, of course)

Also, for the ANZAC national objective concerning the occupation of originally owned Japanese territories or islands, must this be done by ANZAC forces? Or is it like AA50, where it could be by any Allied force?

Also, this bonus gets paid out just one time per game, and not every turn the said territory is held?

I suppose if you did allow an additional Chinese infantry for Allied control of Burma, you could run into the situation where the Japanese have gained control of all of the Chinese territories and the Allies have control of Burma. What would happen then; if all Chinese territories are Japanese controlled and the Allies have possession of Burma?

I would say in that case, the lone Chinese infantry generated from “The Burma Road” could then be placed in any unoccupied Chinese territory (those with only the National Chinese symbol in them).

@Funcioneta:

However, it’s clear that Burma road should be a NO for China when fixed or modded. Karma +1

Edit: By the way, Burma alone should not be enough. You should have Burma, Yunnan and India (just checked your rule again)

Hey, Thanks for the Karma! I’m new to these boards, and I’m not real sure what the Karma is all about, but I take it that plus Karma is a good thing!   :-)

Well, you’re right about the Burma Road actually extending all the way from India to Yunnan. However, I was just thinking along the lines of something as simple as possible that might provide the Chinese in the 41’ game with maybe an additional infantry unit (or two) to help slow up the Japanese.

And if you were to allow a unit to “pop up” in the Chinese interior after the Japanese have swept through (should the Allies be fortunate enough to retake Burma), that might be interesting too.

Again, just a thought here, I’m one of those who have played the 41’ game few enough times at present to be pretty happy with it so far. I will have to play the dog snot out of the game before I start to form any strong opinions on the game, and that’s likely take some time for me considering family and work schedules! :-)

In the meantime, I’ll be relying on the opinions of those who have accrued some serious game time. BTW, how would I give + Karma back at you on here? Or is that even possible for an FNG?

I only have experience with the 41’ version so far, but it seems to me that maybe some kind of “extra bonus income” for the Chinese would be nice in this version. I don’t really have any issues with the game as is, but just a thought here.

I was thinking of how the Chinese have gotten steam rolled by the Japanese every game I’ve played of the 41’ game.

It seems like a National Objective on China’s behalf would be interesting to try. I was thinking along the lines of…

The Burma Road: The Chinese recieve one extra infantry for each turn that the Allies control Burma.

Anyone have any thoughts on this, as far as for the 41’ version of the game is concerned? :-)

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Does anyone else think that you should only get your NO after the entire round is over instead of you turn? This makes more dynamic because you have to take and hold your NO’s from all the other players. Like Germany takes Lenningrad but the Russians have a chance to take it back before the Germany player gets the extra 5IPC?

If you’re talking about all the players getting paid at the end of a complete turn, I thought about that too, but it occured to me that the nation that goes first would be at a severe disadvantage in that all of the other players would have a chance to react and knock him/her out of eligability, while the player going last in the turn order would not have anyone to contest his moves.

You could always make the payout for NOs at the begining of each players turn, I suppose though. I hadn’t really given that much thought, although it does seems like that might water down the whole effect of NOs somewhat.

@captainjack:

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the purpose of the voting?  Is it just for fun, or is there a boardgame war out there that I don’t know about??     :?

LOL!! :-D :lol: :-D

I picked up CoH: Awakening the Bear this past summer at Origins, and I have to say that it is, IMHO, hands down the best wargame I’ve ever played. I rated it a 10 on BGG, and I’d give AA50 a 9, as the next best wargame out there, but CoH is just something extra special, as well as it being just the tip of the iceberg as the first installment in an announced series.

@Bridger:

12 seems to be the magic number for me.

Most sides would concede by the time the other gets 13 or 14 VCs, 15 is just stupid.  You know the game is over at 13, it might as well be the official end game.  if somebody can come up with a scenario whereby one side gets 14 VCs and the other side is still in a position to win, be my guest.

I was kinda wondering about the possibility of 12 myself.

BTW, first post for me here.

I’m kinda glad I ran into this thread. I guess I still need to try a few games using 13 first, but 12 seemed like a reasonable number for a shorter game.

@TG:

The reason I postulated 11 VCs is because it provides an impetus for the Japanese to go after Sydney or Honolulu.  If the Japanese takes either, they’ve forestalled an Allied victory until the fall of Berlin.  The American knows this and will fight to maintain possession.  The Pacific is a battleground.

A slight against this argument is that forcing Japan to go after Honolulu/Sydney limits her efforts in Russia.  However, I contend that Japan should make a move towards either early in the game and if America counterattacks (abandoning the Europe first strategy), then Russia should never be in a position to take Warsaw.

I like the idea of the PTO becoming an active part of the game.