Topics created by Leatherneckinlv

@Leatherneckinlv:

My turn order

Italy
France
Germany
Russia
US
Japan
UK E
China
UK P
Anzac/Dutch

UK P, Anzac and the Dutch are actually FEC with combined income and yes there is a token Dutch force in the DEI

Turkey played by either UK or Italy
Spain played by either Germany or US

Vichy rule in effect

France before Germany make the Allies even more stronger as France can defend against both countries and the only good Axis plan that I can see is make Italy launch a suicide invasion against France to bring their units down and hope the French don’t buy straight up infantry and hope Germany is able to beat them.

The consensus is that we’re wrong.

I’m not whining about the dice. It works both ways.

I remember rolling like 18 tanks @3 by hand (Germany stack just inside Russia) and getting like 3 or 4 hits in a table top game 1st roll (don’t remember the exact amount but it was pathetically below average). My stack was defending. I messed up where I placed it. It was against a guy with a screen name of Jonathan Rost (playing the Global 1942 setup).

I lost that game due partly due to that ridiculous outcome (probably would have lost it anyways, Jonathan is really good). Anyways, I understand that outliers occur. HOWEVER, they occur way too often it seems in triplea. However, I’m often I’m a benefactor.

So, it’s good to keep in mind that outlier outcomes, like 4 infantry rolling 4 defense hits 1st round while a stack of planes throws a miss, does happen; but it happens for both sides.

I do believe that AAA hit more than 1/6 overall against bombing runs.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41002.msg1717622#msg1717622

@Leatherneckinlv:

I think I fixed it….well…it fixed itself…lol…they are opening now and I have no idea how or why any of this stuff occurred

My sincere gratitude for your help and time

Good to hear it runs fine now.

Just come back in case you run into issues again :-)

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

@GeneralHandGrenade:

With chips I can count my money and still drink a beer at the same time.

Now that’s what I call efficient multi-tasking.  :)

@taamvan:

“Rumple Mintz” Victory Condition (Punishment)

Rumple Mintz;  Each time Germany takes Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad, it must also take one (1) shot of Rumple Mintz.   If Russia recaptures Moscow or Berlin, it must take one shot of Schnapps (Germany player decides revolting flavor).   The second and subsequent time that Germany takes a Russian capital, it must take one additional shot of Rumple Mintz.

hmm… thought rumple minze was schnapps. Guess I need to do some research : )
Should prove to be an enjoyable process : )

I think I am sitting on a gold mine here….lol

I just downloaded the latest.  Will need to play test further but seems fine.

@Fiera:

The rulebook states at page 35:
“There are two exceptions to this regional division. West India, on the Europe map, is part of the Pacific economy, and North American territorries on the Pacific map are part of the Europe economy.”

Thanks for posting that, I always forget that western Canada is on the Pacific board.

@Leatherneckinlv

I have essentially already done that

@Leatherneckinlv:

After play testing some…I came to the conclusion France needs to BB and a Destroyer…1 BB makes no difference…thoughts so far

I am curious, how does Italy or Germany react to that battleship?

@Fatespinner:

But what about unloading into a friendly land during non-combat. Can the sub there also be just ignored? I think the OP question is concerned about this and not amphibious assault.

See Private Panic’s answer above.

great answer GHG.

One nuance that is sometimes lost is that 1 carrier may not be able to potentially support 2 different planes, flying off in opposite directions.

If both planes do not have an alternate landing site,
and both would rely on the same carrier to recover them,
the fact that 1 plane or the other (or both) might die
doesn’t permit you to rely on that carrier,
if it would have to move to recover one of the planes in such a way that it could not then recover both.

If the carrier could stay where it is, or move and still recover both planes within 4 moves, the move is legal.  If 1 plane dies, you must noncom move the carrier (if necessary)  to receive the other.    If both planes die, you can noncom move wherever you like.

The thing you cannot do is combat move 2 planes that both rely on the same carrier in such a way that the carrier could not possibly recover both.  What actually occurs during combat doesn’t matter;  the move must be legal as of the finalization of combat moves.

If the US could build even airbases and naval bases on Allied territories, that would change the game significantly. For example, if USSR takes Norway, building an airbase there connects planes in a single turn to Moscow. Similar with an airbase on Transjordan.

This was a rule that was added because of the Axis advantage in earlier games being able to bridge. From Italy to Africa and Japan to Korea, the axis had great advantage with that plus a defense of 1 so I assume transports at 0 forces the axis powers to actually commit a naval defense.

Sorry, I don’t have much experience with pewter pieces. Perhaps someone else here can direct you to a resource that would be helpful!

You could always house rule “backup capitals”

After playing G36, what are the motives to go back down the simplicity scale?  Time?  Pure complexity?  Players?

@Leatherneckinlv:

That makes sense…I think 1st edition it was a split…My income tracker I use had UK Pac at 16 and UK Euro at 29

Yea I don’t remember. I know UKP needs all the dough they can get :)

I think most people agree that this rule is unrealistic, and also that the defender should be allowed to retreat.

However, AxA’s combat system relys on just a few basic dynamics for the attacker vs the defender.  Both attacker and defender want to stack up and stick together.

Separate teams have the disadvantage of not being able to attack together, but they do get to attack in sequence (can-opening) and defend together.  Small groups of units get slaughtered by maneuver units.  And wherever you do build up in force, the defense is all or nothing (no retreats, limited opty’s to invite in more defending units eg scrambing).

Because of these dynamics, you don’t necessarily need to put units in areas that aren’t threatened at that moment.  You are encouraged to concentrate your forces and strike in coordinated ways, which simulates combined arms and grand maneuver.

Blockers add a kind of certainty to how this will play out.  1 unit alone cannot win most battles.  However, it can “win” the defense by blocking a much larger ## of offending units.  This is essentially another defender’s advantage;  he cannot absolutely determine whether he will be attacked but he can place his units in a way that limits what offensive units can come.

So, to apply that to the Hawaii dance, if the US sits on Hawaii and enjoys its airbase protection and proximity to San Fran, then they can easily be screened out by 1 DD.  Likewise, they can screen an attack by Japan out with 1 DD.  If the USA wants to move into an “unblockable” position (within 2 SZ not 3 SZ) from SZ 6, he has to take a much bigger defensive risk also.  The various map areas that are fought over all have this dynamic–if you want to be able to attack from multiple directions or for certain, you must put units closer to the frontlines, which puts them at risk.

This is the ‘chess’ that ABH refers to, IMO.  The game has a very sublime risk/reward analysis and while setting up all your microbattles and garrisons and deciding how to spend your $$ are fun, they aren’t really the bread and butter of the game.  The bread and butter are those giant “moving parts” strategic attacks/defenses where you are bringing in stuff from all over the board, and having to plan 1-2 turns in advance on both offense and defense in order to bring the right stuff together at the right time (and also finding a place to land afterwards :)

So, I feel like the game sacrifices some realism for a really fun chessy dynamic.  It also sacrifices complexity by not looking at things like supply lines, unit quality (all units of the same type are the same), or team based advantages (all teams have the same buy menu), or command/control (that’s you).

A game about nuclear war could be realistic but it wouldn’t be any fun (build up for 6 hours then nuke it all away).  A game about the Cold War could be realistic but not fun (“I bang my shoe on the podium, again”)

That’s why they keep making games about WW2–it was a war of maneuver on a grand scale that probably wont ever be repeated in its scope, that has dynamics that can be represented pretty effectively in a game.

Greetings, I am still looking for players in the Las Vegas area who enjoy AA and other WW ll games. contact me on here with your information and let’s start playing. Semper Fi