Posts made by Mazer Rackham

Okay, then everything is moot.  Germany gets Long Range Fighters on G1 and takes England that same round.  Game over.

You are absolutely correct if we were talking about tech, Jen.  Now you are starting to understand how the forum should work.

That’s why the very next sentence in a thread on tech would be, “of course every rule set fixes this, so you won’t see it in actual play much”.  The common starting point is the box rules, and then you list the rule change you need to fix the problem.

You tried to list the fix first and ignored the common starting point of the box rules.  You also assumed that the fix was LHTR, which is also suspect.

Thanks

Then for any debates concerning tournament threads at this site, you may be right.

But this is the AA Revised forum, not the tournament forum.  Many people find this forum after opening up the box.  Box rules are the game’s starting point, so deviations from that need to be mentioned.  Deviations like LHTR.

If all you have are vague references to tournament topics, that is not very compelling and I won’t be posting under assumed LHTR any time soon.  I’ll stick with the logical assumption of box rules.

Thanks anyway.

So Jen, you can’t link to where LHTR is the official standard for the forum?

If you can’t, then you were wrong because you were assuming something about the conversation that wasn’t true.  If you were correct that LHTR is the official ruleset here, then I want to know so I can post correctly and fix my post.

Where’s your link?  I’m sure you want to be right.

Thanks

This is kind of an amazing thread.

Briefly:

1. If a team liberates an ally’s AA gun it is not necessarily the property of the liberator, it is not necessarily the property of the owner of the territory, it is the property of the original owner.

2. Jen, under box rules you are certainly wrong when you wrote:

So, if Russia moves a gun to India, Japan captures it, and England liberates it, it becomes a British Gun.

It is still a Russian gun under standard rules.

3. When I wrote “Bean got it right”, at that point he had simply quoted the rule that the piece reverts to the original owner.  That would be the Russians because it was a Russian AA in India.

4. LHTR 2.0 looks different to me, and you should check with an LHTR person for a clarification.  I suspect the wording in LHTR is a flaw; you shouldn’t be able to transfer AA guns from 1 ally to another, but that is what LHTR states.  A precise reading of LHTR 2.0 means you COULD transfer guns.  Bad, arbitrary change.  And it’s probably a mistake.  But I think Jen was right under LHTR.

5. You write LHTR 2.0 is the “rules standard” for the site.  Wonderful.  Where is that posted?  Did I miss a sticky?

BTW - This is exactly the kind of garbage created by not having a simple rule changes summary for LHTR.  Deviations from the standard rules should be MUCH easier to find than this.

Thanks

Hey ImpLdr.

Yup, I came back a while ago and I explained the name change then (for other folks, I used to be CrazyStraw, but I bought into the Ender-mania upon my return).

Things are much calmer now than back in the day  :-D

Page 25:

If you liberate a territory containing a captured antiaircraft gun, control reverts to the original owner.

Please check the rules before posting!

Bean got it right.

For Jen:

Cochran: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef’s attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote “Stinky Britches” ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski:  Damn it!
Chef:  What?
Gerald: He’s using the Chewbacca Defense!
Cochran:  Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a major record company, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

@Cmdr:

Anyway, it’s rather humorous that for well over two years now I’ve been saying the RAF attack on the Nord See Fleet is a foolish endeavor and now CSub finally seems to agree with me.

It’s rather humorous that you think you’re being agreed with  :-D

The prior discussion in this forum was primarily about the GUF (German United Fleet) on R2.  UnBaltic is about a fleet in Z07 on R1.  Very different, since the R2 fleet has an additional 1tra 1btl 1car/3tra.

Don’t compare apples and kumquats.

Peace

Hey kids.

There’s a new Policy Paper on the Caspian Sub website.  It’s #18, and it is the FOURTH paper about the Baltic fleet.  This one covers the option of not buying any boats and setting up CDFR (cascade dice failure risk).

It’s a real nerd-fest, so don’t miss out!

Link: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/files/1PolicyPapers/

Peace

@Cmdr:

Most of them, unfortunately, yes.

Well, I’ll remain agnostic as to whether or not you have read “most” of them, but at least you’ve made a solid step toward objectivity.

I’m sure you have many other sources of strategy that you find to be far superior; May they serve you well.

8-)

Good post, Darth.

It also reminded me of a quick, counter-intuitive point: Most of the time people grab the inf off of WAK for an R1 shuck to BUR.  The inf on OKI is left behind because OKI is worth money, while WAK is not.  But if you’re going to HAW R2, then WAK is on the way so it is easy to pick up in your progression.

Minor point, but worth noting.

Peace

@Magister:

Do you push primarily against Persia/Caucasus or Novosibirsk?

Well, you need to send enough inf north to take and hold Russian dollars, so you will have some forces split up.  That is not as ineffective as it sounds, however, because you’re sending cheap stacks of inf that can’t be profitably strafed.  If you have a stream of inf coming, there is very little advantage for Russia to fight back; the concentration is too small for a profitable strafe and there is no “bubble” to burst to get relief from tanks.

Functionally, however, you’re going to end up popping CAU first due to your navy.  After the initial cash grab, your transports will likely bring extra inf forward to Persia, and Russia will have to choose between RUS and CAU.

@Bean:

I still don’t believe the correct answer is to send 2 tran to go island hopping - unless Australia has been reinforced to 4 inf. Sending that extra tran gets you the island one turn earlier, which doesn’t pay for itself. Doesn’t make sense to me, I could be using that money to shuck to Asia.

For me this strategy started as a way to sack the UK paycheck immediately.  The UK has several key income points.  The first is $32, which allows maximum land power with an 8 unit cap (4inf 4tnk).  Every dollar you knock them below $32 turns 1tnk into 1art.  The second critical threshold is $28 (4inf 4art).  Every dollar below that pulls off 3punch from the offense.  So the plan of sending transports to AUS/NwZ/Africa was about hurting the UK as quickly as possible.

The second thing the 2tra to HAW accomplishes is to slow down the US on R2.  The US has to have a plan for LA, and while it won’t require massive readjustments, you are taking a few units of pressure off of Germany.

My experience with pushing hard on Russia is that you can’t pull them off of Germany even with the extra transport of gear, so I am content to do the slower but stronger build up.

And my goodness Mazer, 4 complexes with Japan? And 6 transports?

Not quite  :-D  I said I build Japan “up to 4 transports” so I buy 3 or 2 depending on the battles of R1 (almost always 3tra 1tnk).  The 4IC require $48 to fill, which is not an unrealistic target.

Nonetheless, that is still a LOT of infrastructure.  But can you hurt the paycheck of the Allies without it?  Soon enough?

Peace

@Pervavita:

take up the the argument with a game in a platform that both/all who are invalved can play.

I would, but I’m quite concerned that if I got “invalved” I would just end up feeling deflated.

@Bean:

I like the progression Mazer. It’s also used by one of the best players on this site, U-505.

It’s good to be in good company  :-D

Couple things though - do you do Pearl Light, or Pearl Heavy?

It depends on the bid situation in Asia.  If I need extra gear on the land, I may not go to PH at all.  7 times out of 10, however, I go heavy.

And what do you do if the solomon sub was killed by the UK sub and the UK sub survived? It’s not so easy just to plop some transports in SZ60 in that case, so island hopping could be a little bit slower.

That’s a case to either 1) skip PH or 2) bring ftrs in from the EIN fleet.  A bit risky, but the risk hedge is just to build the transports in Z61 instead of Z60.

One thing I also realized is that the units you send island hopping could conceivably be what you need to push faster in Asia, and there are IPCs in Asia, as well.

No doubt, no doubt.  That is the trade off: slower Japan in R1-R3, but stronger and bigger when they do come.

Going to Brazil sometimes is too difficult because of a mediterranean US shuck.

Yeah, it’s pretty rare that popping BRA is a good option.  Those units almost always end up going to Africa.

Peace

Good thread here, gentlemen.  Many solid posts.

I’ll add a couple of thoughts.  I have to admit, however, that I don’t feel particularly well qualified to talk about this topic because I am almost exclussively a FTF player.  FTF games are functionally time-limited, and you don’t get many games where capitals fall and the game continues for many more rounds.  Usually, good sportsmanship dictactes that after 4-6 hours you make your best guess on the winner and everyone heads to Chipotle’s ;)  Online you don’t have the same rules-based or pragmatically-based limits.

On the rare occassions I have worried about countering Allied advantage, my response has been to go with a strong economic Japan game.  R1 I’ll build Japan up to 4 transports, and then send them away on cash grabs.  ICs go up on the mainland, but they build only inf until A) you have 4 of them and B) you can build 6inf on the 2 forward ICs (IND/MAN) and 6tnk on the interior ICs (FRI/KWA).

The econ transport progression is this: R2 2tra to HAW.  This nets +1 IPC and forces some consideration to defending LA.  That slows the US a small amount.  2tra more go to Frindo.  R3 the HAW 2tra take AUS and NwZ.  The Frindo 2tra hit some combination of Africa, often MAD and then wherever the Allies aren’t.  R4 you keep living the life of a pirate.  The African tra either scoop more land or come back to Frindo to help with a shuck.  The AUS/NwZ tra move east, looking for BRA/Africa on the following round.  Notice that you’ve set up the Z42 sucker punch which can win some games for you (see CSub paper for that move).

On the mainland, you’ll have avoided a “tank bubble” and instead you’ll have solid columns of inf marching up with no land-swapping at all.  The buildup is slower, but what Japan takes, Japan keeps.  When the end comes for Russia, the flowing power base is significant.

Now in a 5 or 6 rd game, that strat is not going to pay divedends quickly enough.  That’s what I was developing in a longer format, however, and it is the next strategy I would attempt to refine for the longer games.

Have at it!

@Cmdr:

Most CSub Articles, I’ve been told, aren’t worth the electronic paper they’re written on.

So now that you’ve been reading the papers, do you feel that “they aren’t worth the electronic paper that they are printed on”?

Just curious  :-D

Bean, know thyself.

I do.

@ncscswitch:

Welcome back

I’m back with the nerds, where I belong.

:-D

@Craig:

As for the CSub bid restrictions, I have spent enough gaming sessions arguing with Crazystraw (and Mighty Air Force) about their “fixes”.  We have come to the understanding that we just don’t agree. :-(

I don’t understand that!  (btw - CrazyStraw is my old avatar.  I’m TJ Hoo… Mazer Rackham now)

I don’t agree to disagree!

You will submit!

You will relent!

You will be assimilated!

Dang, my frothing sems to b shrtg out my kebr

@Infantry:

Consider 3 inf 1 ftr attacking 3 inf.
In ADS the expected value of the battle is a 1.31 IPC loss for the attacker.
In LL the expected value of the battle is a 1.09 IPC gain for the attacker.

An risk neutral attacker whose sole concern is material advantage would choose the second battle but not the first.

Close, but not quite.  You are correct that a fight to the death would be avoided in a standard game, but you’ve missed the difference between average outcome, mode outcome, and an outcome involving a retreat.

The big negative in the average outcome for the normal player comes on the 4th hit - when the ftr dies.  Before that the battle is economically favorable to the attacker under normal rules or low luck.

And because the mode of the fight (most common/calculated/“expected”) is positive, then a standard player would initiate the fight and pull back before the ftr is exposed.  In practical terms, the average player would never see that ftr exposed, so his average outcome would be positive, and the battle result set would have many instances of taking the land with a healthy sprinkling of retreats.

Peace