Posts made by moralecheck

Thank you Dylan.  The puzzle is complete now!

I was playing a game of Classic about 20 years ago as the Axis.  My brother sent 2 US bombers on SBRs over Germany and 2 more over Japan (don’t think they were heavy bombers, but that would have made the story better).  My AA defence rolls? 2 sets of snake eyes!! Boy was he ticked.

In another game of Classic, I was the USA and I decided to spend 30 IPC on tech rolls on turn 1. 5 sixes!!! So I just rolled one more die to see what tech I didn’t get. Another 6!  This totally took the wind out of my sails as all I really wanted was heavy bombers!

On the subject of Soviet battleships.  That’s exactly what my friend bought on his first turn of his first game, despite advice.  It was gone by his turn 2 along with Karalia and Caucasas.

@allweneedislove:

@moralecheck:

Nope.  There is a big difference between retreating from where you came (essential cancelling your move) and using a retreat at sea to get an extra point in whatever direction you want.

all units can gain an extra movement point by attacking from two different territrory/szs and all units retreating to the same territory/sz.

for example

japan has a 2destroyers in sz6
usa has a carrier in sz26 and a carrier and destroyer in sz19

usa attacks sz6 with all three units then retreats units to sz19
the carrier and destroyer that started in sz26 has made a clever move that allows it to move 4 spaces(just like any navy battle that allows a retreat).

remember carriers are warships and are allowed to participate in attacks and take hits just like all other units. now lets look at my original example

japan has only a transport in sz6
usa has a carrier in sz26 and a a carrier in sz19

can both carriers attack sz6?
if so then the carriers can retreat to sz19. the carrier that started in sz26 has made a clever move that allows it to move 4 spaces(just like any navy battle that allows a retreat) but without risking damage.

kreighund do you have a ruling stating that carriers can not attack without another type of warship involved in the attack? or a ruling that carriers can attack by themselves?

I will concede on the movement issue. I have been convinced by you and BadSpelling. I still think setting up a non-fight for a fake retreat is not on the level though.  There is not much we can do but await a ruling.  I don’t think another warship should be required for  a carrier to engage, aircraft are fine too.

@BadSpeller:

One can not pick and choose the retreat rules to fit their liking. The rules say units must retreat to the same space, even though they came from multiple sides.

Agreed. But having 2 carriers “pretend attack” from 2 different spaces just so they can both retreat to one is an abuse of the rules, IHMO.  There is no chance of a fight, so it doesn’t really seem to qualify for a retreat.

@BadSpeller:

Then your ‘warp drive’ thinking would have to apply to all retreating units, land and sea. When units retreat from a tt, inf move 2 spaces, and armor may end up moving 3. This is not about your house rules but the real rules.

Nope.  There is a big difference between retreating from where you came (essential cancelling your move) and using a retreat at sea to get an extra point in whatever direction you want.  I thought that was obvious, but I guess this thread shows otherwise. shrugs

And that wasn’t a real house rule either, just a joke.  I rarely use house house rules in any game (but will on occasion, I admit).  Nothing is more annoying than learning the rules to a game and sitting down to play the first time with some new players who then tell you they have rewritten half the game.  Of course, that would still annoy me less than someone who was arguing it was ok to retreat forward after “non-combat combat move”.  :lol:

@FieldMarshalGames:

@DFWSupertrooper:

I am SOOO ready to lay down the money for these!  Dice, pieces, all.  Go nicely with my custom-stained wood 5’ X 10’ board!!  If y’all’s pieces were going to be custom painted I’d pay FAT money, but…awww who’m I kidding, I’d still pay FAT money!  My only concern was in paying for each set one by one only to see others get them cheaper as an entire set later, but if it helps get them done, I’ll take one for the team and buy them ASAP!  FMG, keep up the AWESOME work!

Any chance you guys can make Canadian roundels while you’re at it (maybe a later expansion set with Can dice/roundels/setup/pieces)??  If you do, I’ll buy that set too!  :-D
-Jim

We are working on some surprises also…

This may have been asked before but why did you use a recon armored car for the Italian mech inf instead of the autoprotetto s37 APC?

Thanks

@WILD:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@maverick_76:

Well why would you do that? There is an NO for Russia that is nullified if you have allies in her home territories. Less money=no bueno.

It’s only 5 ipc’s. Taking Korea/Manchuria is 6. Or, Archangel may be German so the NO is null anyway

Plus if the US is able to keep Korea (maybe even w/Russia’s help def) US could build an IC there. If you do a major you might be able to out produce Jap in its own backyard.

Very true. I’m not a big fan of Maj ICs built during play.  They seem to mess things up.  One house rule that might be neat though is not allowing a MAJ IC to be built straight up. You would  need to build a minor first and then upgrade it.  Rome wasn’t built in a day, as the saying goes.

@Wilson2:

@moralecheck:

@Wilson2:

That carriers cannot kill transports is in the AAP40 FAQ. However, it also says that Carriers can attack “Q. Aircraft carriers have an attack vaIue of zero. Does this mean that they can’t attack other units and can only be used defensively in battles?
A. No. They can participate in an attack and take hits just like any other warship. They just don’t get an attack roll.”
So I would take this to mean that they may attack transports and nothing happens. Then they may or even may have to retreat.

Rules lawyer strategy. Interesting, if not frustrating, lol.  I still call shenannigans on this sleaze tactic!!  Don’t make me get the broom!!!  Is that South Park reference to old?  :evil:

Also the word “participate” is subject to interpretation.  I would seem to imply something else needs to be there as well.

Note the words “just like any other warship.” Any other warship can attack all by themselves and can attack transports all by themselves. Sure the carriers can’t kill the transports but they should be able to attack them.

Respectfully disagree.  There is no attack.  It is simply an attempt to bend the rules in your favour.  This is like guys in online Halo who claim that getting inside a tree trunk and shooting with impunity is a fair tactic because the programmers missed the bug.   I’m sure this hole in the rules was not meant to give carriers warp drive.

I just ordered 2.  I can’t wait!  :-D

UPDATE: 2 Got 'em.  Very cool!

@anderb:

it says 28 mm, so a bit high compared to the regular units. but they were sweet. absolutely.

28mm would translate to somewhere between 1/62 to 1/65.  The A&A inf is about 1/72 with the early printings of Classic using 1/76.  So yeah, that be a bit tall, but that would make them easier to see, like tac bombers.

@Koningstiger:

@moralecheck:

I wonder if simply requiring Japan to maintain a garrison (of x units or ipc value) in Manchuria, Korea and maybe Japan itself to watch over the the Russians would do the trick (no actual russian units would be required).  Failure of Japan to maintain this garrison would be a NO for China, unless Japan loses those tts.

That’s actually a very good and simple solution! Historically they did keep the Machukwuo army in Manchuria throughout the war to guard against the Russians. Making The Japanese keep x IPCs worth of (land) units in certain territories could indeed make a big difference and solve the balance issues in Pacific40!

Thank you.  :-)  I was thinking that if this prevented any significant attacks against China on turn 1, that might be all the allies need.

@Wilson2:

That carriers cannot kill transports is in the AAP40 FAQ. However, it also says that Carriers can attack “Q. Aircraft carriers have an attack vaIue of zero. Does this mean that they can’t attack other units and can only be used defensively in battles?
A. No. They can participate in an attack and take hits just like any other warship. They just don’t get an attack roll.”
So I would take this to mean that they may attack transports and nothing happens. Then they may or even may have to retreat.

Rules lawyer strategy. Interesting, if not frustrating, lol.  I still call shenannigans on this sleaze tactic!!  Don’t make me get the broom!!!  Is that South Park reference to old?  :evil:

Also the word “participate” is subject to interpretation.  I would seem to imply something else needs to be there as well.

@WILD:

@Wilson2:

No, I have asked that question before. The carrier cannot kill the transport. Because of this, I wondered if you could use the transport to speed move your ships.

A carrier can attack a convoy zone by itself and cost the enemy 1 ipc if they don’t kill it right. So whats wrong with it taking out a transport. I can see good arguments on both sides. It has no attack value, but it is still a war ship (and common sense would tell you it would be able to).

Ok, so Krieghund has ruled on this already in another post? As I said before I can live with it either way.

Perhaps it’s an issue of realism. In ASL the german tanks have a nifty close defence defence weapon against infantry. The rules don’t allow it to be used offensively because, as powerful as it is, no tank commander would ever intentionally drive into a group of armed enemy infantry and try a shot with this thing.  Similarly, no naval commander would ever send unescorted fleet carriers with no planes to harass transport ship even though the carrier would be more powerful.  The damage they may take is not worth the risk. Carriers take years to build, so they stay at the back.

It does make sense though that a Carrier would disrupt shipping though.  While a carrier would not risk damage by closing in an transports alone, the reverse is even more true. No freighter captain is not going to try to race by a carrier even if he knew it was devoid of planes.  They still have big defensive guns.

@knp7765:

@moralecheck:

@knp7765:

Yeah, I know that Tunisia was historically controlled by the Vichy French/Germans.  In fact, if you want to get technical about it, the Italians didn’t really control Yugoslavia or Greece either.  It was Germany that invaded both those countries before Operation Barbarossa.  However, I needed a way to give Italy 10 IPCs so I chose those territories for Italy because I figured they were the closest to being historically accurate as I could.  In the Anniversary Game, it has Italy controlling the Balkans territory which is basically Yugoslavia and Greece and Tunisia doesn’t even show up on the map at all.

Also, going by the setup chart, there are NO Axis units at all in Libya, but there is an infantry, an artillery and a tank in Tunisia.  I wanted those to be Italian.  I guess I could have changed the setup and put those units in Libya and left Tunisia under German control with Italy only getting 9 IPCs, but I just didn’t think of that at the time.

I actually tried this as well, with Italy getting 9. I also allowed land movement from Sicily to Southern Italy and gave the Italians one inf on Sicily, with UK getting one inf on Malta to balance it.  However, those were the only changes I did, meaning Germany and Italy took their turns at the same time so, for example, they could use each others transports as their own.  I did this to minimize the impact on the game.  So the only real change was that the Axis is forced to spend it’s money at both factories, much like how the UK is handled in AAG40.  In order to maintain the balance of the game, if Italy loses it’s capital their on hand IPC’s are transfered to Germany, not the allied power.  If the Allies take Germany the German IPCs do go to the Allied power (but Italy keeps it’s own IPCS).  The real purpose of my variant was just to allow a fifth player without messing up the game as is.

I made the Sicily change as every other wargame on the market does that (the land movement thing). The british infantry was added in Malta also because adding one there was such a standard move with the bonus IPCs that it probably should have been there in the first place.

You are right about Germany having captured the balkans after Italy’s failure to do so themselves, but after that they got to Italy handle the occupation for the most part. So giving Italy the IPC’s seems fair.

EDIT: Forgot to add, during the collect income phase, Germany can give Italy up to 3 IPCS.

That’s and interesting way of doing things.  I also put Italy right after Germany in turn order.  It seemed to me that  gave the Axis too much of an advantage.  They pretty much trounced the Allies.  I want to try a version with the turn order Germany, Russia, Italy, UK and USA to see if there is any difference.  I haven’t gotten around to trying that out yet.

I didn’t actually put Italy after Germany.  They went at they same time. In essence they played as one country with it’s economy split between 2 factories.  It actually makes things a bit tougher on the axis as Germany can no longer mass build in either factory if need be (good luck plopping a battleship in the med, Italy needs to save for 3 turns).  Let me know how your versions works out with Italy playing in the middle  of the Allies, I’m curious to see how it goes.

Slightly off topic, but since you have the game…are the US and british pieces exactly the some colour in AAE40 as AAP40?? I ask as a slightly different shade would have been nice for putting the 2 games away afterword but it’s not a big deal.

Thank you!

@UN:

@calvinhobbesliker:

By the way, France is down to 3 inf and a Destroyer

So it seems. No one tried to save the French Med fleet?

I think France goes last.  There is no time.  In fact, in the real war the British didn’t save the fleet, but bombed it to block the Germans from getting it.  Many French casualties.

Are this explained anywhere?  I’m refering to designations like someone having 4 stars and being called an a&a.org artillery (not that those 2 necessarily go together).

Thanks

@calvinhobbesliker:

@moralecheck:

@a44bigdog:

CV = Cruiser  AViation

I thought it was Carrier AViation.

I thought it was carrier vessel

Looks like we are both wrong.  From: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm

On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type “Z” and heavier-than air craft by the letter “V”.  The reference also speculates that:  “The use of the “V” designation has been a question since the 1920s.  However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter “V” was chosen.  It is generally believed the “V” was in reference to the French word volplane.  As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by “Z”) used.  The same case may be regarding the use of “Z”.  It is generally believed the “Z” was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin.  However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption.”

@a44bigdog:

CV = Cruiser  AViation

I thought it was Carrier AViation.