Posts made by nishav

@superbattleshipyamato I respect your difference of opinion. While I do disagree with you, in that i feel this is a problem in the game, I do concur that it is not of the same severity as several other opportunities the game has experienced and continues to experience.

@arthur-bomber-harris The game is improved by people providing constructive criticism, as it was when transports were made defenseless, battleships stopped by sunk by the same amount of damage as a submarine or destroyer, and addressing the vast distances of Siberia and China dwarf those of Europe.

As I’m not addressing any kind of house rule, simply the flawed logic behind the existing rule in the game, this would seem to be the correct place to discuss it by default. Unfortunately, there is no separate “review” section of the forums to have this discussion.

@superbattleshipyamato when 2 armies approach an opponent from opposite directions, engage in battle, and then retreat, the opponent does not open his lines to allow one army to join the other in retreating in one direction

@burgh-gamer-67 the logic holds, they march forward, then they retreat back, the problem that people have with this abstraction is that the units “retreat” forward

The Hard AI will execute specific strategies well, but has some interesting blind spots. Countering Middle Earth it amassed a German force of almost 80 at Stalingrad, leaving Russia surrounded but holding on in Moscow and declared war on the neutrals to come through Turkey. However after the British broke through in the Balkans, rather than pull that force back to protect the homeland in push into the Middle Eastern factories it just continued to use them to hold the Caucasus/Stalingrad bonuses until they were eventually surrounded and wiped out by the Russian stack they allowed to build up. Seems like the Hard AI may have a little too much value allocated to the National Objectives.

@andrewaagamer 2 clarifications:

1. The Rom IC is this Germany/Italy player’s SOP, the only variance is between $12/$30, regardless of whether he’s going G1 or G2. So that’s going to happen before I take any action.

2. I see the confusion. My intent is not to send the 6 new tanks to Asia, they would remain in Europe.

I’ve been considering an R1 6 tank buy, starting 2 tanks and 2 mechs moving east, and flying the Russian airforce out to Siberia as part of a KJF strategy. R2 or R3 assault on Manchuria and sending the 4 mobile units into China to prop China in the north.

My opponents have typically shown an extreme reluctance to use Calcutta Crush because they have been punished multiple times for failing to adequately defend the home islands so I anticipate J2 to be the absolute earliest they’ll go. However the aggressive Soviet stance seems dangerous assuming a G2 and Italian Med. The small factory in Romania G1is almost a guarantee. I anticipate no Sealion threat due to their conservative nature therefore Middle Earth is almost mandated. I am also conservative and will not be doing Taranto, opting instead to vacate the Med after strafing the Tobruk DD/Trn and reinforce the Indian Ocean.

Any suggested tweaks to the R1 buy?

Has anyone tried playing G40 with the National Advantages from Revised? In Revised they always seemed wildly imbalanced but I think some of the G40 rule changes may have helped somewhat.

Also, if anyone has, how did you address the National Advantages potentially obviated by G40 rules changes (Mongolian pact, Radar tech, Kamikaze rule, China)

@andrewaagamer excellent, thank you!

I found this old post on selection timing

Re: Declaring Casualties

However, I couldn’t find anything on selection obligation. I assume that if there are 3 hits generated by a side in a combat that there is an obligation on the opponent to assign those hits in such away that allows as many hits as possible to be assigned. Example:

1 carrier and 2 airplanes defend against 1 sub and 2 planes. Defender gets all 3 hits, but carrier hit can be applied to either the sub or the planes whereas plane hits can only be applied to planes per no destroyer.

I am unable to find a rule disallowing the attacker from declaring a plane as a casualty for the carrier hit, declaring the 2nd plane as a casualty from the 1st defending plane hit, and then declaring that the sub cannot be taken as a casualty for the 2nd defending plane hit. (Beyond the argument that it is against the spirit of the game)

Any help here?

@panther thanks Panther!

There is a question in the Q&A that approaches this but didn’t quite address my question. If US attacks SZ6 defended by 2 Destroyers and 1 Sub with 1 Destroyer, 4 planes (of any description) and 1 transport to amphibious, obviously they cannot ignore the subs because there are surface warships present. My question is that if kamikaze attacks succeed on the US destroyer,

1. As the rules state “the ship will not participate in the subsequent battle” have the planes lost the ability to hit the sub?
2. As this battle cannot be canceled at this point, does the sub get to roll in the first combat round since there is a transport present in the sea zone even if it can’t hit the attacking planes?

Thanks!

@squirecam timing was everything. You could maximize your income by trying turn one but you also had to get Poland and France turn 1 so losing a 1/4 of your army would be problematic. You also had to make the attempt during the purchase units phase of the turn.

@andrewaagamer 1-2, you killed him and got permanent $5 bonus, 3-5 you failed nothing happens, 6 you failed and you have to remove 2 German Infantry and 2 German Armor.

@superbattleshipyamato Your transport question was already answered above but I will say that every group is different and thus every house rule set has to have different bounds. While I grew up playing Age of Renaissance, Hero Quest, D&D, and Kingmaker our longest tenured player is 70+ and doesn’t adapt to significant rule changes quickly. So while I’m perfectly down for World in Flames or Battle for North Africa many of our house rules have to remain within the bounds of Axis and Allies. There was an old Xeno Games expansion/alternate ruleset for A&A called World at War that was quite fun you might want to look at. Had a rule for Germany to assassinate Hitler that I always loved.

If it helps, remember this is an extremely abstracted war game. It doesn’t make any less sense that an army taking the same amount of time to travel from Paris to Berlin as Calcutta to Kunming or New York to San Francisco.

However, to everyone confident that this is completely fine and will never change, remember that Wall 'o Transports was canon for 2 decades before that garbage was finally addressed.

And that one win was when the British were throwing ice cubes and the Turks were on fire so the Ottomans recreated Alexander’s empire.

@domanmacgee yeah, 1 CP win to 8 Entente wins

My group plays standard OOB rules (no Russian Revolution) and we have yet to have a game go past 10-12 turns, most of our battles fall in 3 categories (several 2-3 unit per side battles, mostly 10-14 unit per side battles, rarely 40-50 units per side) so we’ve never had any of these 100-200 unit mega battles I’ve read about, and Central Powers have a win ratio of 1:8. Typically our air superiority battles are 2:2 or 2:1. Is this more typical and I’m just reading outliers in the forums or are our games unusually small scale?

P.S. tournament rules have been refused by the group because they “unfairly advantage the Central Powers”

Have to agree that this isn’t a smart play, you’re not capping out your existing industrial capacity, adding more is a loss of throughput.

For unintended concequences it would be hilarious if the Germans take it early and then, while they’re pushing Moscow, lose it to the Brits. However, when your strategy depends on your opponent being an idiot, you don’t have a strategy, you have a dream.