Posts made by Octopus

@ncscswitch:

The reality is that all of the units are IN that sea zone, and in no version of A&A are you EVER allowed to target a single nation’s forces when there is more than one nation’s forces in that area. And Germany (using the previous example) IS targetting just the US ships and ignoring the UK ships that are in the same zone when he fires.

Once again, you have changed the rules to fit your argument.  Let me 'splain.  The submerging submarine that resurfaces is what causes this argument, so if any game in question does not have a submerging submarine rule, please to not draw parallels to it.  The combat does not “ignore” ships that may be in the sea zone.  The other Allied ships have already participated in their attack phase and can no longer participate with any attacking force until their next turn.  Nothing is being ignored, if anything, your interpretation allows a single navy to participate in potentially 3 attacks a turn.

@ncscswitch:

Extrapolating…
USA trannies an AA gun from the US to somewhere in central Europe (perhaps Eastern)
Germany flies over Eastern to get to Belorussia to attack.
The US is NOT a participant in the attack in any way, shape, or form.
Does the AA gun fire? It is not being attacked, and the battle is between the Russian forces in Belorussia and the German AF. By your reasoning, it would not, since the United States is not being attacked, and it is not their turn.

But that is NOT how it works. Even though the US is not being attacked, their gun gets to fire… because it is THERE.

No.  If you haven’t noticed, the AA gun is a grey colored piece (much like the Industrial Complex).  It also has special rules to follow these special pieces that are clearly outlined in the rules.  From Printed Ruleset (and LHTR) “Whenever an air unit enters a territory containing an enemy anti-aircraft gun, the anti-aircraft gun fires during the opening fire step of combat.”

No parallel can be drawn between standard combat and AA guns for there is a special provision to account for this happening that seems to be crystal clear.

@ncscswitch:

And that is the point of the UK ships in the above example… they ARE there.

They are on the board, but they are not involved in combat.

@ncscswitch:

We’ll let the Game Designers determine what clarifications to make to the rules (because one way or another, this potentially FREQUENT situation needs to be dealt with (it happened 2 times in the game I am currently playing)

The Game Designers did clarify the situation for the rule does not exist (even in ambiguity) in the rule book.

It seems you have already drawn a conclusion and are now searching for facts to back up your statements.  The game should not be played this way.

@ncscswitch:

OK, to expand my previous thoughts (not that it will change anything at this point, the poll is well decided…)

UK and Germany are both occupying the SAME SPACE.
USA moves into that space and starts shooting.
Germany shoots back (i.e. they counter-attack)
USA is the aggressor, Germany returns fire… but the UK forces are still THERE.

Ok, there is the first fallacy.  The supposed German “counter-attack” is not by game definition an attack, it is a defense.  The forces on the attack are the nation whose turn it is.  This is obvious.  Any other country subject to the attack is the defender.Â

@ncscswitch:

As such, they are subject to being hit.

They cannot attack (i.e. they cannot fire their guns) but they ARE subject to being hit by stray torpedoes.

No, The other Allied ships are not present for the attack, and therefore not present in the entire combat scenario.

@ncscswitch:

And that is there Larry’s original thinking (and the rules for Pacific) went…
The UK is not attacking, but the Allies per written rule, choose who takes losses against enemy fire in multinational situations (in this case where the Germany sub is counter-attacking the aggressor USA forces).

We are playing Revised and not Pacific.  I believe this hammers the point home all the more.  The fact that the rule was clearly posted in Pacific indicated the designers know completely the intentions of the ruling and purposely left this rule out of Revised and any version of LHTR to date.  The printed rulebook cannot be updated easily, but Larry’s LHTR most certainly can and it has no mention of this ruling.

@ncscswitch:

Now, on a few other points…

• Yes, the rules specifically state that allied forces may NOT attack together. And the UK is NOT firing, so that rule is met.

In this case, the term “attack” refers to any participation in the combat.  The UK is not part of the operation in any capacity, even to absorb hits.

@ncscswitch:

• The rules also specifically state that you can NOT single out one nation’s forces when attacking and there is more than one allied nation in the same space (and that IS what Germany is doing, they are attacking BACK at the Allies)

This is true, but once again, the German sub is “defending” not attacking.

@ncscswitch:

As Larry stated elswhere, game mechanics should not be above game rules (meaning that the battle board rationale is not valid by his reasoning… for example the 2nd edition Battle Board does NOT contain a slot for attacker transports, but they sure as heck could be taken as losses by the rules!)

There is a huge difference between not having an attack value and not participating in combat.

The idea of considering a submarine on defense to be considered an attack is breaking the game.  In a Naval combat, I could consider an opposing fleet that consists of transports to not have ANY return fire because they are attacking back when my fighters engage them.  "they do not get to roll dice because they are attacking back."  “I suppose carriers then fire at a 1, because there are attacking back not defending.”

This entire thought process breaks the game.Â

It pains me to think this is not obvious.

@elias:

Cant UK take out the sub and then do an amf a** in the same round? If so, why leave the sub and weaken your G fleet?

The submarine in SZ8 is in the ocean.  No amphibious assault is possible.  If the British wait to clear the zone (either killing the sub or having it submerge) any further movement through the zone is a non-combat move, and therefore cannot continue with an amphibious assault.

As for SZ3, I guess you could enter a transport with troops on it into the seazone against 2 subs and 1 DD, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

Hey Switch,

I believe you kept Russia above 24 most of our last game.  Did you tell them how it finished?

You know my thoughts.

If it is not stated in the rule book (printed manual for revised) or LHTR, the rule does not exist.

I would even accept an ambigious ruling, but there is no such thing in the books.

Many people ask similar questions.  Should I do X or is Y better?

As an Axis player, you should be asking yourself, “Is there anything better I can do with my fleet other than destroy the Hawaii fleet?”

Well?

Destroy the American fleet if that is a requirement for your overall strategy.  For example, if your Japanese strategy demands that you need to leave your transports unguarded, then I highly recommend dealing a blow to the Americans.  If you have managed to design a different strategy, then perhaps attacking the Americans just doesn’t matter a hole bunch.

Everyone has a different style of play, and focuses on different targets.

Try destroying the American fleet one game, then try another game and see if you can do anything else with your fleet.  Keep in mind, you may ultimately have to deal with the American fleet in one form or another.

Hmm,

I think a 5/5 units is way too strong.  I think Allied and Western Tanks should be either 3/3 or 3/2, then the super tanks would be 4/3.

If there is a unit limitation per space (like D-Day) the 4/3 unit would be devastating.  I don’t think you would need to go to a 5/5 unit to make that happen.

As for reinforcements, perhaps the Germans get no reinforcements at all and only get the starting setup.  Allied airpower comes into play after the first couple of turns

The old game Fortress America was similar.

Heh, I know what Hitler thought.

The idea would have been to delay the Russians and sue for peace soley to the Western Powers.  If Russia had been dealt a significant blow and left them the east border of Poland or further, the US and UK would have more bargaining power than Russia and possibly accepted the surrender based on fear of how Russia would treat the German peoples.

As it historically stood, Germany asked the Western Allies for peace much too late and Russia was already quite close to the German borders.  The US and UK feared confrontation with the Russians.  Had the Russians been kept at bay deep in Eastern Europe, an agreement might have been reached.

I think these small theater games are designed to get players into other Avalon Hill games.  I believe Battle of the Bulge will be similar to D-Day.  The Germans and Allies will have their reinforcement cards to predetermine what units you get.  The Allies are the only ones to get airpower, but they won’t be able to use it immediately to allow the Germans the head start (historically, the Allies could not use their airpower until 8 days after the offensive started).

The Germans will need to capture 3 or 4 key cities to win before 10 turns (or so) expire.

Just like D-Day but the Germans are the ones who need to play aggressive.

Because the Germans will most likely not get any airpower, I was hoping for 2 kinds of tanks to simulate regular tanks (like the Panzer IV playing at a 3,3) and heavy tanks (like the Panzer VI playing at a 4,3 but get very few).  The stronger tank units will allow a specific spearhead (schwerpunkt) to exist if the map has good granularity.  It is funny that the pieces for the German tanks are really Panzer V’s.

Napoleon also said, “An army marches on its stomach” and that is what killed his own army in Russia.  Oh, I think that winter thing had an affect as well.

The Battle of the Bulge (or the 2nd Ardenne Offensive) is rather interesting for a great many reasons.  One of them is numerically speaking, the Germans had better numbers on the Allies for the 2nd Offensive than when the Germans invaded France in 1940 (except for that airpower component thingy).  This battle also blows the doors off the concepts of Blitzkrieg, and how to stop it.

I would have used the Material to hit Russia, not the Western Powers.  I believe it would have been more effective.

I bring a set of Axis and Allies with me to strip clubs.  As you can imagine, I am very popular with the strippers.

I think you will have trouble getting people to play who do not enjoy strategic puzzles.  Some people just don’t think this way (like accountants or mathematicians).

There are a few phrases that have passed through time to describe this

a) you can lead a horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink

b) buy them book and buy them books, but all they do is eat the covers……

c) you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear

d) what we have here is a failure to communicate.  there are some men you just can’t reach…

some friends are for drinking, others for playing axis and allies.  if you are really lucky, she will enjoy drinking, kick butt at Axis, and want to marry you.  I figure 2 out of the 3 is good enough.

true, the new game has more granularity than the original, but the theme is just the same for Germany.

Deal with Russia (as you see fit) while entertaining the Atlantic allies and keeping them from reaching their most heinous objective.

@Revelade:

Well, improving myself is one thing, but I think my friends lack the patience to learn as I am doing. They look for instant gratification, but I seek a long term commitment.

You can only get so far by playing board games with yourself. I just need A game to get them hooked on boardgames and say, “Wow these boardgames can be a lot of fun!”, “Maybe I should try some more!”.

Worry not, for only so many people enjoy playing these games and they are far and few between.  The majority of my friends are of the gamer types and always have been.  This is nothing new.  The developers at Bungie Software (Myth: the Fallen Lords…etc) had a saying when they toasted their beers, “here’s to us, and those LIKE us!”  They recognized there were people out there who had the same level of fanaticism for games as they did, but were not known or present at the time.

Somewhere in the world, someone may be toasting you.

:wink:

I sent the 2 subs and 1 DD from the Baltic to SZ3.  I left the Sub in SZ8.  I call it the “Naval Cock-Block” because it prevents England from hitting Norway or Western Europe on the first turn.  I transported 2 infantry from Western Europe to Eastern Europe (but can also get to Karelia).  The 3 Infantry in Norway go to Karelia.  For me, I am typically at an infantry shortage due to the way I play and this brings more infantry safely to the front lines of Russia without England interferring (and they are a pesky bunch!)

Long term implications: unclear, I am trying it for the first time but so far I am pleased.

I think you are old enough to figure the game out, but pay attention to the learning curve.  I started when I was a freshman in highschool and the competition was pretty fierce so you had to learn quick.  If you want a comparison of a game that is “difficult” try Third Reich….or for more fun Advanced Third Reich.

Be patient and listen to folks on the boards, they will help a lot.  You will be raised to the level of your peers, so don’t give up.

Overall, I believe it is worth while for Germany to make an attempt to take Africa.  The German Med fleet is in trouble to begin with so make the British use their units to attack the fleet after dumping off an infantry and artillery into Anglo-Egypt.  Force the UK to use their forces to keep Africa from falling into the German’s hands.

If Germany holds some of Africa, then there are less IPCs going into an invasion of Germany.  If the US or UK move to bail out Africa, then there are less units going to invade Germany.

Overall, the German effort is minimal and the Allied effort is significant.  This fits into my book as a “worthy” cause, but don’t get your hope up too high on taking over the entire continent.

hehe, don’t sweat it.

:-D

the devil is indeed in the details.

i am wondering…do you have specific details on the combats you believe Switch got robbed on?  We could analyze those in more details and I think you will find there was nothing out of the ordinary going on, including the final Russian battle.

I found it most interesting that no one thought Switch did anything wrong by capitalizing on the fact I left the Pacific fleet alone, until the game was lost.  After reading the comments, you were most concerned about my leaving Western Europe in a weakend state, although the territory was never held for any length of time.  Switch’s landing were not exactly powder-puff either.  Landing 7 infantry and 7 armor is a significant force.

Switch clearly believed his defenses in Russia were sufficient towards the end of the game, even to the point where he believed he was robbed on dice rolls.

I am wondering how many games I will have to win or who I will have to beat to demonstrate that perhaps I am doing something different.

A Kill Japan First strategy does not exist for the following reasons.

1.  The Japanese fleet starts off better than 2 to 1 in terms of power over the US, but the US only starts with only 33% more in income.  This mean if both nations do nothing but spend money on fleets, the US will never over power the Japanese.

2.  The US must move their fleet to the Japanese to threaten the Pacific.  This means the Japanese has two additional turns to build until the US arrives (because it takes 2 turns to reach the Japanese coast or vital islands).  Once again, the Japanese are not only more powerful, but also have 2 turns to see it coming and build defenses.

3.  In order for the US to overcome the Japanese, the US must spend near 100% of their income to combat the Japanese fleet.  The Japanese, on the other hand, can still participate in a strong Asia land campaing and spend small monies on fleet power to deal with the US.  Result: The US is taken out of their Europe campaing, while the Japanese are still effective in their Asia campaing.

4.  Let us say the US does conquer the Japanese fleet and own the Pacific, the US still cannot successfully invade Japan.  One turn of Japanese builds puts 8 infantry on Japan.  This would be most difficult for the US to remove.

The US economically can not effectively catch up to the Japanese fleet due to lack of economy and lack of power.  Combating the Japanese fleet is inefficient since it does not stop the Japanese from doing damage in Asia.  The Japanese can see any attack in the Pacific coming 2 turns away so it is easy to defend.  The Japanese Islands are also near impossible to invade since it is so easy to build an effective defense cheaply.  In conclusion, the effort exerted by the US forces does not yield results to justify such an endevour.

It isfun to think about but do not waste your time with a Kill Japan First strategy.

Of course they can.

I aspire to do better than 50%.

Remember, 50% is just as close to zero as it is to 100%.  You might as well go for the gold.