Posts made by ogrebait

@TimmyBravo:

Hello all! Long time reader, first time poster…
There’s one thing that’s been bugging me for a while; my playgroup and I are divided as to the possibillity of reinforcing a newly conquered territory with ground units during the non combat move phase. Now, I know the rules say that you’re not allowed to land fighters, but there is no clear statement in the rulebook concerning ground units - which is why I feel that it is allowed. Anyone out there that could help to clarify?
:mrgreen:

It is legal to move ground units into a newly conquered territory during the non-combat move phase. I’ve done it a number of times myself.

@ogrebait:

I’m trolling for a new game.

I’d prefer '41, no tech, no bid, with NO’s on, Abattlemap with forum dicey.  I’d like to play the Axis if there’s someone who would likes to play Allies. I’m mostly a casual player, but I can probably offer a decent challenge if you don’t mind a leisurely pace.

I’ve got a volunteer. Thanks!

NW Indiana.

I’m trolling for a new game.

I’d prefer '41, no tech, no bid, with NO’s on, Abattlemap with forum dicey.  I’d like to play the Axis if there’s someone who would likes to play Allies. I’m mostly a casual player, but I can probably offer a decent challenge if you don’t mind a leisurely pace.

Thanks!

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Perhaps there needs to be new strategies developed for an Italian fleet.  Anyone consider invading Brazil?

Been there, done that. It proved to be a good distraction to the US player, but I don’t think it was of great strategic value. I am currently of the opinion that just being in a position to threaten an invasion of Brazil may be useful enough, but only after the security of the Italian Fleet has been taken care of.

A lot depends on how the game unfolds. If the US is not in position to immediately retake Brazil, sacrificing a tranny and 1 inf (10 IPC investment for 6 IPC swing per turn) may be worthwhile.

Well, if someone wants to create “house rules” to use only among a close group of fellow players, who am I to object?

However, if someone is looking for broader acceptance among the gaming community with the hopes that these changes will be accepted and used among a larger group, then there is a significant obstacle as long as there is no established process to vet the proposed changes. Trisdin’s modified rules might make for a great game, but if he and half a dozen gamers are the only ones who use them, then they are of limited utility outside that group.

I have enough problems with my puny reptilian brain keeping up with all the differences in the “official” A&A games. If I am going to learn all the nuances of a complex A&A variant, I would at least like to know that I will actually be able to use them on a semi-regular basis. I’m not knocking Trisdin or anyone else who has tried to come up with a better mousetrap, but I just see a lot of people going in a lot of different directions without any mechanism for the broader A&A community to arrive at any kind of consensus on what that better mousetrap looks like.

@Krieghund:

Sorry, but this is incorrect.  When defending, a destroyer only has to be friendly to an air unit and in the battle in order to allow the air unit to hit subs.  It need not belong to the same power.

When attacking, the destroyer must belong to the same power, as a destroyer in the sea zone belonging to a friendly power will not participate in the attack.

Okay, I must have missed this. Do you have a reference I could look at?

@katfishkris:

ok, another sub question.  if i attack a loaded carrier with 2 subs, do the fighters get to shoot back on defense, or is a defending destroyer need to be present for the fighters to hit my subs?

A DD belonging to the same country as the aircraft is required for the aircraft to engage the sub. For example, in the above assume the CV belonged to the US and there was a British DD in the same sea zone when attacked by a German sub. The sub’s surprise attack is nullified by the DD, but the British DD cannot “guide” the US ftrs to attack the German sub. However, the British DD and the US CV can both return fire.

@dondoolee:

I don’t know if there is a way to cut and paste this conversation, if you know how please feel free to do so.

Well, on my computer, hold down the left mouse button, highlight the text of interest, “click” the right mouse button, select “copy” from the drop-down menu, open new topic window, “right click” in the text box, select “paste” from the drop-down menu.

Add your comments and post.

This question presumes one side eventually concedes when the balance of the game has irreversible tipped against them.

As a follow-on question, what made the difference between a relatively short game and a long game?

@Trisdin:

WOW…. Almost 100 views and no comments! come on members, tell me what you think.

Well, I can’t speak for the others, but here’s what I think.

You have obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this alternative set-up, and I wouldn’t mind trying it out. In the absence of a lot of playtesting, however, it would be hard for me to render an opinion on what works and what doesn’t work in this modified rule set. That could also be said for some of the other A&A variants being circulated, and therein lies the rub….

I have been in and out of the gaming world for decades, and I am a relative newcomer to A&A. Over the years, one of the biggest obstacles I have found to pursuing this pastime is finding both a game I enjoy and a critical mass of other gamers to play with. It is of marginal benefit to invest a lot of time, energy and occasionally money into acquiring and learning a game which only a handful of people in the world are willing to play. I currently own four “official” A&A variants, but the only one that I regularly play is AA50, in part, because of the difficulty in finding people interested in the other games.

I certainly don’t mind experimentation, and I’ve suggested a few changes myself. However, without some clearinghouse to determine what rule sets should become the defacto standard, then all these “house rules” have the tendency to further fragment a relatively small population of players. My humble suggestion (which would admittedly be difficult to implement) is to first establish a method to propose, test, and semi-formally “bless” modified rules so that there is some standard that the A&A community can rely on. The closest thing we have to that right now is either the folks at WOTC or Larry Harris’s Game Design site, and both have their limitations.

That being said, if you or someone else would like to have a go at giving your rule set a test drive, let me know. Due to the demands of my life outside of gaming, I’m generally not a fast player. However, if you don’t mind a leisurely match, I can accommodate a trial run and give you some feedback.

@dondoolee:

While time being on the Allies side I agree is debatable, how many times have you played an 8+ turn game while the Allies lost (other than some MAJOR flukey dice, or a MAJOR oversite)?

I can’t say that I have a great deal of experience here, but the Axis have won every game that I have played that went past 8 rounds. I have another one going that is in it’s 9th round, and it is still a toss up.

Now, I’ve also had some games that went less than 8 rounds in which the Axis lost (or more correctly, conceded), but that was generally due to a careless error or horrible dice in the early rounds.

The key factor in each of the Axis victories was Japan. It seems to take 7-8 rounds until Japan can build up its forces and get them to the doorstep of an Allied capital. If Germany and Italy can hold out that long, then Japan becomes very difficult to stop.

That being said, individual mileage may vary.

Personally, I like it when the Russian player does the Bury stack when I’m playing Japan. I would much rather eliminate these units early while they are far away from Moscow rather than chase them all the way back. It’s then just one less thing to worry about when I close in for the kill.

Each game will evolve differently, but I consider keeping the Italian fleet alive and a potential threat to the Allies as a major Axis objective. If the Italian Navy is destroyed, Italy is generally relegated to a very minor roll, and the Allies potientially have an uncontested 1-2 punch with the combined UK and US moves.

How much, and by what means, the Italian Fleet should be reinforced depends almost completely on what the Allies are doing. I’ve done minor naval builds when the Allies were not pressing in on the Med. On the other hand, in one game I kept building  boats until Italy had both the US and UK out-gunned in the Atlantic.

Regardless, Italy cannot execute its military options in a vacuum. Until such time that Italy builds a large enough economic base to stand on its own (which may never happen), Italy will need assistance from Germany in the early rounds, and then Germany or Japan in the later rounds.

I’ve caught up some on life and games and I’m looking to try my hand at Pacific on the forum. I’ve got the game at home, but I’ve only played through it a couple of times. I’m mainly looking for a chance to work through the mechanics and understand the differences between Pacific and AA50, so don’t expect a high level of play. I’m usually good for 1 turn per day most days, but not all.

Any takers?

@d142:

the i.c. at france could be troublesome, with the extra moves needed to get to the eastern front,

The time I used the FRA IC, it was mostly for ground units to help defend FRA, NWE, or ITA or for aircraft builds. Ground units headed east were produced in GER.

@mpc220:

I would think, though I haven’t played enough to be sure, that building in any 2 IPC territory just isn’t going to be worth it (unless it’s Egypt, maybe, where you’re never going to get stuff there ever again otherwise).

The one time I placed an IC in EGY, North Africa became a magnet for the Allied invasion force. I spent all my efforts in Africa defending that IC and ultimately lost it. I couldn’t recommend it.

Hey, you forgot to mention EGY assuming Germany takes it round 1.

I’ve tried some different IC locations for Germany. In most cases I found them to be more trouble than they were worth, mainly because the forces required to defend them outweighed the benefits of being able to build in the new location.

The only one I found to have a marginal benefit is FRA. It’s a nice sweet spot between being too small and too big, and FRA is important to defend in it’s own right above and beyond having an IC.

I’ll echo all your other pros on FRA, but I disagree with your comments on the SBR’s. If the allies go SBR crazy, it is harder to dig the GER out of the hole than FRA (assuming max allowable damage). I guess it sort of depends on how much money Germany has to spend. Having to pay off 10 dmg vs 6 dmg before you can build a single unit can make a big difference sometimes.

I’ve got Pacific at home, but I haven’t played it much. I’d like to eventually try PbF, but I can only handle a couple of A&A games at a time. Right now, my dance card is full, but maybe in another week or two.