Posts made by Ozone27

Grudge match vs. “A” was a complete success!

I hit all the allied TRs T1 but lost a SUB vs. the US TR, which was undamaged. I also had to retreat my TR from the Suez SZ, but still won in Egypt which netted me a couple of turns in Africa. I put everything in Eastern Europe, eveacuated Western Europe on T2 and started building all INF for several turns.

As Japan I used Pearl Harbor Lite as per SUD and also per SUD I went all -out vs China and ignored Manchuria & India, focusing on shooting straight into USSR as fast as possible.

“A” opened with the by-now standard move & attacked everywhere T2. But when his units in Manchuria were utterly destroyed T2 & Japan moved into Ssinkiang HE FREAKED OUT!!! Well, he maintained his poker-face, but he bacame obsessed w/ Japan & started pouring troops, ICs(!) & planes into Asia, while TOTALLY IGNORING the rising threat from Germany. Constant attacks pretty much bottled up Japan in & around her starting territory, but “A” kept whittling away at his Karelia force until the time was ripe for an attack! Killed Karelia & after that Russia was a walkover. Soon I was rushing in to Japan’s aid & would’ve taken UK EASILY had I not forgotten I had LRA! I still would’ve killed England with a HUGE TR fleet (courtesy of Industrial Tech!) but the game ended w/ an Economic Victory the turn I was about to hit.

Thanks A & A.org!

Ozone27

A territory is “liberated” when it is retaken from an occupying enemy by an ally of the country it initially belonged to. In this case, the territory reverts to the control of the country that originally owned it at the start of the game, NOT the country that actually took back the territory. As an example, Germany takes the UK-owned territory of French West Africa w/ 1 INF. USA destroys this force on their turn & retakes the territory w/ 1 INF. Now UK–NOT USA–gets the income from this territory, because UK originally owned it. If USA had taken Algeria from Germany instead w/ 1 INF, USA could put his/her marker on it & start collecting income from it–that is NOT “liberation” but straight conquest.

Now if Germany were then to retake Algeria, then UK attacked in turn & took it back from the Gerrys, UK would put its marker on Algeria & claim income from it. That too is straight conquest.

Its easy to know who originally owned each territory because each territory is color-coded on the board to each country. Thus German territory is grey, USSR dark brown etc…

That said, neutral territories can NEVER be liberated. First of all, no one owns them at the start of the game. Second, they NEVER generate income, so IPC income is never an issue. The only time this might come into play is in the unlikely event that say, UK put an IC on Spain, Germany took it, then USA took it back from Germany. In this case, I would assume the IC reverts back to UK control, since they built it originally. But you could also argue that since the territory is now US-owned (for what its worth) that USA gets the IC. Or perhaps that UK still owns the IC but cannot use it since USA now owns the territory!Fortunately, no one ever puts an IC on a captured neutral :wink: !

Ozone27

Actually on 2nd thought, I’d say USA’d get the IC in the above example. Reason I think this is that siezing a neutral is a hostile act, similar to attacking an enemy-controlled territory. Thus if UK hit Eastern Europe (for example) & put an IC there, then Germany retook it, then USA took it back, that IC would be a US-owned IC most definitely. So that’s probably the same w/ neutrals–NO neutral liberation. They don’t want to be in the war anyway! Shame on you :wink: !

Just the liberals? How about: “Hollywood actors are complete idiots”?

I stick by what I said: if anyone cares one whit more about what an actor’s political views are than the average American’s, they need psychological help. Some of what Woody Harrelson said I agree with, but it doesn’t change the fact that he will never be President; I would NEVER want him to be President; & no one in their right mind would care what he would do if he WERE President. 'Cuz A.) That would NEVER happen, and B.) Nobody cares what Harrelson thinks anyway…

Correct me if I’m wrong…

Ozone27

OK that worked out alright, now part 2… :wink:

I strongly recommend that if you are a total nOObie (as you put it) playing with your friends (also fellow nOObies I presume) on the actual boardgame, try playing at least a few games with the normal rules without any special rules. At this level of play, the game is pretty well-balanced & you should find the Axis win pretty close to 50% of the time. make sure to switch players often so everyone gets to learn all of the powers–they are ALL different…

Eventually you will find that there are certain moves the Allies can do early on (especially USSR T1) that make it next to impossible for the Axis to win without extraordinary good luck. If you find the Axis are always losing (especially if they’re losing BADLY no matter who is playing them) it may be time to implement 1 or 2 “special rules”. I’ll give a brief description of some of them later…

Submerging Submarines & No Naval Occuptaion are not really special rules, but more-or-less canon rules introduced w/ the 3rd-Edition. I personally detest the No Naval Occupation, but its fairly typical :P . In Submerging Subs, SUBs may “withdraw” as described in the rules, or they may “submerge”–a type of “withdrawal-in-place”. By submerging a SUB is removed from the battle board but is not replaced on the game map until after the Combat Phase of the current player’s turn. After the battle, the SUB reappears. If there are any enemy units still in the same SZ, they will do battle with the SUB on the following Combat Phase, unless they or the subject SUB(s) move out previously.

In the 2nd Edition rules, enemy naval units in a SZ prevented the launching of new naval units in said SZ until the enemy units could be cleared. In No Naval Occupation, you may launch newly-built ships into an enemy occupied SZ, to do battle on the enemy’s next “Combat Phase” unless they move out.

Either of these are in my opinion, OK for nOObies to use…

Ozone27

OK.

“Liberation” occurs when you (or another ally) conquer a territory that the enemy has previously siezed from a different ally of yours (that is, not YOU). In this case, the ally of yours that originally owned the territory regains the income & any ICs on the territory. Any AA gun still on the territory is captured by YOU–even if your ally originally owned it!

The exception is if the ally of yours that originally owned the territory has since lost his/her capital & been eliminated from play. In this case, you may collect income from & use any ICs on the recaptured territory UNTIL your ally’s capital is liberated. At that point all remaining liberated or unconquered territories originally owned by this ally revert back to his/her control. This does NOT mean if an ally of yours is eliminated you can just start conquering his territories willy-nilly–they must already have been siezed by the enemy for you to get the income…

There’s a possibility I’m wrong about the income thing, though I don’t think so. I know the IC thing is true, tho…

In the above by “ally” I mean any nation allied to you. By “Ally” I usually am referring to the game Allies–that is, USSR, UK USA…

Ozone27

Hmmmm…maybe you’re onto something… :wink: …

Oh well I’m not doing this a 3rd time till I’m good n’ ready…

Ozone27

@Xi:

Ohmygod_ohmygod_OHMYGOD!!

The world has come to an end. :o

LOL! I’m gonna assume that was positive… :wink: …

Ozone27

I heard a lot of Democrats B**CH (I was one of them :) )about how no matter what Bill Clinton did, as far as a lot of Republicans were concerned, it didn’t matter–it was wrong!

Now I see my fellow liberals doing the EXACT SAME THING TO BUSH!

Now, if you’re a pacifist, I respect that. I think war is a bad thing too. But in the case of Iraq, GW is RIGHT ON (you heard it here first)! I just wish he’d be a little more “diplomatic” in the way he presents things & would try to work things out with our allies with a little softer touch…

I see a lot of Liberals going waaay too far in advancing their ideas. These people need to reexamine their own lives & think about what this country has done for them. If these actors weren’t in the US, or some other democratic, liberal (small “l”) nation, they’d have no right to speak out, and certainly wouldn’t get the millions of $$$ they get for doing practically nothing!!!

Oh, but I guess that’s the US’s fault, too… :x

Anyone who asks a prominent actor or actress their political opinion & takes it more seriously than any other American’s needs to have their head examined…

Ozone27, registered Democrat

Tried it again. Again got “Invalid_Session” after writing a loooong response. :evil: Oh well…

Ozone27

I posted a long response but the forum didn’t take it! What gives? Check back soon!

Ozone27

It really doesn’t make a difference because whether its combat or noncombat move, all units use up their entire move in the process of loading & unloading on TRs. The ARM can’t “blitz” because by embarking, sailing across water, and then landing uses all their move & they have no movement left with which to blitz or do anything…

This rule makes sense because without it, an ARM could gain extra movement out of all proportion to its normal capability! If what you are describing were the case, an ARM could load onto a TR, move up to 2 SZs THEN move up to 2 MORE land territories before having to stop–you could make it almost halfway across the board in a single move! Also, one could then argue that if ARM can move 2 territories AFTER the transport-drop, why not BEFORE as well? That way by using a TR as a “bridge” of sorts, an ARM could TRIPLE its normal movement capability–ridiculous.

Also logically speaking, it’d be all a large unit could do to load onto a ship, sail into the ocean & land under hostile fire to take the territory. There’s no way a unit could land under direct fire from a hostile enemy, after who knows how many days at sea & just sit around doing nothing until the battle around them was over so they could make a dash into the interior.

As far as the seaborne invasion following an adjacent naval battle–while the naval battle has to be resolved before the amphibious assault (to make sure the entire amphibious army can actually land there), both may occur on the same Combat phase: they are just resolved consecutively. However you may WANT to wait to invade a territory until the following turn so that you can use your attacking BBs in a bombardment attack in support of the invasion. If both the naval battle & the amphibious assault take place on the same turn, the BBs cannot help in the land battle.

The exception is if there is a land territory (like Algieria or Norway for example) that is adjacent to more than one SZ. In this case, a naval battle could take place in one SZ–where the BBs couldn’t bombard, while another BB (or BBs) with additional TRs could attack from a second (unoccupied SZ)–and get their bombard 'cuz they weren’t involved in a naval battle. The amphibious land battle would take place as one battle however.

Ozone27

YES! BBs only get 1 shot each at the beginning of round 1 of any amphibious assault. That’s it.

Man, you have 10 BBs? I’m jealous… :wink:

Ozone27

Cool, this is all great advice! I am already trash-talking for the next time the teams are similar!

SUD, on a reread & w/ what DarthMaximus said I understand what you mean in Europe. No new ARM will be necessary for a long time…

Ozone27

Great! Thanks for the advice guys.

After looking at the board a few more times with the guy’s (we’ll call him A) T1 setup I realized that:

a.) Attacking Caucases was a waste of time.

b.) Sinking all the Allied transports T1 is a good idea.

c.) Eastern Europe must get all available units. FTRs there are a good idea.

Question? When do I purchase ARM, if ever? Seemed to me T4 was the earliest I could really turn over to the attack (except in Africa). Seems like if I try SUD’s WE-trading strategy I could use more ARM, but maybe not. When do you unleash the ARM is what I’m basically asking, and will you ever need any more?

I also noticed it was vital for Japan to commit heavily on Asia in this scenario & attack Pearl w/ minimal forces. What is your plan here SUD? Are you going straight through Ssinkiang to force the Yakut force to withdraw ahead of you? Or are you going to surround him by landing additional INF on Manchuria T2?

Re: T2 in the above games–You’re right SUD! I see now that I lost BOTH games by what I did T2 as Germany (and as Japan game #1)! Looking back at my email synopses for both games I saw: Game#1 I stupidly purchased another TR as Germany to try to salvadge the situation in Africa. It of course was sunk immediately and was a total waste of money that could’ve gone to ARM/INF. Game #2 I bought a FTR to make up for the 3 I lost T1–pointless, & could’ve been avoided had I attacked like I’m planning.

Here is what I’m thinking of right now. G1 Germany purchases 9 INF 1 ARM. Hits East USA SZ w/ 1 SUB. West Canada w/ 1 BMR. North SZ (1 BB, 2 TR, 1 SUB) w/ 1 SUB, 1 TR 5 FTRs. Egypt gets the (IMO risky) amphibious attack 3 INF 1 ARM if SUB hits then BB is the casualty. if SUB lives, TR retreats back to Libya & drops off there anyway. Most units go to East Europe.

Now, SUD if I plan to trade West Europe, then what do I do in case the Allies decide to hit me from both sides in a turn? Like what if the Allies D-Day on like T4, then USSR attacks East Europe T5? Or more likely USSR-T4, West Allies immediately after? Is this unlikely for some reason I’m not seeing?

Again thanks for all your help!

Ozone27

My girlfriend’s brother is kicking my a$$ all over the place! :o

The last 2 times we have played (1 two-player, 1 w/ the whole group) I have played Axis (Germany in the 2nd game) to try to regain my reputation as our best Germany player. We play with RR, Submerging Subs, no bid…

As USSR he buys 1/2 INF, 1/2 ARM & stacks Karelia & Yakut. Caucases he leaves w/ only 1 INF, Russia he leaves either empty or with a few ARM, he puts 2 ARM on Yakut.

T2 he attacks everywhere, not caring about losses, just crippling the Axis drive with attacks on Manchuria, Ukraine, Norway & Caucases (if Germany takes it T1). This sets the Axis back so far they never recover. Usually T3 USSR takes Eastern Europe, maybe a trade or 2 happens, but by this time Africa is a non-factor and all the Allies sweep into Europe. This seems to happen every time. What really galls me is USSR keeps building 1/2 INF 1/2 ARM every turn–they are never in any realistic danger from either Axis power.

1st game I made a weak move in Africa & lost my fleet T1, so Germany was reduced VERY quickly (like in 5 moves). Japan was doing well but it didn’t matter after Germany fell.

2nd game I made a strong & meticulously planned move on Africa and managed to keep the fleet (at Suez) for 3 turns. I took Caucases with 1 INF & 1 ARM as a spoiler & held Africa for most of the game. But it didn’t matter 'cuz USSR did their same move, took Eastern Europe T3 & when Germany lost the counterattack endgame began. I HAD lost 3 FTRs the first turn due to lucky hits by the UK & lousy ones by me (I had attacked w 2 SUBs 4 FTR & USSR had put their ships there).

Each game I have left 1 INF in Ukraine, moved 2 from South Europe to West Europe & stacked everything else in Eastern Europe. Planes all land in Western Europe. In Germany/ South Europe I put all my purchased INF & keep 2 ARM in reserve. I buy all or almost all INF every turn w/ an ARM or 2 when I can afford it. Last game due to the losses T1 I bought a FTR, that might’ve been a mistake. Even tho I held North Africa throughout the 2nd game I didn’t have enough ARM there & couldn’t move very fast–also strategic bombing took most of the African ICs every turn. The Japanese weren’t as strong on the 2nd as they were on the 1st game, but Germany was defeated in both cases before Japan even became a big factor. Maybe I should just take the losses & sink all the Allied ships regardless? I have been letting the 2 North American TRs go…

UK helps USSR. USA just takes shots at Japan & helps UK by invading Africa. The games end before USA can really do much.

Is this just a further sign we need to start playing with a bid or is there a way to beat these tactics with the above rules that I just haven’t thought of? HALP! :cry:

Ozone27

Oh, there was a DEBATE going on? I’m sorry to have interrupted… :wink:

How is the fact that the people of the GDR refused to work, refused to listen to the government, and in large part decided to leave the country different from a general strike? ANY government that is in direct opposition to the will of its people is “on its last legs”. What are you talking about–that fascist countries are the only type of “police states”? Are you saying the GDR was NOT a police state? I don’t understand what you are saying here at all…

The fact that you don’t even know who the SPD are casts doubt–in MY mind at least–that you know the least bit about European politics, or really anything you have been talking about at all. Just my opinion as of right now… :wink:

Ozone27

Seems like it to me too.

We play w/ 2nd Edition rules w/ the exceptions of RR & Submerging Subs. A bid is getting closer…

Ozone27

Now I’m relly not gonna post on this topic anymore 'cuz all it’s doing is upsetting me and not one thing I say here is gonna change anyone’s mind… :wink:

That is all. Return to your posts.

Ozone27

:D I know I promised but you people are infuriating me!:D

I know a gal from Oaxaca Mexico who is a DOCTOR & had a practice there. She finally gave up because she could no longer make a living (no one could pay her & she was at the end of her rope working 12-hour shifts for no money).

So she married a (legal) Mexican-American & got her green card & works here in a LAB 'cuz she can’t even get a nursing license without going all the way back through American medical school. They eventually got divorced, and recently she went down to the INS to apply for citizenship.

She scored 100% (which most of you probably couldn’t even do, I know I couldn’t–that thing is hard) on her citizenship test, has 2 American children, has been living & working here for years & they refused her application because she HASN’T BEEN DIVORCED LONG ENOUGH! See, they want to protect “good” “honest” Americans who marry foreigners from being exploited by people who–GASP!–just want to be Americans.

So now she’s thinking of moving back to Oaxaca because to her its better to be poor & help people (rather than test urine samples for $12 bucks an hour) than be in a place where no one wants her around…

Now that’s just one example, but you know there are a lot of other people out there just like her, and here we are, lucky enough through having done nothing but get the luck of birth & happen to be US citizens by default…

Why does it hafta be so damm hard for these people to get green cards and eventually apply for citizenship? Most of them are just law-abiding hardworking people & you know it! They are just the objects of this ridiculous suspicion like their crooks for no good reason!

Ozone27

The point of a general strike is that it is GENERAL. The whole population (or a signifigant portion of it) takes to the streets & refuses to work. Not talking about the Teamsters here, I’m talking about EVERYONE. The strike “leaders” can’t be arrested because how is the government going to identify & get near them when the streets are filled with angry uncooperative people, taking control of police stations & public broadcast systems (TV, radio stations etc.)

F_alk is right on about the example of the GDR, and I already mentioned Yugoslavia. No doubt a few people were hurt, but that was nothing compared to the wholesale violence & destruction a civil war would have caused.

F_alk, that is a great point about the Turks in Germany. It’s good to read from a German who obviously tries to understand Turks on their own terms from their own perspective. All too many Germans just want the Turks to leave (a lot from areas where there are few-to-no Turks!)…

Re: gun control, as I stated before, I do think Americans have a right to keep & own firearms–but only to the point where they are actually endangering other people. You can’t hurt someone w/ mere words (not physically anyway), so freedom of speech is different. It’s not infringing on gun rights to say you should be responsible w/ it. What is so awful about limiting gun use to responsible people who are going to be safe with them? That’s most people I think–just not a few nutjobs. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t think the F. Fathers meant (in spirit, if not by the letter of the poorly written Amendment) for people to be able to run around with completely unfettered use of weapons–I think they envisioned a bit more responsibility & respect for your fellow Americans.

Ozone27