Topics created by Praetorian

Interresting combination of 2 rules and a way to promote islands hopping:

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4222&start=48

Darby wrote:
All Amphibious Assaults
a) Are at -1 for land amphibious launched land units for the first two rounds.
b) Defenders fire at +1 for the first round.

Amphibious Assaults staged from an adj. tt with some land in it - negate one round of Offensive minuses, and negate the Defensive pluses.

I REALLY like that it still allows people to do the 3 move assaults, but makes it more difficult.

Here’s a few changes I suggest:

On all amphibious assaults, all attacking units in the land battle have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat and all defending units in the land battle have their defense value increased by 1 for the first round of combat (These include Shore Bombardments and Anti-Aircraft Guns). If all transports unloading units on the amphibious assault have moved one or less spaces this turn before unloading, all units attack and defend without these modifiers.

�A lie never lives to be old.� � Sophocles

mantlefan
Post subject: Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 pm

The Changes do well to clarify … but I’m still wondering if we want to reward coming from a bit of land that serves as a logistic staging base.
The way you have it worded – A fleet can wait in a sea zone for a turn before attacking – No benefit as compared to attacking Honolulu from The Marshalls or Japan from Iwo Jima
(Besides the benefit of course of being able to put you land units safely on the islands while waiting to attack rather then at risk on transports.)

Do we want to reward Island hopping as well as just slow assault speed ?

Also I don’t think all attacking units should be minus just ones from transports
a) planes should not really get a minus
b) units from adj. flanking land tts should not get minuses (eg. Landing in Normandy - support from Holland)
c) Shore Bombard should be at full if applicable
etc.

hat might work, but it still harms the UK in London more than it helps Japan IMO. I like the idea where you can still attack if you want, but your troops fight worse if it’s done long range. How about a fusion?

Land units unloading into a enemy territory from transports that have moved 3 spaces that turn have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat. Land units (including Anti-Aircraft guns) that are defending in an amphibious assault have their defense values increased by 1 for the first round of combat, as long as at least one of the Transports unloading into the territory has moved 3 spaces that turn

@calvinhobbesliker:

You’re the one who started the discussion by saying  that japan doesn’t need to take 8 chinese territories.

How is my math fuzzy? China starts with 12 infantry. Killing 3 kills 25% of their power. Japan starts with 14 fighters. Taking one out is taking out 7% of their fighter force and 3.5% of their entire air force.

What I was talking about was in reguards to the Chinese NOT the Japanese. I dont believe Japan needs to focus on taking all those Chinese tt early on, its got better things to do. But this isnt really the place to discuss it at lenght. I made a passing comment, you are the one who turned this thread into another J1 attack fan boy rant. Also, anyone with a bit of sense would never make an attack with 6 planes and 1inf, if they can avoid it. Most people would better support their attacks so they wouldnt have to take fighters as casualities, which you can easily do in China as Japan. A  fighter is more useful, just because you have alot of them, dosnt mean you should be looking to lose them, its a waste of resources

@finnman:

If your spending 20 ipcs ships I prefer to go with three destroyers.
It costs 4 more but you get three ships.

Unless you have only 20 IPCs

Or unless your enemy has 2 or more bbs more than you … then you’ll regret not having more BBs soon or later

You should have at least 1 cruiser in your fleet (and one pathetic tactical bomber, for that matters), you never know when are you going to need it

@Razor:

@thenorthman:

LOL

I spend $100 to buy this game, you dont see me laughing, buddy.

I am laughing at you.

Plus why did you spend $100.  I got mine for $60.  LOL

Plus you actually act like your the age where some one else would of bought the game for you.

Sean

not being allowed to build IC?

As for me playing passively, my strategy is to be done with asia when US enters. I have a bit more of an ANZAC issue this way than when I go all out for the allies, but by neutering the UK and gaining all those IPCs from asia andthe money islands lets me go toe to toe with the US, and I find by forcing him to wait so long to play, makes him antcy to get to it, and thus make mistakes. My record is a bit better than 50% wins, obviously meaning this isnt the be all to end all strat, but it comes down to bad rolls for me means slower push in asia, then I am dead. Only once did I do so poorly that I conceded.

@Praetorian:

@Autarch:

IC’s are supposed to be gateways for new units. I always envisioned them not as factories but as major transportation terminus’ such as rail heads or ports where combat units were transported, offloaded then assembled for battle. There is far too much involved in building armaments and recruiting, training and supporting major combat formations for factories and other infrastructure to be built from scratch on war torn front line territory.

Thats a fair rationalization of what IC might represent.  However, I still think it doesn’t cut to the core issue, that with an IC on the mainland, Japan becomes too powerful.  The IC build is pretty much an automatic build at this point with my group (and I assume, others) because it eliminates so many of japan’s logistical problems (and those logistical problems are fun).

I guess a question I still need to answer is if Japan decides not to build an IC on the mainland are they shifting the balance of power too far to the Allies or does it (as I suspect) shift the balance more to the middle?

It certainly would make it more difficult for Japan. A major IC in Asia is more than twice as efficient as the same amount spent on transports. If your going to houserule this away, you better do something to (further) hamstring China and the UK/Anzac as well.