Posts made by rjclayton

Patriots will find a way to beat the colts.  But the saints have the heart (and the skillz) to dominate the bears.

hmmm…

this is indeed a tought one.  I believe that they can be targeted for casualties as is suggested earlier in this thread.  It doesn’t necessarily make intuitive sense though to play it that way (if they are indeed just “cargo” about the allied carrier, then wouldn’t they just be sunk with the carrier?).  Still, I think they can be targetted.  What do you think?

While it’s on my mind:

I still see the need to be able to generate a UDR (Unit Deployment Report) from TripleA, like the one you can generate from ABattlemap.  Yes, we are posting screenshots, but who knows if the screenshot hosting site will still be operating 6 months from now.  Or how long they will let these files sit on their server before they are deleted.

Also, djensen is talking about blowing away old file attachments from this server.  So potentially the triplea saved game files will be gone too.  If I try to go back and figure out what’s happening in a game without the screenshot or saved game file, I’m sunk.  However, if we have a UDR listing of all the units in all the territories from time to time, we could still work it out.

Maybe at the end of each round (ie. after US finishes) it could attach a UDR to the end of the USA post?

Classic does not allow moving fighters (new or old) on newly built carriers.  This is a NEW rule in revised.  I don’t see how you can really compare it to classic.

When I look at the difference between the OOB and LHTR for this rule, there is no difference in the purchase or placement of the carrier.  In both cases, the fighter ends up in the sea zone with the new carrier.  The only difference is HOW the fighter got to the sea zone.

In OOB, the move was legal if the fighter could reach the complex (but not necessarily the sea zone).

In LHTR, the move was legal if the fighter could reach the sea zone (but not necessarily the complex).

Which is better?  Which is more fair?  I suppose it depends on your perspective.  For me, I think of the 4 movement for fighters as being the hard and fast rule unless long range aircraft, then it’s 6 movement (I played classic for many years).  In OOB Revised, this quirky new rule bent the old rules that I had become accustomed to, so definitely seemed odd.  The LHTR Revised ruleset seems to intuitively make more sense to me, and doesn’t bend that rule.  So for me I like this rule change made in LHTR.

I think about it like this: If I wanted to send my fighter to combat, with the intention of landing it on a carrier that was not yet fully launched, when it returned from it’s mission would it return to the shipyard, or would it land on the carrier once it was launched?  I think the answer would be to the carrier once it was launched.  And that’s how I justify this rule change.

Rob

Yeah, the validation seems like the way to go.

Then why are weddings so expensive  :-P

Haven’t played this variation, but it sounds dangerous.  I’d probably retreat my pacific bb and trn, but leave the trn in mexico seazone as a blocker.  This prevents him from being able to amphibiously assault panama on J2, and effectively buys you an extra round to protect your atlantic shipping if he continues to come.  I would try not to drop any extra ships in the water though until he takes panama, but would probably pick up a fighter or two in the interim in the event that I want to drop another AC for defense, but still focus on rolling out my trannies to ramp up my shipping.  If he does take panama, theny with 1-2 fighters stationed in WUS and 1-2 trannies in EUS SZ, you could possibly retake panama to shut the door without having to purchase any more capital ships.

If he takes panama heavy enough that you can’t retake, then I’d probably plan on dropping a tranny blocker in cuba seazone to protect a 1 turn capital ship build in EUS SZ.

Anyone else?

Yes, they are adjacent.

http://www.aamc.net/bunker/aaruleclrfd.htm

The following clarifies some of the adjacency questions about land territories and sea zones. See pages 7 to 9 of the Rules Booklet for complete details.

The large Hudson Bay sea zone on the top left side of the board is adjacent to the Western Canada land territory on the top right side of the board.

I hate those dug-in defenders  :roll:

Testing new feature (default is ‘d6’ so don’t have to specify):

Attacker 3inf 1arm Defender 2inf
Rolling 3 1 2:
(1, 2, 4)  (5)  (1, 2)

Your “friend” knows his wife better than we do, and I don’t think your “friend” would be asking you for advice if he didn’t see anything wrong with going golfing.  So, I deduce that your “friend” really knows that there is a good chance he could piss off his wife even more.  If he is willing to take that risk, then you should advise him to go golfing.  But if he would rather be sure about it, tell him to skip the golf and let her get pampered.  After all, your “friend” just had a hell of a time with his Canadian friend at his wife’s expense.

Think of it like Japan’s opening move.  Do you opt for many battles and leave yourself open to bad dice, or do you take the safe route with fewer battles committing a few extra troops to be safe?  In this case, I’d suggest your “friend” take the safe route.

Besides, what happens if your “friend” decides to play golf and the wife gets upset?  Does he tell her “well there was this poll on a&a.org and 68% of people thought I should golf, so you don’t get to be angry?”   :mrgreen:

Wish your friend good luck.

The general recommendation seems to be to try not to move the toolbar too close to the edge of the screen.  This will hopefully help you avoid “losing it” in the future.

Good Luck!

And good luck with the raise.  It’s amazing the wage disparity in different parts of the country.  My wife used to live in Sault St. Marie and when she transferred offices to Guelph her salary almost doubled.  And the two cities are only an 8 hour car drive apart!

Of course, when you compare the real-estate markets in the two cities, you need to make twice as much here just to afford the same size house…

I think there was an .ini file that can be deleted (Make sure battlemap is closed first).  Then when you restart battlemap it will recreate the file and presto the toolbar will reappear.  (probably a good idea to backup the file before you delete it, in case you get the wrong one).

@Soon_U_Die:

For instance, imagine you want to attack a sub, and only a sub, one or two spaces away from your AC loaded with say one Ftr, except you also have a Ftr 4 spaces away from the sub location that you want to use and could land on your AC….IF it moved to the combat zone.  Since a sub cannot fire against aircraft, you do not want to place your AC in harms way by moving it on combat move and allow the sub a defensive shot against it.  Therefore, you commit only the Ftrs on combat move.  The AC only has to move on non-combat to retrieve the Ftrs.

The concern that I would have not committing my AC to the above combat, is what happens if both fighters miss?  The sub will withdraw, and could (if your opponent plays it right) block the AC’s non-combat movement to the seazone to retrieve the fighter with no movement.

But yeah, I understand your logic.

Thanks.

SUD, thanks for the link.  I believe the following quote covers it:

Partial retreats are not allowed for air units. If other units in their attacking force retreat, they must also retreat. They do not, however, have to retreat BACK to one adjacent friendly territory, nor do they retreat at the same time as the other units! Retreating air units retreat only as many spaces as left in their flight range movement. Their retreat is considered the landing phase of their movement and must only be done in the non combat move phase of their turn. Also, retreating air units can NEVER land in a territory that has just been captured this includes “blitzed” territories.

Just reading this paragraph brought to mind another situation I hadn’t thought of:  In combat movement, I move use my entire 4 points of movement to move my 2 fighters into a sea combat, and move an AC there as well to make it a valid move.  But combat goes badly and I want to retreat.  If I retreat my AC, my fighters would splash because no move movement points left for the fighters?  This is different than defending fighters and AC, where defending fighters get 1 point of movement to land safely if their AC is sunk.  Would this be the correct interpretation of the rules for this situation?

Thanks Avin & SUD.

Rob

I really like the idea, but I’m not sure it will look right visually.  Better might be to use the full width, and just add it at the bottom of the page under all the different forums?

I can’t believe I’m reading about americans complaining about shoveling snow <shakes head=“”>.  I actually enjoy shoveling snow.  I enjoy my neighbors, and it’s the one time during the cold months where we are outside long enough to talk to each other.  It’s also really peaceful being outside right after it’s snowed.

@ncscswitch:

In NC, I have SWEPT some snow off a front porch or steps 2 or 3 times. :-)

We had a crazy snow fall last year where we got 1 foot of snow, but it was so light and fluffy I just swept off my entire driveway with a big broom.  Crazy!</shakes>

Is it in the manual?  If so what page?  Or was it later qualified on the Avalon Hill Website?  If so can you post a link?  I’ve been looking, but the only mention I could find anywhere was in the 2nd Edition manual on page 19 under subsection 8.  And for land combat on page 18 under subsection 6.A.

Nowhere can I find mention of fighters retreating differently than other land/naval units.  The way I’ve read the rules, fighters would have to retreat back to the same square as all the land/naval units.  Thanks.

All-time best quote:

We’re watching 24 last night, and at the part where the terrorist is whispering in Jack’s ear that he’s the leader, my wife turns to me and says “This is where Jack goes Hulk Hogan on everyone”, with an evil gleam in her eye.  And sure enough, a few minutes later Jack’s shirt is so torn up that he has to take it off.  LOL!