Posts made by Romulus

I do not think Fighters won the combat.

They are unable to hit submarine. Submarine are unable to hit fighters but may hit the transport. So the Japanese have to retreat otherwise the sub will kill the TRN and at that point the combat end because there are only fighters and sub that can not hit each other.

During combat SUB shot only at the transport, they can not hit the fighters.

When a fleet in engaged all of the combat units have to be considered, you can not interrupt the combat saying that you are starting to ignore the subs.

Sub may shot at your transport only during combat (after combat no one shoot), transport may retreat, togheter with alla other attacking forces if they are still alive. If a defending sub hit, in this scenario then the hit ha d to be assigned t the attacking transport.

Great IL! It will be done!!!  :-D

1. I believe yes it is correct.

2. No they can’t. No units may enter in neutral territories.

3. Only if the destroyer belongs to you. Friendly units of different powers may never attack together. They may only defend together.

@Craig:

Romulus- Yes, CAP is different from Escort/Interceptors.

My point about having special rules like the E/I is that fact that the fighters have one set of attack and defend numbers for regular combat and then a second set of numbers for the E/I combat.  That is what I am talking about when I say that the game should be kept on a simpler level (KISS system).

@Romulus:

If we speak of convoy zones and strategic bombing escort, however, we have to consider the different scale or level of the game? This is inconsistent.

Having the two sets of numbers is inconsistent.

Also, the distances on the map are very different from A&A:E and A&A:P than they are in AA50 and Revised.

I agree that the SBR system in AA50 is screwed up, but I don’t think that E/I rule is the way to fix it.  Squirecam and I have been arguing this long before this hit the light of day for the rest of you.  And we will continue to do for a long time after this.  It is just the nature of our relationship. :wink:

Mmm  :? … having two set of numbers is naturally a complication, I agree, but we already have this problem.

Strategic Bombing is already different, because in ordinary combat bombers hit on 4 while in SBR they do a damage to the IC equal to the value rolled. In this case we have not different set of numbers but we have a different interpretation of the dice rolling.

Before Anniversary was released I read some anticipation on SBR and I erroneously believed that it was changed: if the bomber hit (rolling a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4) inflict 1 damage marker to the IC.

Maybe doing SBR in such way is another possibility of going in the direction of the KISS principle, the bomber rolls the dice in a single way instead of having two different kind of attacks and maybe this could fix a little the SBR problems. (However it could make the SBR too weak)

Back to the escort rule, I do not look at the escort/interceptor rule as a way to fix the SBR but as a interesting form of air combat that may add fun to the game. If it could help in solving SBR problems then it may be even more interesting, but I am not considering Escort/Interceptors for such reason.

Nowhere.

Fighters are no longer placed on carrier moving from an adjacent land territory during deployment phase. (This rule has been already changed in LHTR).

You have to move existing fighters during NCM to the sea zone whre you want to build the AC and leave them there waiting for the carrier to be built.

Another opions is to build new fighters right on a carrier in a sea zone adjacent to a territory, containing one of yours IC. The carrier may be an existing one or a new carrier built in the same turn.

This should be referenced as the Strategic Bombing Raid escort.

CAP in Pacific is another rule. I have not the rulebook at hand right now so I recall what I remember of the CAP rule.
If you did not move fighters during CM and NCM you may leave them in CAP = Combat Air Patrol, in a Sea Zone adjacent to the island or the the territory where the fighters are present. Such fughters stay in the air during all the opponent/s turn landing at start of your next turn. During opponent turn the CAP fighters are able to stop ships movements and if a sea battle is fought in that sea zone tehy participate.

Europe and Pacific have the same rule for units of A&A. For example fighters move 4, attack at 3 and defend at 4. Bombers move 6, attack at 4 and defend at 1. Ships move of two and have same attack values of Classic. Tanks move of two and they may blitz the same way he tanks do in A&A (and in Revised) without considering the level of the game.
DD and artillery are not present in Classic, they have been introduced in Europe, and then have been used also in Revised. So for the great part the rules are almost the same.

If we speak of convoy zones and strategic bombing escort, however, we have to consider the different scale or level of the game? This is inconsistent.
First because A&A have no scale. There is no time scale, no terrain scale and no units scale. A infantry miniature is “a infantry”, it is not a division, or an army, or a squad. Is a generic unit of infantry. A turn is a turn it is not a day, a month, a year or the entire conflict. Territories are defined without any consideration of terrain and movement. (other games thet uses territories have few great territories in plain zones and a lot of small territories in mountainous zones)
Second because there are rules that are already used in Pacific and in Revised without any scaling. Tanks for example are the same in Classic and in Europe that have different scales. The paradox is that Classic and Revised (that are at the same “level” uses different rules for tanks defense value… why?

I think that strategic bombing with escort rules is a better way of modeling air operations (the need for having a base for escort fighters for example, the need to deploy fighters in defence of the IC is another example). Moreover, convoy zone are a really interesting way of increasing interest in sea battles.

Yes, it allows for non combat moves during CM. For fighters and carriers move it seems necessary, because when you move a fighter TripleA allows the move only if there is a valid land spot. Sometime it is needed to move the AC during CM to “show that there is a valid land spot”. So TripleA allows to non combat move the AC during CM. After moving the fighters you may, in case, cancel the move of the AC and then move it during NCM to allows fighters landing.

For me it is not a question of realism. It is a question of available strategies. KGF and JTDM are stille the avenue to victory. Sure you can try something different. Someone has won games buying tons of BB with USA and then wiping Japan from the board for example … someone has won playing KJF and reducing Japan to control only Tokio … someone has won conquering London … but it seems to me that the numbers and the statistics say that KGF and JTDM are the more effective way of obtaining victory. Or I am making a mistake?

We already had three games that plays in such way: Classic, Revised and also Anniversary. We need a fourth? Maybe not.

What could be done then? Trying to introduce some variations in the game that allows for several different strategies to work could be interesting. For chance the two things of allowing the game to be more near to the history and allowing for several strategies to work seems be consonant. Allowing more action in the Pacific goes in such direction. Splitting the victory condition of the Axis also goes in such direction: Germany and Japan were only fighting the same enemies they did not coordinate their strategies. They were even jealous of the success of each other. Also winnig by conquering the enemy capital (and capturing a big safe with the writing enemy treasure containing ALL the IPCs of the enemy) is a dream. Moreover IPCs should be something like industrial capacity how is possible to store them in a safe and allowing the enemy o capture such safe?

Victory should be gained controlling key territories on the map (politically and economically relevants). Such key territories are different for different nations. Thay may be spread all over the board allowing different part of the map to be relevant for differen nations. Such points shoul be defended by IC and such IC, when in danger of falling in enemy hands, should be possibily destroyed by the owner. Victory cities (introduced in Revised) and NOs (introduced in Anniversary) could be used to make for such problems. Divide the national treasure of a Nation for his Victory Cities. So each VC is territoy that works as regional centre, that collects, and spend, the income of a set of territories. So not a unique capital but more than one. Lose such territory and you lose the ability to collect income in certain amount of territories. Moreover such territories may also give victory points that added to a runnig total, updated at each end of round, allows a nations to claim victory. Allow a nation to won with its own objectives, that are different and involve different territories.

Finally the question of historicity for me: the game has historical theme, the WWII, naturally it should allow for alternative results (fantasy), allowing for different strategies (not only 1 for each side). However such strategies should be even slightly “realistic” because the “war” is fought on territories that have geographic and economic features.

@General:

But in triple A I can move my carrier FIRST as part of a land invasion… then launch fighters.

Try it.

Yes you may move Carrier but fighters stay in the sea zone, because in TripleA fighters “take off” at start of the turn of a nations.

The fact of moving the carriers in the combat move is useful for allowing fighters move “showing” that there is a possible land spot for the fighters.

Maybe I may do an error, because I do not play by forum but I have read as the forum dice roller works. The number after the @ indicates the attack value of the dice. Hypothetically the hit value should not influence the result of the “dice rolled”, which is always a d6. The problem is that rolling a d6 with an attack value of 13 it is impossible to have a hit confirmation from the dice roller. It is still possible to asses the hits with “human intervention”.

In such situation, the, the 2@13 are two d6 rolled for the two infantry and should be considered ok. If one of them score a a 1, it should be a hit. So the only thing to do is to roll for the 3@3, for having the fighters outcome.

As I said, however, I am not an expert of forum dice rolling, so a more qualified opinion is needed!  :-D

Ever heard of PanzerGrenadier or Armoured Infantry? The infantry in Armoured Division were eequipped qith half-track vehicle to be able to advance quikly as tanks. They fought in the same way the ordinaru onfantry do.

In A&A50 there is a tech that allows 1 inf to move two territories when paired with a tank.

The idea of IL, is not to give scripted strategy or force player to do “historical” things. The idea is bound to geography (or maybe geo-policy).

Why Japan attacked USA at Pearl Harbour? For having free hands in conquering Philippines, Indonesia, Borneo, etc. And why? Because there Japan could found: oil, rubber, metal ores, etc. They are not after cities. And they are also not after capitals. They look for economic resources and strategically relevant territories.
So the war effort should be aimed to conquer key territories on the map that gives economic benefits, while at same time negating them to the oppoents.
With a wise allocation of economical objectives that bring victory for the side that conquer them while cripple the oppoennts economy, player have to devise strategy to achieve goals that go in the direction of promoting operation all over the map.

Another thing, that I have tried to do as an home rules, is victory based on collecting victory points. Each turn a natio ncollects victory points based on the control of key strategic and economic territories on the map. Increasing of such points is the measure of the strategic and economic advantage a nation is achieving while at same time having less point collected “simulate” the moral factor of a nation that may give up in a fight if continually defeated for the control of strategic key points or economical resources or national territories.

So the victory conditions should be individual for each nations and composed of several factors: economical (IPCs), strategical (control of key territories), moral (bringing war in the enemy territories while preserving own territories). Each end of round victory points are given to each nation for the obvjectives achieved. Victory is gained reaching X victory points, with the additional constraints of having an advantage of Y victory points on the other side. (having less then Y victory points allows the war to continue, the advantage is still not decisive).

I know, I have gone too much off topic but what I would like to have is a of assessing the winner, simple (counting victory point at the end of the round is not too much complicated) but also bound to the geography and policy of the wolrd.

I agree about separate victory condition, fore each nations in the factions. A sort of NOs but they should not give money, they should give victory!

Maybe the 1 vs 1 game do not benefits of such approach but it is really a good addition to f2f A&A with more than 2 players.

The planes are justly destroyed!!!  :-D

In the real WW2 Axis lost.

I think one possibility could be to give Germany and Japan separate victory conditions and allowing them to win separately. As a consequence even if Germany is defeated if Japan fulfill its Victory condition Allies lost (and vice versa, Germany may win even if Japan loses). This should “persuade” Allies to not neglet Pacific. After all Germany and Japan were in the same boat but they did not act according a common strategy.
This will play better in more than two players, I suppose.

@Profile2012:

the territories that japan start out with in the 42 scenario are all there original territory. Uk gets the NO whether it takes kwantung east indies new guinea borneo burma wake island or the solomons. even though they have the uk symbol beneath the japan control marker. for the fact that the control markers for japan stay on the territory no matter who takes it or liberates it, making it its original territory. the uk symbol is for the 41 set up. now about manchuria and kiangsu is a good question but i still say that those two territories count towards UK’s NO’s cuz the objective cleary says the UK must have any territory originally under japans control. and japan start the game with those two territories making them japans original territory.

No

Q. When the rules refer to the original controller of a territory, do they mean the controller at the start of the scenario or the controller printed on the map?
A. The controller printed on the map. The original controller of a territory is the same whether you’re playing the 1941 or 1942 scenario. China is considered to be the original controller of Manchuria and Kiangsu, and Japan controls these territories

Moreover UK get the bonus if any Allies control an original Japanese territory (in UK turn collect income phase) not only when UK conquer an original Japanese territory.

@zooooma:

@Romulus:

Some weeks ago I was accused of being too much lucky in a TripleA LL games becuse my dice hits more than the expected average…

Ironically LL can be more luck because fewer dice are tossed.  Standard deviation is higher in a smaller sized sample.  :P

I agree!
Moreover a small sized sample is not “statistically meaninguful” in the sense that statisctics laws can not apply to a set of too feew elements. So for being correct we can even not speak of standard deviation if we have too few results to consider.

Moreover, opening moves, which involve battles with few units, are influenced by the variance of the dice rolling. In such battles the balancing effects of the “average hits” are less important than the single die rolled so missing the hit with the die may still causing problem. In the same way battling on the front line and achieving 1 hit more than the average (scoring with the die) is still “disturbing” to some player.

I found interesting your consideration about the “underdog” concept.

I said that I think of ADS and LL as different in the skills required.

IMHO, ADS requires a greater effort in strategic planning for handling also adverse results and call for a strong risk management in making strategic and tactic decision. Also the logistic of the game is indirectly influenced by the battle resolving method, losses in battle and reinforcement needed are not simple to foresee, so a player have to plan is logistic not knowing all the variables.
(By the way risk management is a discipline, for example in handling software development projects, so it is not a contradiction speaking of trying to handle risks.)

In LL my idea is that the great skills a player should have, in addition to strategic ability, are the ability to make optimal forces allocation, in minimizing risks (not managing or handling but “minimizing” i.e. avoiding it at all, trying to avoid them being a factor). Strategic decision are still hard to do but logistic is simplified, because a player think in advance to force allocations, it is quite mathematic to know what he is going to lose in the battle, wich will be the position and wich kind of reinforcement will be needed and where.

@Bardoly:

Good posts and well written, Romulus.  +1 Karma   :-)

I agree with you in that NO battle is ever certain, or should ever be certain.

•No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. — Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke

So, I feel that ADS is better than LL because of this reason, but I agree that the battle system should take the upper and lower 5% of probabilities out of the mix.  (i.e. in a big battle, where you have a 90% chance of winning, you could still lose the battle, but not with the defender completely unscathed - 1 example Germany should NEVER be able to capture Egypt on G1 with only 2 inf, 2 art, 1 arm with NO LOSSES!  This happpened in one of my games recently.  I don’t know exactly how to implement this idea of removing these extemes though, maybe if the extremes could be calculated, then when the extreme combat result happens, then either just re-roll the entire battle as if the first combat had never happened (It happened in an anternate universe.  :-P) or lower the result to the lowest acceptable result.  (i.e. possible in the 4 fighters vs 1 battleship scenario, if you completely lost, then the default would be that you at least destroy the battleship as well)

Thanks!

I completely agree with your point. What we need is “uncertainity”. What we do not want is uncertainity obtained by means of complete randomness.

I don not know how to define a dice based  battle resolving system with such features. Maybe other systems than the die should be considered.

Wonderful this pics are awesome! Thanks for sharing Adlertag….  :-D