Posts made by Ruanek

Speaking of keeping it clean, I was wondering if it might be best to ask for someone official to confirm (or deny) answers from other people, and for the people asking to post that their question is answered, so that those posts can be removed. to keep the thread short, simple, and uncluttered.

@Young:

Germany moves ships into an empty SZ#110 for an amphibious assault on London. Is it true that the UK only needs to scramble 1 air unit to void all naval bombardment? Thankyou for your answers in advance.

Yes.  The Alpha + .2 rules state “They (the scrambled planes) may defend against the enemy ships conducting the amphibious assault even if friendly ships are not present. In either case, resolve combat as usual during the Conduct Combat phase.”  Since the naval units cannot participate in more than one battle per turn, they cannot bombard.

They’d have to be separate (meaning different interceptors and bombers for each).

@Sig:

Well this session went badly.I lost Holland,and Spain. My dad just keeps making more and more infantry and tanks,he keeps getting good rolls,one roll with infantry destroys all my defenses usually. I have 3 loaded transports,but I think Portugal is to risky, I’ll let my dad keep Portugal and Spain until I build up a huge amphibious assault for it.And I think Russia is about to be invaded through the North…I just can’t think of a way to stop Germany.

Through the north?  Do you mean through Norway, or through the Baltic States?  What kind of army does Germany have there, and what kind of army does Leningrad (since if it’s in the north that’s probably the target) have?

One thing you should do as Russia is never let Germany advance more than 1 territory per turn.  If you leave 1 infantry in a territory Germany can’t blitz through it, and that can give Russia a bit of time while the USA and the UK attack and hopefully draw attention elsewhere.

@Sig:

-Are you using the Alpha + .2 rules and setup?
-How strong is the Axis Air Force?
-How strong are the Germans on the Eastern Front?
-Do the Germans have transports?
-How much does Italy have in Africa?
-How strong is the Italian fleet?
-Who attacked the true neutrals first?

-The Italians have a Strat Bomber and a fighter,Germany has a Strat bomber,4 fighters,and 3 tac bombers
-They have a line of men,probably 15 infantry in Poland and Hungary combined,plus 8 tanks,3 artillery and a tac bomber in the two territories.
-Italy has 2 infantry,1 artillery,2 tanks,2 mechs in Tobruk, that’s it.
-One transport
-Italy has a Battleship,a destroyer,and 2 transports.all in the med.
-I did,my dad neglected to tell me what the consequences were.

It looks like you probably can’t save Egypt, then.  That’s not too bad, though.  You can build more units down in South Africa and if you go for Rome with the USA that’ll divert Italian attention.  If you can destroy Italy’s fleet before its turn you could possibly save Egypt, because they may not want to attack with only 2 tanks and 2 planes (though they’d still probably win).

The weird thing about Germany is they don’t seem to be preparing for a major push into Russia with so few tanks and artillery.  With only one transport and a damaged fleet it isn’t going for Sea Lion, either. With Russia in Romania Italy isn’t in a good position to help push into Russia, especially with its meager air force.

I’d recommend going for Rome with the USA, and reinforcing Egypt (through South Africa) and Holland with the UK.  Russia could either keep building up or attack Germany, depending on its forces.  In any case, though, Germany definitely doesn’t have enough time to go deep into Russia before the USA and UK can threaten Rome and Paris, and maybe even in Berlin.  Barring any unfortunate die rolls, it looks like you’re going to win, and though it may take a while to push into Germany you should be able to take the other capitals (Rome and Paris) without too much trouble.

@Cmdr:

@thatonekid:

straight from alpha 2:  "2. Major industrial complexes can only be built on originally controlled territories (this includes upgrading minor ones). Likewise they may no longer be upgraded when captured. Major industrial complexes are reduced to minor when captured. The original owner of the territory may upgrade it if the territory is recaptured. "

Yes, I know.  I am saying Larry should change it so that you can upgrade a complex on a foriegn capitol, if only to end the game faster.

So we should bend the rules to help the side winning when it’s doing really good?

As the US, if you have Atlantic naval supremacy, you should probably get a ton more transports so you can land a steady stream of units into Gibraltar or Spain.  Remember, if you have Gibraltar you can use its naval base to get back to the Eastern US in 1 turn (and use the base there to get back to Gibraltar in 1 turn).  I’d get at least 7 more transports so you can have 5 at Gibraltar, 5 at the Eastern US and switch them each turn, dropping off 10 units in Gibraltar or Spain each turn with them.  Just remember to have a few other ships or planes in the Gibraltar airbase to protect the transports from the Axis air force.  From Spain you can easily threaten France or even Rome, and it raises the possibility of reinforcing Egypt and/or destroying the Italian fleet and/or transports.

Alternatively (or maybe additionally) you can set up a similar transport chain from New Brunswick Nova Scotia to Britain (because again the naval bases on both sides let you get back to the other in 1 turn), sending troops up from the Eastern US.  Then you could threaten Denmark, Norway, France, and even West Germany.

If Britain is secure (meaning the Germans can’t do Sea Lion, an amphibious attack on Britain) because of the UK fleet I’d recommend investing more in Africa, maybe even a minor IC in Egypt if you think you can keep Italy away from it long enough for it to be useful.

I’m a bit surprised that the neutrals were attacked, because it isn’t normal to happen, but since they were you should try to grab South America with the US (even if they’re pro-Axis) because really the only thing stopping you before was the possibility of the Axis getting a few European neutrals.  I assume they already have those at this point.

If Germany hasn’t attacked Russia yet then you’re in good shape.  They can’t win without going deep into Russia (or maybe by overcoming your naval supremacy, but that seems to be impossible from what you’ve said).  Be ready for a German attack, and if they ever look weak you should think about attacking them to open up the Eastern Front.

One thing to be careful of is you have to know when to take Paris.  If you can take it but won’t have enough troops left to hold it from the German counterattack, then don’t do it.  You’d actually help the Germans by giving them the extra money from capturing the capital again.

From what you’ve said, you’re actually in pretty good shape.

A few questions:

-Are you using the Alpha + .2 rules and setup?
-How strong is the Axis Air Force?
-How strong are the Germans on the Eastern Front?
-Do the Germans have transports?
-How much does Italy have in Africa?
-How strong is the Italian fleet?
-Who attacked the true neutrals first?

@Gargantua:

Don’t ever capture paris - you’ll see why.

Advertise to your opponent, if you want to stress him out, all your “Possible angles” of attack…  all the territories you can take… he’ll likely try to underdefend everything, and forget what actually matters.

Why wouldn’t you take Paris?  It’s not really that difficult, and every turn you don’t take it you’re denying yourself France’s IPCs and letting them build up more (probably not a huge amount, but it’s so easy to stop early).

@suprise:

In all the games we’ve played , France has survived the opener 4 times I think the Axis were able to pull of at least  one victory of the 4 times.  I say don’t reset because France makes it threw one round

What do you mean by “pull off one victory city of the 4 times”?

Wouldn’t it work better to just keep everything in one thread?  I feel like having one thread discussion cross over to another thread is a bit strange.

Russia can’t afford to invest in a navy when it’s about to get hit by Germany (in my opinion).  The German air force could eliminate it with little difficulty because Russia didn’t build anything to protect it.  And if it did then Barbarossa is going to go that much more easily.

@Krieghund:

It’s a little hard to believe that in all of this discussion no one actually took the radical step of consulting the Rulebook.   :-o :lol:

From page 36: “When major industrial complexes are captured, convert them to minor industrial complexes and remove any damage markers in excess of 6 that are on them.”

Now we all look stupid.:lol:  Though to be honest I barely consult the rulebook anymore because of all the Alpha + .2 changes.

Here’s a question.  It hasn’t actually come up in any games I’ve played, but it seems like it could.  Can you use a plane attacking and retreating to a different territory (because another unit attacked from there) to essentially give it one extra movement?  I know it basically works like that for non-planes, but or planes I think you’re technically supposed to announce the full flight plan before launch which would make this seem less logical.

@thatonekid:

kreig, what if an enemy sub attacks a carrier with a sub??? does that automatically mean the planes die too??? i think so but im just checking

I’m not sure of your question, but I’ll give it a shot.

If the attacking sub scores a hit in the sneak attack phase, then the defender would have to take it on either the carrier (damaging it and forcing the planes to land one space away or die after the battle) or on the sub, but the defending sub could also fire in the sneak attack phase and the carrier could fire in the normal phase.  The planes could never fire.

@Emperor:

@JamesAleman:

@Emperor:

Question: The Axis have a Major IC with 10 damage, the allies capture it, reducing it to a Minor IC, does it still have 10 damage?

That is interesting, its half damaged, so there are 4 choices.

• 1-Either it has 10 as they are damage markers and have not been removed by paying for them

• 2-Since it was half damaged, the minor would be half damaged, round up to 2?

• 3-Since it was half damaged, the minor would be half damaged round down to 1?

• 4-Since the rules state that a minor factory can have no more then 6, the other 4 are dropped.

4 is most likely(in my opinion), as it is a good compromise: it follows the minor factory rule, and the allies still save 4 damage dollars. Can’t wait to see the official verdict. Really good question.

1 makes sense from a strictly technical aspect, it did receive 10 damage markers earlier and payment is the only way to remove them. The minor conversion has no effect on damage markers or it would discuss the effect. The minor damage cap rule only refers to the max damage it can receive from all current and future attacks. If no money is spent on repairs; technically the damage would remain.

It seems possible that if it was recaptured and converted back to a major, it would still have 10 markers, since no one paid to remove them.

Edit: checking the Alpha 2 rules, the last sentence under both paragraphs regarding minors and majors reads: “,after that they are no longer assigned” Assigned could indicate that existing ones may continue to exist as no new ones can be added. It could just have read that no more than 6 or 20 are possible. Which would clear the issue. Or it could say that a minor factory can never have more than 6. It simply says stop assigning, and does not say there is a maximum. It is implied but not stated. This assumes this rule supersedes the book.

All excellent points and right in line with my reasoning as well.  I can’t find anything that supports reducing damage.  Another consideration, The axis would have had to pay 10 to repair it to full capacity, should the allies get to only pay 6 for a factory they bombed in the first place.  Also, the allies risked their bombers to inflict the original damage, how do we justify just waving away that damage?  An interesting set of circumstances.  I too look forward to the official ruling.

Then lets look at it from the opposite perspective, a minor IC has 6 damage and is upgraded to a Major IC, if we follow the logic of Option 4 the damage should be upgraded as well.  After all the change in damage was do to a change in the factory, not Repair or SBR.

Damage would increase because you built new industrial facilities?  That doesn’t make sense.  Whereas if you stop using portions of industrial facilities, damage to the now-unused sections no longer matters.

In any case, the official ruling is that the damage would be downgraded to 6 because minor ICs can’t have more than 6.  And upgrading damage makes no sense at all.

@Emperor:

@gamerman01:

James, this isn’t up for discussion or analysis.  Krieghund has stated unequivocally, that the damage on the minor would be 6 in this example.  So, it’s your #4.

EM, the official ruling (I know you love to point out that I’m not official, which I’m not) has already been posted on this thread, I am 99% certain.

If he has, please link to the quote or provide the page number.  Nothing personal.

Uh, you’re asking us.:)  If we are wrong, Krieghund will no doubt jump in to say so soon.  But I doubt anyone here wants to dig through that much material to find something.  No offense.

@Krieghund:

The planes remain in the air until either they are shot down or the battle is over.  If they survive the battle, they have whatever movement they didn’t use in combat movement to land in noncombat movement.  If they used all of their movement to get to the battle, they crash (unless another carrier can move there to pick them up).

The movement of one space to find a place to land applies to defending planes only.

Ah, ok.  I wasn’t sure about that.

@docfav7:

I understand all that.  The question still remains….

Is it after the round of combat the carrier is destroyed?  Or after the combat round?

After the round of combat or after the combat round?  I’m a little confused by your question.

In the battle, when the attacker designates which things are hit, if the carrier is selected then it is damaged and/or removed (if already damaged or taking two hits) and may not participate in the rest of the battle.  The planes may continue to fight regardless of whether or not they can land after the carrier is lost, because they’re already committed to the battle (unless the attacker chooses to retreat).

The one move to land actually only applies to defending planes, I think, or if the plane’s move has fully run out (intending to land where it is after combat).  Then it gets one free move.

@wrath3:

VC is for viet congs. And even them played to win the war and not the cities.
Limiting the game to VC takes away a lot of different strategies and we don’t like linearity, we prefer organized chaos/creativity.

What strategies exactly are taken away?

@wrath3:

Where is the axis & allies global 1940 domination thread, ie no victory cities ?
This victory cities is just artificial rules in order to make a strange game, this game (even with AA rules) is balanced with the principle of catching a runner with a laborgini, its just a matter of how far back you start with the lamborgini…

If I remember correctly A&A always had VCs.  A larger map means more VCs and slightly different VC rules, that’s all.

@Kobu:

@Alsch91:

Krieghund mentioned that the rules are going to be changed slightly.
AA guns will be rolled for all planes simultaneously, and then the attacker will choose casualties.  A slight change that benefits the attacker.

Still won’t raid with that. That’s more AA guns being fired. Bombers getting through is small consolation if each raid costs costs a few fighters.

That’s not more being fired.

@Alsch91:

Well historically Russia did postpone bringing back Siberian troops to the German front because they needed to establish that Japan would not attack them.  So there was a fear that Japan would start a war with them. 
Potentially it could have happened.  Just like potentially Germany could have attempted Sealion.  The game lets you try stuff like that.

Well, like Clyde85 said, Japan had no ability or desire to push through thousands of miles of the Soviet eastern territories just to help out Germany.  Sea Lion was planned, and could have actually happened (if the battle of Britain went differently).

I love games that take historical situations and allow historically plausible outcomes that didn’t actually happen (e.g. Sea Lion).  But there needs to actually be a reason for players to be historically accurate, as well (in this case, with Japan not always needing to attack Russia).  The game shouldn’t be deterministic in that it will always follow certain things that happened historically, but it shouldn’t go the opposite way either and force a player to deviate from history to win.

And, to JimmyHat - there’s a HoI3.:)