Posts made by saburo sakai

Frimmel has it exactly right.  I’m not saying there is any reality to the situation, just describing how the rules work.  If you’re looking for reality, play something else.  This is a board game designed much more for playability than historical reality.  For example, how likely is it that in every battle, units die in the order chosen by the attacker or defender.  All the infantry dies before the artillery before the tanks before the fighters.  Or that transports, submarines, destroyers and fighters all die before the aircraft carriers and battleships.  How realistic is that?

Like I said, if you’re looking for realism, you’re looking in the wrong place.

As for the Sumatra and Java convoy routes, just because they are labelled below the islands, don’t assume that is where the convoy route is located.  Capturing the convoy route implies control of the entire sea zone in which the convoy route is located.  Therefore, all “traffic” to and from the island is interdicted.

As for all of your rule changes.  You are no longer playing A&A Pacific.  You are just using the A&A Pacific board to play some other game that you have made up.  That’s fine, as I understand from your comments on the Harris Game design board why you are doing this, but don’t take issue with those of us who play the game for the sake of enjoyment and choose to learn our history from books.

SS

There are no convoy routes associated with either Manchuria or Siam.  Japan does not need to control the adjacent sea zone in order to receive the IPCs for these territories.  Likewise, Japan does not need to control the sea zones surrounding Bonin Islands or Ryukyo to recive the IPCs for these territories.

Only where convoy routes are clearly marked as associated with a particular territory do you need to control both in order to receive IPCs for those territories.

SS

This is the Map for Advanced Axis and Allies Europe or AAAE, developed by Der Panzinator over the last several years.

You can find out about this version of AAE here:  http://www.axisdomain.0catch.com/Files.html

In AARevised (at least using Larry Harris Tournament Rules), subs can either retreat or submerge - they don’t do both.  If they retreat, they can retreat to the same sea zone as any other naval units that participate in the same attack and they must retreat to a sea zone from which at least one of the naval units involved in the attack came from.

Submerge: An attacking submarine may withdraw from combat after all attacker and defender
units have fired, at the same time as all other attacking units withdraw. It may retreat on the
surface to a sea zone from which at least one attacking sea unit came. If it retreats on the surface,
it must retreat to the same space as all other sea units that retreat. One or more attacking
submarines may also withdraw by submerging.

SS

@timerover51:

Just curious about something.  Has anyone else used a strategy based on sinking as many Japanese transports as possible on the first two turns of the game?  I have used this a few times as the Allied player, and also seen it used in a couple of games that I was moderating for my summer historical gaming class, and normally it works pretty well.  The Japanese player finds himself building transports instead of other units, while I then start working on his navy.

Killing Japanese transports is always a good idea for the Allies, but it is only the sloppy Japanese player that leaves more than 2 or 3 transports exposed through the first 3 turns of the game.  Thereafter, the transports should be consolidated in a fleet of Japanese ships and will act as cannon fodder for the big battle that almost always happens.  At that point, Japan doesn’t mind losing the transports.

SS

@Craig:

I sent an email to D. Jensen with the new pdf asking him to post it, like he did with v1.3.

I was hoping that he would get to it before the links from other sites started popping up.

The link listed is a link to the DAAK site, through the AAMC site.

No rules were changed, just clarified.

Enjoy!

Craig

Actually the rules that were changed significantly where the National Advantages.

LHTR v2.0 is out.  You can access it here:  http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=392

With regard to the aircraft carrier question, the aircraft move separately from the aircraft carrier if they are owned by the same country (for example, US planes on a US carrier).  However, if the aircraft and aircraft carrier are owned by separate powers (for example, US planes on UK carrier), the planes are treated as cargo during the UK combat phase.  If the UK carrier is lost in the battle, the US planes go down with the ship.  As well, the US planes do NOT participate in the UK combat.

SS

Frimmel and Cyan are both correct.  The answer to your questions is “no”.

SS

@Blitzer:

I just purchased A&A Pacific and I had a few questions regarding the pieces.  I just wanted to know if Japan is supposed to have only 8 tanks?  Should there be more Infantry than Marines?..because I have 25 dark green and 12 light green.  I counted 305 pieces between Japan, China, U.K. & U.S. and 24 IC’s & AAguns and 6 Task Force Markers = 335 Total.  Is this correct?

The piece total is, in fact 335.  This is from the official FAQ:

Miscellaneous
The box states that the game comes with 345 plastic playing pieces but mine contained only 335. What am I missing?

Nothing. Everyone’s game came with 335 playing pieces. That’s how many you’re supposed to have, counting industrial complexes, anti-aircraft guns, and task force markers. The box is in error. Sorry for the confusion.

SS

Here’s a slightly less sensationalized version of the story.  The wikipedia article was based on rumors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19468182/

That is weird.  :?

@middleware:

@saburo:

In Europe or Pacific, you can call off the amphibious assault after the naval battle, but you can’t redirect it to another territory.  This is on page 13 of the Europe rule book and page 17 of the Pacific Rule Book.

SS

Exactly the same as A&A Revised.

It is exactly the same as AARevised using the Out of Box Rules.  If you use LHTR, then you can’t call off an amphibious assault after the naval battle.

In Europe or Pacific, you can call off the amphibious assault after the naval battle, but you can’t redirect it to another territory.  This is on page 13 of the Europe rule book and page 17 of the Pacific Rule Book.

SS

@Blitzer:

I have a couple questions concerning Fighters and Aircraft Carriers. 
Can I land my fighter on my aircraft carrier that is in a convoy sea zone if it was hostile at the start of my turn?

What is the rule for placing new fighters on new aircraft carriers?  And placing fighters or allied fighters on new aircraft carriers?  And can you place more than one fighter on the carrier if possible?

As far as I know you cannot place new fighters on carriers that were already in the sea zone, they must be placed on land just like in the Revised version.

Thanks.

1.  Yes, you can land fighters on your aircraft carrier regardless of the status of convoy zones.

2.  You cannot place any fighters on a new aircraft carrier until the next NCM phase.  If you built a UK AC, you can land a US fighter on it on the next turn.  You can place 2 fighters (yours, allied or both) on each aircraft carrier.

3.  New fighters cannot be placed on “old” carriers in AAEurope (although under Larry Harris Tournament Rules 1.3, you can place new fighters on old ACs or newly build ACs.

No.  In AARevised (unlike AAEurope and AAPacific) an attacking sub must survive one round of combat first and can only submerge if there is no defending DD present.  In other words, there is no “substalling” in AARevised.

SS

The answer to both questions is no:

The following is from page 13 of Larry Harris Tournament Rules 1.3 under the heading, “Amphibious Assaults”:

Sea Combat: This is handled like any other sea
combat (only sea and air units participate).
All your sea units (including your transports)
attack all enemy sea units and fighters in
that sea zone. If a sea combat occurs, your
battleships fire at the same time as your
other attacking units in the sea combat. They
cannot support the assaulting land units.
Once all defending sea and air units have been
removed from the battle board in the sea
combat (i.e. sunk or submerged), then the
amphibious assault begins. If any land units
originally designated for the amphibious
assault survive the sea combat they must now
offload into the amphibious assault.

[emphasis added]

It is actually interesting to look a little deeper at the rankings.  The US ranks relatively poorly in 3 categories:

• Massive Movement of Refugees or Internally Displaced Persons creating Complex Humanitarian Emergencies

• Uneven Economic Development along Group Lines

• Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violation of Human Rights

With respect to the first of these categories, the US scored a 5.5, a little better than Malta (6.1), Latvia (5.7) and SAfrica (6) but worse than Huga Chavez’s Venezuela (5.2).  I’m not sure if this refers to the US immigration problem (probably) or to those people displaced by Hurricane Katrina who still had not been relocated in 2006.

As for Uneven Economic Development, this probably reflects growing income inequality in the US and while true may not be on the same scale as that found in places like Armenia (6) since while there is income inequality very few Americans are impoverished by world standards.

Finally, the US scores 4.6 regarding human rights and arbitrary detentions, on a par with Mali (4.6) and Croatia (4.5).  This clearly must be a reflection of Guantanamo Bay and the more onerous provisions of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act.

SS

@AJ:

30th … you can probably blame ABBA for that too

:lol:

Thank God the US is more stable than Chile… just  :-D

SS