Signups are now open for the 2007 AARevised National Advantage Tournament. Please check out the sign up thread at the AAMC message board and sign up today!
http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=353
Saburo Sakai
AAMC Commander of Tournaments and AAMC League
@Imperious:
On both counts your not entirely correct:
a party which is issued a court judgment can then file an abstract of judgement and attach this to articles of real property and create a hold on the ability of the owing party to sell or refinance those properties. Eventually the sheriff can actually got to the bank under court order and remove funds from bank accounts.
This is not true either… the other party can file a new lawsuit if the first one is proven to be overly punitive and attach some special hardship monies if it can be proven that the first lawsuit damaged the reputation or business long term standing.
I think you misunderstood my point. Until you have a system that penalizes the plaintiff (as opposed to enforcing a judgment against a defendant), frivolous lawsuits will be encouraged. If you’re the defendant and are not claiming anything against the Plaintiff and you win at trial all that happens is the plaintiff’s case gets dismissed. So, I’m not talking about enforcing a judgment against a defendant. I’m talking about enforcing a claim for legal costs against an unsuccessful plaintiff.
As for your second point, why should it be necessary to prove that there has been damage to business reputation. If a lawsuit if completely frivolous, the party defending it should get paid its costs regardless of whethere there has been any damage to its business reputation.
@Imperious:
They should force this judge to pay for wasting the courts time in hearing such rubbish and then drop him out of a plane on the southern tip of Argentina with no parachute tied to a dry cleaning machine wearing only grey pants like the ones hes suing for. ILL have the owners of the cleaners be the ones who get to push him out.
This is the fundamental problem with the US civil justice system. Plaintiffs do not have to pay defendants if they lose their lawsuit. In almost every other common law jurisdiction (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand…), if you sue someone and do not succeed in proving your claim you can be responsible to pay the defendants their costs, sometimes based on a tariff that ends up reimbursing the defendant for 20 to 25% of the total costs right up to solicitor and client costs which would see the defendants compensated in full for successfully defending the case.
In the US, the plaintiff does not bear any of the risk of failure, thus there is no disincentive to bring a frivilous law suit. The only tort reform you need in the US is to make plaintiffs pay the defendant costs if they do not prove their case and to not let the case proceed if the plaintiff does not have the means to pay a costs judgment should one be awarded.
SS
US is 11. Mexico is 14. UK is not in the top 20, but Norway is #18
Here’s another map that might interest some Texans: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-oil-reserves-countries-map.html
Now you’re thinking. It’s possible this could develop into a full blown variant!
SS
How about “Axis & Allies: The Drinking Game”
Something involving Vodka, Beer, Gin, Saki and Bourbon, I think.
SS
That’s right. AAPacific is not like Revised. Only the attacking subs get the first strike capability and only if the defending force does not include a Destroyer.
SS
Actually, in AAPacific, subs get a sneak attack in every round of combat where there is not a defending destroyer present.
Transports participate in all naval battles. When they are part of the attacking force, they do not have an attack factor and cannot “hit” but can be taken as casualties. They do not have to fight to the death. At the end of any round of combat and attackers that survive can retreat to one sea zone from which any one of the attacking units entered the battle.
SS
IPC cash to be spent later. New units on the board changes J1 too much.
SS
every pacific game i have is the all out blitz for india. either japan wins or loses very early on. people have tried to fine tune how to perfectly get as much to india as quickly as possible.( i think i have it down)
if india is not taken, might as well give up with japan. thats why after about 10-14 games of pacific, i have stopped, unless you invent some cant do the crush on india rule.
You don’t need a “don’t crush India Rule”. All you need is a bid. 12 to 15 IPCs for the Allies prevents Japan from having a good chance to take India. Playing to 24 VPs - instead of 22 balances the VP game.
In my view the game is perfectly balanced between players of equal skill if you give 12 IPCs to the Allies to distribute amongst the three Allied sides as a one time “gift” at the start of the game. Set the VP target at 24 and go to it. No other rules need to be modified to achieve a balanced game.
SS
I was just reading back through some of these old posts - mostly out of curiousity. Some of these strategies are truly wacky!! Buy 5 tanks - bizarre. Did these things actually work!!
SS
You might have seen this before:
Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by US Air Force
pilots § and the replies from the servicing (S)crews.
§ Left inside main tire almost needs replacement
(S) Almost replaced left inside main tire
§ Test flight OK, except autoland very rough,
(S) Autoland not installed on this aircraft
§ #2 Propeller seeping prop fluid,
(S) #2 Propeller seepage normal  #1 #3 and #4 propellers lack normal
seepage
§ Something loose in cockpit
(S) Something tightened in cockpit
§ Evidence of leak on right main landing gear
(S) Evidence removed
§ DME volume unbelievably loud
(S) Volume set to more believable level
§ Dead bugs on windshield
(S) Live bugs on order
§ Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm descent
(S) Cannot reproduce problem on ground
§ IFF inoperative
(S) IFF always inoperative in OFF mode
§ Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick
(S) That’s what they’re there for
§ Number three engine missing
(S) Engine found on right wing after brief search
§ Aircraft handles funny
(S) Aircraft warned to straighten up, “fly right” and be serious
§ Target Radar hums
(S) Reprogrammed Target Radar with the words
There are only three days left to sign up for the 2007 2nd Edition 2v2 Team Tournament at AAMC. Get together with one of you best friends or your keenest rival and sign up today. The Tournament starts May 21, 2007.
For more information and to sign up click on the signup thread at the AAMC Message Board: http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=265
Saburo Sakai
AAMC Commander of Tournaments and AAMC League
Kill India Only - The Tordenskjold Maneuver
May god have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.
Go forward until the last round is fired and the last drop of gas is expended…then go forward on foot!
General George Patton Jr.
It is perhaps slightly anacronistic to start an essay about a game based on the Pacific theatre of World War II with quotes from a General who fought only in the European theatre of that war. However, the points Patton makes in these quotes capture the essence of the strategy I will discuss in this essay. The Kill India Only tactic is not for the faint of heart and the central premise of KIO is the desperate, merciless advance of which Patton was one of the most famous advocates.
I will not claim to have invented the KIO. As far as I know, the first player to use this attack in a club game was Tordenskjold, an excellent player and member of Days of Infamy. The attack was also independently developed by AndrewAAGamer, used by Simone Molinaro and revised slightly by yours truly. It is also the subject of a long strategy discussion in the Days of Infamy Bullpen that can still be reviewed here: http://www.rjware.net/DOI/bullpenarchive/t420.html
While many have contributed to the discussions and strategies behind the KIO, it was Tordenskjold who first implemented this strategy and for that reason I sometimes describe the attack as The Tordenskjold Maneuver.
As I have alluded to in previous essays, the Tordenskjold Maneuver concentrates all Japanese efforts on capturing India by J3 or J4 with no prospect of an alternate path to victory. In VP-bid games, it was not uncommon to see a player intending to try a KIO attack bidding 99 VPs because in such a game the VPs simply do not matter. The KIO attack, in the absence of an Allied IPC or IPC unit bid, typically has a better than even chance of success (probably about 70%-80%) and, for that reason, Days of Infamy implemented to the inverse IPC bidding system to prevent or at least discourage KIO attacks.
The Allied player will know immediately if a KIO attack is coming. On J1, Japan buys 1 Bmr and saves 4. This is consistent with the concept of all offence.
Similarly, the J1 attacks are all about positioning for the attack on India. In Asia, Japan will attack Kiangsi, Kwangsi, Shan State and Yunnan. In addition, Hongkong is sometimes hit as well. The attacks are intended as much to kill UK and Chinese units as they are to capture territory. Indeed, the attack into Yunnan is often air only or sometimes supported by a single infantry. These units defend on a “2” in round 1 but cutting down the defenders available to counter the J3 or J4 attack on India is critical.
In the western Pacific, Japan attacks Malaya, sz46, takes sz47 with 1 DD, 1 AC, 2 Trns and a BB, attacks sz43 with 2 ftrs, kills the UK trn in sz54 with the FIC Bmr and hits sz38 and Philippines with everything else in range.
In the eastern Pacific, Japan will usually hit sz9 with 4 Ftrs and 1 sub and take Midway with 1 Infantry and 2 Ftrs.Â
In summary, the J1 attacks are approximately as follows:
Kiangsi - 4 Inf, 1 Arm vs 1 Inf
Kwangsi - 3 Inf, 1 Rtl vs 1 Inf
Yunnan - 2 Ftrs, 1 Bmr vs 2 Inf
Shan State - 2 Inf, 2 Rtl, 1 Bmr vs 1 inf
sz54 - 1 Bmr vs 1 Trn
sz46 - 3 Ftrs, 1 Trn (loaded with 1 Inf, 1 Rtl) vs 1 DD, 1 BB
sz47 - 2 Trns, 1 DD (loaded with 4 Inf, 1 Rtl), 1 BB, 1 AC - walk in
Malaya - 5 Inf, 2 Rtl vs 3 Inf, 1 Ftr
sz43 - 2 Ftrs vs. 1 Trn, 1 DD
sz38 - 3 DDs, 4 Trns (loaded with 10 Inf, 1 Rtl), 1 BB, 2 Ftrs, 1 Sub vs. 1 Trn, 1 Sub, 1 DD
Philippines - 10 Inf, 1 Rtl vs. 2 Inf, 1 Ftr
Midway - 1 Inf, 2 Ftrs vs. 1 Inf, 1 Ftr
sz9 - 4 Ftrs, 1 Sub vs. 2 BB, 1 DD, 1 Trn
At the end of J1, Japan should have captured all the territories it was trying to capture and killed all the units it attacked. The points of vulnerability for Japan are primarily sz38 and sz54. If Japan fails to kill the sz38 sub or the sz54 transport then the KIO is almost certainly doomed.Â
After J1 NCM, Japan should have strong forces in sz47 and 38 and blocking subs in sz33 and 34 to prevent the UK sub from substalling into sz38. The Japanese carriers have moved to sz36 from Midway and the BB from sz36 has moved to sz46 to protect the transports there while a DD moves to sz45 to escort 2 transports in that sea zone.
[Where it is permitted by board posting rules, I have attached a mapview map file of a KIO game that played out right to US4 so you can better see the map position at each stage.]
On Allies 1, the UK has no alternative but to buy 2 subs in order to prevent a strong J3 attack on India. The one UK sub in sz54 must move to sz53 and the UK BB from sz50 must move to sz52 to prevent Japan from attacking the subs in sz54 on J2. They can then be used for substalling the Japanese attack until J4.
The rest of the Allied counter to a KIO is open for debate. Some players try to play straight anti-crush (see Essay #2). Others will prepare for a Japan invasion on US4. Either might work but probably has less than a 50% chance of success.
On J2, Japan kills the units in sz52 and 53, the UK AC in sz49 and captures Burma, which will almost always be vacated by UK. On NCM, all units that can reach Shan State by land or sea are placed there with the remaining units moved to Malaya by transport where they can be loaded and moved to India or Burma on J3. The Japanese subs and stray fleet units in the Eastern Pacific continue to play a blocking game with the Allied fleet. The key here is to prevent the UK from capturing Philippines on Allies 2. After that, the Allies will be too late to do anything usefull. In Japan, ground units are purchased to repel an Allied invasion. Nothing else can get to India by the decisive battle and all you need to do in Japan is hold on for the win.
At the end of J2, Japan should have an unbeatable ground force in Shan State and a large fleet with plenty of ground units in sz47.
On Allies 2, the UK substalls into sz53 and 52 to prevent any of the units from sz47 getting through to India on J3. This delays the attack until J4. The rest of the Allied fleet moves forward as fast as it can. If Japan is the target, they have to be in position to attack Japan by Allies 4. If anti-crush is the objective, everything that can reach India must be in place at the end of Allies 2 to fly to India on Allies 3.
On J3, the Allies capture Burma once and for all, kill the subs in sz52 and 53 and move all of the land units from sz47 to Burma on NCM. If there are bombers not needed for other tasks, they should SBR India as well to cut down the number of defenders on J4.Â
At the end of J3, Japan should have up to 16 Inf, 7 Rtl, 2 Arm and some fighters and bombers in Burma ready for the attack on India. The Allies will simply not have enough units to repel the attack. The Japanese player will sometimes keep a single ground unit on a transport in sz54, so that this unit can conduct an amphibious assualt and allow all avaialable DDs and BBs to provide a support shot in the J4 battle. In any case, the outcome is likely not in doubt.Â
Further, if Japan has positioned some of its fighters in Shan State or FIC at the end of J2, these fighters can either fly to Japan to defend against an Allied invasion or be used in the attack on India on J4, depending on where they are needed.
On Allies 4, after India has falled, the Allies are often left with no more than a desperation attack on the Japanese homeland. Odds are rarely better than 20% of a successful capture and Japan wins the game at the start of its next turn.
The KIO is a clear example of an attack that does not divert any effort to anything other than the main objective, capture India. Blocking units are only used to slow the Allied advance and no ground units are diverted to capture non-essential islands. In war, this is undoubtedly good strategy but in a game, like AAPacific, this tactic has a tendency to ruin the game because it allows the Japanese player to follow a series of rote moves with no real opportunity for the Allied player to effectively counter the attack. That was the main reason why Days of Infamy decided to implement the inverse IPC bid. The additional ground forces in India reduce the odds of a successful KIO to a point where the game is balanced again.
Saburo Sakai
[attachment deleted by admin]
It is not my essay. As I mentioned, it was prepared by James Redford, a former DOI member. I don’t know how to contact him, but the best bet is to contact Rich at wargamer’s Club at this email: info[at]wargamersclub.org… He may be able to get or give approval for publishing.
SS
The US cannot build ICs in Korea, Manchuria or Shantung. When these territories are liberated from the Japanese, they become Chinese regardless of which power or combinations of powers has retaken the territory.
Control of territories cannot change hands between allies even by consent. If the UK or China had the ground units that captured, Siam, FIC, Bonin Is. or Ryukyo Island, the allies cannot agree to place a US control marker there.
However, there is one minor exception to this. If ground units from both China and the US attack and capture FIC or Siam, it is up to the US/Chinese player as to which nation’s control marker is placed on the territory. Note that simply having US airplanes participate in the attack is not enough. There must be US ground forces surviving at the end of the battle for a US control marker to go on FIC or SIAM.
In summary, the US may only build ICs in FIC, Siam, Philippines, Bonin Is or Ryukyo Islands if it controls any of those territories at the beginning of its turn.
Hope that helps.
SS
I read this in the morning paper, too. Hilarious :lol:
SS