Posts made by shadowhawk

Can we get a bit more information on what you did and what germany did.

What did germany buy? You mention 2 battleships??
What did you bring to taranto and what else did you do.
What did italy do with its extra BB and transport unit?

Also where are some of your starting forces in afrika? You appear to lack some UK units there or did you just forget to move them.
Same with russia why are they @ the border and split why not all stacked up.

UK looks pretty good actually, if germany buys transports just buy inf and stack londen and you be good. you already got 3 fighters available. Let germany try, if they win londen they lost europe the same round, if they lose @londen they will lose europe the next round as russia cannot attack :P

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Moscow has fallen, how do I recover?:

You tie up more working capitol of fast movers trying to shuttle from South Africa towards the front lines than it would have cost to build a factory or two right near the battle lines in the Middle East.

You can accelerate movement with a couple transports and a naval base, but again this is expensive. Also vulnerable to German or Japanese bombers.

The only reason not to have Middle East allied factories is if you have to fall all them way back to Egypt but still have a chance to stay competitive with a strong Western European foothold, such as liberating Paris or Rome.

Well depends what you do with the egypt transport you start with. If you just add 1 additional transport you already got your supply chain there for 2/3th of a factory.

But yea your right that they are verry volnerable to air attacks but can be usefull in mopping up italian forces in your rear areas.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

@shadowhawk

The thing is, those scenarios are far more unlikely than having defenseless transports, so if you’re playing with new players you’ll have to explain the “infinite dice” rule far more frequently than those stupid fake loopholes, which means the same amount of time is lost. I personally have only experienced those two scenarios you described maybe 10 times (probably less) in the 50-100 games I’ve played in my life (of all variants!)

If you have to explain someone that if there is only 1 side throwing dice they will win then you should not play those persons to begin with.

@AndrewAAGamer
I know the rules, its just that sometimes my opponents dont know them.
Or questions are asked about them on this forum.

And a lot of that is because the defenceless transports rule that really does make it more complex for some people.
Since the rule doesnt change the game at all and it does cause confusion with some players just remove it.

The rule isnt bad it just should not be writen down in the rulebook. Smart players dont need a rule like that to be writen down they just remove defenceless transports by themself without the rule.

Its also not consistent there is no defenceless AA gun rule. If a country with only AA guns get attacked you can also just remove them from the board without rolling unless you attack with only air ( if you attack with air and ground units you should not be playing the game )

@MarshmallowofWar said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

@shadowhawk Well, you could always just tell them that it’s in the rules.

Marsh

Which will result in argument and you having to look up the rules just to prove that it is indeed in the rules. Same happens now when they want to bombard and destroy the transport :(. Because transport is defenseless so i dont throw dice so there was no combat right.

I can explain a 6yo that if you have unlimited tries you can get any number on a dice at least once. And the game is 12+ :)

@MarshmallowofWar said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

The rule is in place to save play time and prevent dumb arguments from people who are bad at math.

A rule that saves me from at least some dumb is a rule of which I approve. A rule that saves me time is a rule of which I approve.

A rule that does both is great.

Marsh

Does it save time if people start to argue that your attacking transports cannot retreat because they are defenseless and therefore auto destroyed? Or that they can do shore bombardment because they didnt have naval combat the transport wasnt a combat?

Looking that up takes longer then explaining someone that with infinite dice you will score infinite hits.

@MarshmallowofWar said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:

@shadowhawk said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:

Not having it also means that the first player that lands there can also land a lot of planes. Having 2 french units and say 8 infantry and 6fighters is a lot worst then having just 8 inf on that zone to deal with. Sure the US cannot build 3 tanks but the ability to land a huge airforce there does mitigate that issue the first round.

This is a concern. However, considering that this actually places a further defensive burden on those aircraft, I think it’s acceptable. If those aircraft are defending ground units, then they’re unlikely to fly away. Also, the Allied player now has the opportunity to make a mistake and to leave the fleet less protected than it should be in an effort to secure the beachhead with fighters.

I can still use those planes offensively, but now you have a land force next to a lot of areas. But the idea was that it hardly makes a difference, sure the US cannot build 3 tanks there well it can just take S-france and build them there. But it does give the allies a chance to land forces in normandy a bit earlier then normal as they got extra defence power. 2 french units and possible airforce.
Does the 3 production really make that much a difference?
Also you cannot attack normandy because that would mean you take it and that would kinda make not taking it pointless.

@shadowhawk said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:

Bombing the harbour does nothing at all. You would normally land from SZ110 which has a UK harbour anyway so bombing it only exposes your airforce to AA fire without any benefit.

It is rather pointless while the UK naval base is operative. If both bases are damaged, it prevents an Allied pivot to the Med from sea zones 105 and 110 as well as the 1-2 Denmark-Berlin punch from sea zone 105 (admittedly sea zone 105 is a pretty weird sea zone). However, I have never been concerned about the Normandy naval base at all.

Marsh

True if both are damage then the US cannot pivot to the med, but then again if your in SZ110 with a big fleet do you really need to. Still doesnt prevent the UK from moving to the med and the US from just swapping fleets around. It depends on the board setup.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:

@shadowhawk

I was thinking of turn 1. 2-4 land units and 6 fighters can reach Normandy Bordeaux maximum. Germany has plenty of enough forces to crush them G2 the prepare for the clash with the Soviets (could be offensive or defensive) turn 4.

Well people state they should never take normandy.
Ofcourse its silly to park air next to your tanks after 2 turns the tanks are gone, most of your land units are gone and i can land a small group with a lot of air.
And all you got to counter are some land units and air so lets trade US fighters vs german fighters.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

@shadowhawk

I do insist on throwing dice if 20+ units are attacking a single infantry. Every single one. I roll them, but once I see one hit, I don’t actually look at them.

While it’s true that the rule you mentioned would cause players to suggest stupid loopholes, we already have answers for them and there aren’t that many loopholes. Getting rid of it now, when the questions and answers have already been talked about, would change nothing, since, again, we already know the status of the loopholes.

There are no loopholes, new players still getting confused by a rule that doesnt add anything to the game. If they have to attack the transport they notice hey this is combat, so since there is combat there is no bombardment.
Or hey since i can retreat i can retreat.

Smart players will not bother rolling on transports that defend and do not have any defence. What would you do if you attack a sub + fighter + transports with only air? The combat will technically never end since you cannot hit the sub and the sub cannot kill you. Keep rolling untill all transports are killed or just stop and remove them from the board.

Maby if the allies are winning they could make your stay at the game verry annoying.
Once japan lost its fleet and has the US parked around its mainland its as good as dead.

So maby the allied player could first capture all the islands japan has with a single transport. Your turn will consist of skipping because no money and nothing to move. Allied player will have all countries to play with guess you will get bored from the game.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:

@shadowhawk

This would be a bad idea by the Allies. Germany would have the chance to destroy an fodder-light, expensive unit-heavy force using cheap ground forces.

Not to mention this take away a lot of striking power in crucial early stages of the game.

If you leave enough ground forces in France to counter any invasion of normandy those forces are not going to russia. And you cant defend everything at the same time.

So US lands its forces round 4 ( around 3 full transports and 4 fighters ). Then the UK adds 3 transports + 4 fighters. Thats 14 land units and 8 fighters. You got enough land units in reach to recapture?
Whats attacking russia at that point?

And if you can recapture it with ease with the added air, why cant you take it back if there is no allied air landed. Since you immediately recapture the factory cannot be used so you might as well get the income.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Iwo Jima:

@shadowhawk

Hypothetically, that is.

I was referring to the kamikazes in destroying American ships if the Americans go after the island on the first turn (the cruiser is required to have a good chance to demolish the garrison).

Hypothetically, you’re right. I don’t remember exactly the past games that I tried this, but I think the Americans didn’t have enough resources to amass such a powerful force. I can’t remember why though, it could’ve been them going KGF.

Depends what turn, Turn 1 then no they dont have the resources.
But turn 3 they could have well over 4 loaded carriers in the pacific and a decent fleet in the atlantic. With starting ground units so capture the island with ease.
You got over 100ipcs to spend the first 2 rounds, and start out with enough air to fill 2 new carriers.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

@shadowhawk

It is useful. It clearly clarifies you can just skip the rolling dice.

Like surrender, I need it to be explicitly stated for me to determine that it’s legal.

Problem is since it states you can skip the dice people think there is no combat so that you can bombard.

Its obvious that if you throw infinite amount of dice you get an infinite amount of hits.
So if there is only 1 side rolling you can keep rolling dice or accept that you will eventually hit.

You can always just throw the dice, like you can always continue untill a victory condition is met. You dont have to surrender.

Would you also insist throwing dice in a land combat where 1 blocker inf is pitted against 30inf 20art 30 tanks or would you just go yea you score a hit lets get it over with?

This extra rule, that adds nothing, causes confusion with some players.

But it really doesnt add anything to the game any reasonable intelligent person would not think of themself.

What happens if you remove the rule, well since only the attacker can roll dice he will roll dice untill the transports are destroyed. Any sane person would see this as inevitable so they would just take away the transports and save time.
So there is no reason to even have this rule in the rulebook. People read half the rules sometimes, start thinking about scenarios that dont apply and then come up with questions.

Can solo transports retreat when they are attacking, yes.
Can i bombard if i only fight transports, NO,
but they are defenseless there was no sea battle, there was a sea battle you just optimised it.

@SuperbattleshipYamato
Not sure kamikaze would be an issue, they only work on the defence not on offense so the US fleet defending does not need to worry about them.

The airbase there would allo 3 planes scramble, if you got a mostly defensive fleet ( carriers + destroyers/subs having japan attack you might not be the worst thing as long as the odds are about even, your counter with subs will destroy their naval assets.

If you put 4 transports worth of inf there its a sizable enough force to demand a lot of resources to recapture and with an airbase and possible naval base japan has to suddenly defend a lot of areas or risk losing some critical stuff.

@SuperbattleshipYamato
Well the map has plenty of these weird situations where distances are screwed.

But if you look at it from a logistic point of view leninggrad was easier to reach, as supplies could be shipped to ports on the route ( not many ) while going for moscow everything had to go via road.

Ukrain is also the same distance as leningrad but in reality its a lot closer.

Not having it also means that the first player that lands there can also land a lot of planes. Having 2 french units and say 8 infantry and 6fighters is a lot worst then having just 8 inf on that zone to deal with. Sure the US cannot build 3 tanks but the ability to land a huge airforce there does mitigate that issue the first round.

And if they keep the zone for long enough that they could produce there there is verry little that stops them from attack you.

Bombing the harbour does nothing at all. You would normally land from SZ110 which has a UK harbour anyway so bombing it only exposes your airforce to AA fire without any benefit.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Why is surrender not an option in the original game?:

@shadowhawk

In my view, since it wasn’t explicitly said by the rulebook that you can surrender, I don’t.

I dont recall ever seeing the option to give up with any boardgames, its assumed people just know that they can lose a game by giving up.
Im pretty sure that other games, baseball, soccer, basketball, and so on, dont have rules that allow a team to give up but that if a team doesnt continue play they just lose the game.

@PizzaPete said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@shadowhawk

While all that is true and valid, if you want to talk unrealistic rules, I don’t think anything comes close to the fact that all the countries stay idle until its their “Turn” to do things.

Some things have to be abstracted to make a game work.

Ofcourse you have to abstract things, planes are not a single plane, you dont get the resources of a area immediately. But these abstractions should be consistent all around. If a certain distance 500km takes a certain amount of movement points it should be roughly the same all over the map. Ships in the pacific dont travel any faster then ships in the atlantic or ships in the baltic.
Flying from LA to NY is a lot longer then flying from London to Paris, yet on the board London->Paris is 25% longer then LA->NY.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Why is surrender not an option in the original game?:

@shadowhawk

I don’t force.

But when playing by myself or if I’m the one losing I always play to the end.

Why? If your axis and its clear you will lose why continue for another 12 hours. Especially if allies are winning things will go slowly downhill for the axis but it takes many rounds before tokyo, berlin and rome are captured. You could stack tokyo with about 50-60 inf and a load of fighters so then good luck invading as the allies. 1 kamikaze a turn means 6 turns without shore bombardment as well.