Posts made by tekkyy

This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.

so since there is a cost penalty for “being pushed off”
could cost of amphibious assault be reduced to 1 IPC each transport?

==============OK all attacking units fire at 1, and artillery for defense fire first. thats it add it.

so with that we get rid of art/arm offloading second cycle thing

could a similar simplification be made for amphibious assault on mountainous?
lets says all attacking land units fight at 0, on 1st cycle amphibious assault on mountainous
and then we get rid of offloading limit for amphibious assault on mountainous

DAS is the proper word for this mission. its a real military term. Air reinforcement is nothing in the lexicon of the military

A mission is any time where you move to a new location to engage the enemy. DAS is a mission because your potentially flying to another territory, while defending against the enemy in your own territory is not a unique mission. So its still one mission as active and one mission as passive.

yeah I undestand DAS is real military term
but thats not what the rule is about
the rule is about relocating air units in your passive turn, before conduct combat

DAS refers to a more generic thing in real life
like how you said “potentially flying to another territory”

DAS in current territory is simply normal combat

the rule is about DAS in adjacent territory, hence I sugguest called it just Air Reinforcement or whatever the military term is

++++++++++++++++Thats correct except defending from a CA is not a mission. its basic defense. Defending against SBR is also not a mission.

its not about calling it an air mission
defending air units can do what you call “basic defense” (ie. one cycle dogfight)
but that is the entire thing attacking CA air units gets to do this turn (ie. the same one cycle dogfight)

after doing this “basic defense”, defending air units also gets to perform normal combat (if that territory is also attacked conventionally)

thats like letting defending air units do two things at the same time

oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn

Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.

so to not allow them do two things at the same time
I am think attacking CA air units should tie down defending air units
then they both only do one thing this turn

regarding terrain as most important issues
you like the defender bonus for mountainous/snowy, or the stacking limit for small, or both?

by the way currently I am trying to have AARHE:Lite as a subset rather than a modification of AARHE
of course, when I put Land Combat: Hit Allocation in the draft list, I mean that only relevant portions of the rule will be copied over to Lite

@Imperious:

I just want to know if this was a real invasion or you just landed to exchange a few pieces with the enemy and get pushed off. That type of thing is not what were after and as a tactic were trying to cut out.

thats ok
in AARHE you don’t want to “get pushed off”
you pay 1 IPC for land units to end the turn on a transport

This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.

note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)

one mission on the active turn and one mission as the passive player

you might be thinking of old rules

DAS is no longer an air missions but rather a simple relocation
(it is called air reinforcement to distinguish it from CA/SBR/GI air missions)

this is because current DAS rule is merely a relocation of air units
hence I might as well remove the DAS word all together

(in the old days DAS air units has to return to original territory
but that required a paragraph of complex rules to cater for battle outcomes and to fit into other rules like defender retreat
so now DAS simply gets to you relocate your air units)

so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?

no this is not correct. those attacking planes doing CA can also perform DAS when they are passive on the other players turn.

oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn

Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.

I mean like this…

during active turn, air units that perform CA/SBR/GI OR normal combat (1 thing)
this is so units fight in one space per turn
also this is so we don’t end up with sort of two combat phases (to resolve air missions and then to resolve normal combat)

during passive turn, air units perform normal combat only (1 thing)
unless it was targeted by CA, where it then additionally performs dogfighting against CA air units (2 things)

yes and you also know that would be its mission on that turn. those planes cannot perform other missions. Its fair. Its basically the rule from AA D-day, but scripted for strategic game.

yeah idea came from D-Day
though its a bit different
you don’t kill units and you don’t have the strange leave your units in enemy territory thing

(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)

Well the defender should have something to face tanks showing up right off the bat. Perhaps all its units first round fire preemtively?

or how about all attacking land units fight at 1 on first round?

and by the way we still let defending artillery fire in opening-fire on first round

Or, you can use the program I am using. Lyx. Its a GUI for Latex.
So the program looks like a word processor like MsWord.

Send me whatever you got so i can get it on my page, plus links for lyx or whatever its called.

I’ll emailyou a doc file for now.
(I got a pdf2doc program and converted it.)

Latex’ll require some learning. But its the ultimate document preparing system. Books are written with it.
You’ll need to install Miktek (a Tex engine for windows) and Lyx (a GUI latex editor).
Miktek http://miktex.org/Setup.aspx
Lyx http://www.lyx.org/download/

@Gerbilkit:

Um… I’m confused. How the hell are you stopping the Japanese from taking India round one if you’re pulling 2 infantry out, unless you have Colonial Garrison.

I ask at the risk of being obvious …

Were you playing 8 VC game?
If so, LHTR changed it to 9 VC.
So its ok to lose India to stop Germany getting Africa income.
Still an IPC win overall for Allies.

@Imperious:

==== What type of invasion occured? where and how much was landed? Did the landing team get to keep its territory or was it a ‘hit and run’?

The invasion is amphibious assault.
Doesn’t matter how many landed. The current rule is 1 IPC per land unit.

You asked where was it landed.
Are you considering making it different?

Could make it…
no cost for normal terrain. 1 IPC for mountainous terrain (and then get rid of mountainous offload limit).

============= im working on something and i also have this opinion. Lets get rid of it, but i propose this to replace it:

ok so we remove Capture of defender’s retreating army

If you capture a territory from the defender and you have armor ( units moving 2 spaces) and they only moved 1 space to enter combat, then they should be allowed to move and attack units in adjacent territory’s. This would be blitzkreig.

Well there is a problem with letting Armor attack another space. It breaks the game mechanics of each unit only fighting in one space per turn.

*if armor can attack multiple spaces per turn, then why not air units?
*it could get in the way of defender retreats, requiring more complexity to the rule

As you see if we break that game mechanics, it could gets messy.

============== thank god almighty you finally see my point!. Get rid of this idea ASAP. God i really hated it, but allowed it to remain because im a team player. I am sending you the Iron Cross with oak leaves direct from Berlin HQ

hehe yep, Combat Reinforcement: Land Reinforcement is no more

=============== Lets make the range only adjacent planes can DAS. or we can say planes adjacent come on round 2, planes 2 spaces away come in round 3.

I go for only adjacent planes can DAS

(rule is so much simpler not having to describe what happens in the different outcomes due to delay)

================ Yes they can also perform defense.

note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)

so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?

==== thats what CA is. CA is an attempt to crush enemy planes. surviving planes can STILL perform DAS missions.Its just a forced dogfight.

oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn

================= You must try it. Its very valuable to prevent the reinforcement of the counterattack, especially when you have invaded and don’t want to get pushed off the continent by an attack.

ah yes
even though we are removing combat reinforcement of land units, it can still stop non-combat reinforcement

===== ok lets start one. Post how you like it revised and we will trim it.

ok next thing to do
(one thing could be get rid of allocating air units to CAP/naval attack/ASW
air units in naval combat shall always dogfight if both sides has air units)

=======================ok we can reduce this to one simple sequence, but let defending artillery first in each round.
post it and we will have a look.

ok next thing to do
(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)

I am working on a new version using these rules for Axis and Allies Europe. Your part of this naturally. WE call it AAEHE

AXIS AND ALLIES EUROPE HISTORICAL EDITION….

Map is 85% done.

I need the rules in word file sent ASAP. I will make the first effort to get things started and you will finish.

Well its in Latex now. So I can give you a simple text file. A nice word file would take time me to format.
Alternative we could look into PDF editor (eg. Adobe) or Postscript editor (another output of Latex).

Or, you can use the program I am using. Lyx. Its a GUI for Latex.
So the program looks like a word processor like MsWord.

I had more playtesting recently. Hosted two sessions at home. These players were new to Axis and Allies.
Now I am yet more feelings.

Logistic costs are quite expensive. Maybe 1 IPC per land unit in amphibious assault is too much.
How about 1 IPC per transport instead?

I noticed Capture of defender’s retreating army to not affect gameplay much. You roll for each tank in excess of defender at 1…just doesn’t do much. Could consider removing it.

Combat Reinforcement: Land Reinforcement has complex restrictions, and we are talking about a passive turn decision. Currently there is one cycle delay and if defender does not survive first cycle then its too late combat is over and the reinforcement have to go back where they came from. Now then you have to remember those units as they can’t do non-combat reinforcement.
We have defender retreat already, so its not too bad to not allow land units ability to reinforce.
I recall you didn’t like it much anyway.

Air reinforcement (DAS) remains. But I am thinking to remove the delay (there is delay only when relocating from 2 spaces away). Or, only allow DAS a range of 1 (instead of the current 2).

Counter Air (CA) mission was actually used by people. Recall CA stops the defending air units from relocating to a different territory.
Was it the intention that those defending air units can defending in the current territory?

eg. UK performs CA mission at SEU so German air units at SEU can’t relocate to defend WEU. Now, if UK also invades SEU should the German air units at SEU be occupied by UK’s CA mission or should they be able to defend SEU?

Ground Interdiction (GI) mission was almost not touched. It can be removed if we go ahead and remove the land units combat reinforcement.

The simplified Naval Combat Sequence (from discussion season end of last year resulting in removal of screening and other bits) was under test. People still had a hard time getting the naval combat seqeuence.
This one will require a discussion season of its own when we do nothing else about AARHE but this.

I also wonder if In Amphibious Assault can be a bit simply. Its not thre sequence here. Its how only infantry fight in first cycle. Attacker needs to surive first cycle to offload tanks and artillery for second cycle. Its realistic to say they must secure the beach before offloading tanks but then again you wonder if its too tactical / below level of abstract.
Arillery firing in opening-fire and infrastructure defence raising infantry defence by 1 is already giving defender nice bonus.

you’ve selected a huge number of rules you want to keep (1’s), not directly useful  :-P

but, you’ve selected 13 rules you want to remove (3’s), thats useful  :-)
using that we compare with the 15 rules I want to keep

items that overlap are conflicts:

Lend-Lease
Scorched Earth
Terrain
Land Combat
Industrial Complex Mobilization

I resolve these, by agreeing with you. No comments needed:
Terrain: I guess its not the most important of things. Hence I had it as low prority in my 15 anyway. So I remove as you wish.
Land Combat: Amphibious Assault Sequence, 1st cycle: Its important to have amphibious assault with mostly infantry. But its complex. So I remove as you wish.

These conflicts remain. Comments required:
Lend-Lease: One line and no accounting needed. So why not? It is important as US/UK can’t enter Russian territories.
Scorched Earth: One line and no accounting needed. So why not? “Sorched earth” man.
Industrial Complex Mobilization: Its not simple in that it requires adding up IPC value of the units you are deploying. But you don’t really want Battleships to pop out of anywhere but major industrial centres. I am 50-50 on this. What do you think?

items that do not overlap are consensus between us:
(so we have a first draft)

Phase 1: Collect Income
Economic Attacks
Phase 3: Combat Move
Air Movement
Stalinist Xenophobia
Phase 4: Conduct Combat
Anti-Air
Defender retreat
Land Combat: Hit Allocation
Submarine Submerge
Naval Combat: Hit Allocation
Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR)
Phase 5: Non-combat Move
Phase 6: Mobilize New Units
Victory City Mobilization

After this I’ll evaluate the opposite aspect.
But one step at a time. For now, I wait for the requested comments above.

@Gerbilkit:

Um yeah it does. Round two the UK, at best, are pitting an Infantry and a fighter against 2 tnks, if not an infantry or two as well. Unless you brought in the Infantry from Persia, in that case India is going to die in the next round unless you have Colonial Garrison.

Ah I see it now.  :-)
You are thinking UK can only attack with 1 or 2 Inf.
While we are saying UK would attack with 3 Inf.
I guess it depends on whether its KGF and KJF.

KGF is more established. KJF is less popular is still being explored by the community.

Oh and I fail to see how a bid changes anything. Most bids average out around 9 right? That’s an extra tank and infantry for Anglo G1 we’ll say.  Wow that’s exactly the same as I brought in with the transport.

Um, it makes a world of difference.
We are comparing…

Libya + air force —> Egypt
Libya + air force + transport —> Egypt
Libya + air force + bid —> Egypt
Libya + air force + transport + bid —> Egypt

Well when I get some time maybe I’ll try a game sometime as Axis, see if someone goes and kicks my butt and make me eat my words and wish for a bid.

When you get time you could head over to the league.
I believe you can join any time. Just post at the find players section inside the league section.
Just bid 0. You’ll almost certainly get Axis. :wink:

You never know. You might become famous for showing the people Axis does not need bid.

@Adlertag:

In fact, all A&A games have got new pieces in a standard colour scheme. All german pieces are now Revised black, all russian pieces are MB brown, all UK pieces are in new tan, all Japanese in Revised burnt orange and all US in Revised olive green.

a standard would be great

I bought my 1st revised box about 2 years ago and 2nd box about a year ago
(I like to avoid using chips)

Russia, Japan and US were mariginally different
Germany became darker
UK went from tan to pink!

FYI the bid is a faily solid concensus from players here as well as TripleA

@Gerbilkit:

Then there are those of us who think the game is pretty well balanced (apart from OOB NAs  :-P), and regard the bid as completely unnecessary, and ridiculous as well for that matter.

I think you just need to be exposed to a wider player group.
Have you played online before?

@Gerbilkit:

There’s a simple solution for the problem in Africa. Use the transport to drop another tank and infantry down there, use the battleship and maybe another fighter to clear the destroyer.

We know there is a transport. But it just won’t cut it. Try AACalc.

Germany takes Egypt
35% 2 Arm, 1 Fig
14% 1 Arm, 1 Fig

UK would counterattack on UK1 with 3 Inf 1 Fig
83%

yeah its expensive so I settle for A4 tiles for my maps

A0 print $80.00, shop
A4 print $1.50, home

tiles alignment is annoying
but I try to look on the bright side, its modular
(for repair or update, easy travel)

yeah hehe discussion was polarised and things got a bit warm earlier
we all understand that few involved in the discussion actually play with the faulty OOB rules

don’t worry, we are not that crazy about it
we only have 1 playtest game going

anyway, lots of maths indeed

ah yeah
Italy between UK and US can disrupt US reinforcement
western europe and even Algeria
yes new gameplay dynamics indeed

I am wondering about what changes they made to make Italy a fun player
besides landing in Africa what else could the player do?

yeah and that comes back to the issue of informed choices
like, now and then we hear someone’s honest opinion that Axis is strong and stuff  :-D
peer review of strategies and playing online has changed a lot of minds

anyway I would be impressed if you and admins could include interesting statistics with the tournament and league results

yeah I’ve been watching
SE stack looks pretty bad

ah, a substantial different between Tournament and League

yes it would be very useful to consider outcomes as well
maybe Tournament and League results could include such information
then players can make more informed choices and bid statistics themselves becomes even more representative

as for rising bids, I think it’ll continue as long as Revised remains popular

the consensus is Allies has advantage
looking at the tournament forum, typical bids are 5-8 IPC

so I guess 5-8 IPC makes it even, or at least a lot of player think so at this stage of gaming research

(an early stage at 4 years, the trend is upwards
9, 10 and 11 IPC is rarely but has been seen in the current tournament
for comparison, the bid for classic version ended up being 22+ IPC)

unit in Libya and Ukraine are amongst the most common placement
due to common round 1 moves
(Russia attacks Ukraine, Germany attacks Egypt)

I just read about an unofficial patch by AA War Club to fix bugs?

re TripleA
new map some time last year
revised map now looks more like the revised map
more vivid colours

0.9.0.2
http://linux.softpedia.com/screenshots/TripleA_1.png
0.9.3.0
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1487/0930qr0.png