Posts made by TimTheEnchanter

Actually if the fig is in pearl, that fleet can be sunk with an “average” of only about 1 casualty if the BB takes the first hit. But with no real fodder there is certainly significant downside risk for japan if the dice start to go bad.

Just thinking out loud here, but the lack of destroyer means the japanese could take out the linked fleet in sz30, including the infs, with relatively minor losses (~2 fig instead of ~4). But this still limits the resources available to go after Pearl, China and the sz59 destroyer, so japan has some interesting decisions.  Can someone who is better than me at sketching these scenarios out tell me…What else could japan hit if she went after the sz30 fleet without the DD?

If the attacker retreats and there is no more CV for the planes involved in the defense, all defending figs get one movement point to escape to friendly territory or SZ (if there is a carrier with capacity handy). Since Hawaii is US/Allied control, both the US fig and the Brit fig can land there.

The same would apply in any other cases - say germans attack allied fleet in north sea protected by US planes. If CV is sunk then germans retreat, US planes could escape to UK (or any other adjacent allied territory) on germany’s turn.

@axis_roll:

In a fairly even game, what percentage win would you need in a battle that, if you won it, would just about win the game?

Assume that you can afford to lose the attacking units / there is little risk to losing your position if the battle goes for the opposition.

66% chance?
75%?
50%?

Assume also that both players are of about the same skill.

Not sure I understand the question.  If it’s a “fairly even game” against a player of the same skill, how could I be one win away from a decisive victory in a battle where I can “afford to lose the attacking units/ there is little risk to losing…position if the battle goes for the opposition”?

If that’s the case, i’d say theoretically you should probably take a shot at at 50% or maybe even lower, because the way you describe it, there’s ultimate upside and almost no downside.  I have a hard time envisioning what that scenario might even look like… maybe a small-scale tank blitz on a poorly defended capital?  Sure…roll dem bones.

But really, if…
…I’m in that position with a chance to win and
…I can truly afford to lose the battle without losing much in terms of units or position, and
…it’s really an even game
I have to assume that means my opponent is similarly close to claiming a decisive victory elsewhere (otherwise how is it truly even if I’m so well positioned, but he/she is not?), so I better take my chances soon.

But in reality it depends on whether I think I will ultimately get a better shot at a decisive battle that is more in my favor by holding off that wouldn’t happen if I make the attack and fail.

Just to clarify re: #2.  If you have enough movement to get to where an allied carrier already is (and it has room) you can land there, but the other person’s carrier can not move during your turn and you can’t hover until the other person’s turn.  You have to land during your turn, moving only your own units.

Does someone on the triplea team need to be informed that “All You Can Upload” apparently does not mean “all you want to upload”.  They are no longer taking uploads and have completed the bait and switch routine by referring you to their Webshots site (which I believe requires a login).

Since the auto-posting to the forum doesn’t work, and now autoposting the screenshot doesn’t work, there’s not much left to the PbF functions.  I understand PBF support is standard in 9.3/9.4 but that’s not considered “stable” (therefore few are using it) and now with the AYCU changes, I can only assume we are even farther away from it becoming so.

Any update on this would be appreciated.

@ncscswitch:

Before this gets off topic…

Is everyone in agreement now that SUBs may NOT submerge immediately after opening fire, despite Jen’s previous posts to the contrary?

Probably everyone except Mazer, since csub’s rules are exactly the opposite.  (frickin’ subs!)

Note: I agree with Jen that this is one case where LHTR seems backwards, and I’ve passed my sentiments on the subject on to Craig Yope and Krieghund  (who seem to be the resident experts on LHTR) in the past. The reasoning I was given is that the attacker gets to act first at each stage along the way, so they get to do so here as well to keep it consistent.  My response was I don’t care whether it’s absolutely consistent on who goes first, I want better gameplay, and I think the threat of defending subs submerging and stranding an attack fleet makes for much more interesting tactical options than the current LHTR order, IMHO.

@Cmdr:

So, in your mind, Mr. Switch, do you think that Submarines submerge before or after the attacker decides to engage again?

By your own admission (and I agree that’s how the OOB rules read, I disagree on LHTR until I get a page and paragraph) the submarines submerge in the same “sub-part” of a combat round.

The following is from LHTR 2.0, page 14, about 2 inches below the paragraph you quoted

@LHTR:

See the paragraphs below for a more complete description and limitations of each kind of
withdrawal.

In step 7, combat continues unless one of the following conditions occurs (in this order of sequence):
Condition A) Attacker withdraws all attacking units (See detailed explanations below);
Condition B) Defender withdraws all submarines by submerging, leaving no other defending
units in play;
Condition C) Either or both sides lose all units

Box rules are definitely ambiguous, but there is absolutely no question with LHTR.

@Cmdr:

As for Axis_Roll’s idea of hit and run in SZ 7, let’s pretend you attack SZ 7 with Battleship, 2 Fighters, Bomber, Transport (everything that can reach.)  That’s 2 or 3 hits on average.  Sure, the Germans only get 1 or 2 hits, resulting in only damaging your battleship and maybe sinking the transport.  HOWEVER, the German submarines submerge before you retreat and you are locked in SZ 7 without the option to retreat.

This was covered ad nauseum in the unbaltic thread.  Assuming you are playing LHTR (which, as you have argued with mazer and npb/bunnies, is the defacto house rules around here as it is used for league, tournaments, etc) , the attacker declares retreat before the subs submerge, so as long as the attacker knows enough to retreat when the defender kills off its surface ships and leaves only the subs, they won’t get caught in sz7.

It’s funny how all the mods are jumping in saying “it wasn’t me that told her to take down that picture.”

Guess it’s teh JenMods!

I find it hard to believe you folks never heard about this.

Rumors started to come out in 2003 that there were criminal investigations regarding his drug use.  Finally, later in 2003 he admitted on the air that he was addicted to pain killers and was going into rehab immediately.  Reports stated that the woman who turned him in said he had bought “more than 30000 hydrocodone, Lorcet and OcyContin pills,” and that he “took as many as 30 OxyContin pills a day.”  This is not just “being in posession of a few too many perscription pain killers.” This was serious drug trade of a huge amount of opiates. They also tried to get him on “doctor shopping” charges but I think he eventually cut a deal and just went for more a more extended rehab program and such.  Helps to have enough money to buy good lawyers, I guess.

Of course this comes from the man who once said on the air “if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up…What [the disparity in arrests] says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we’re not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.”

Hypocrite.

@Cmdr:

drugs should be legal.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Sincerely,
Rush Limbaugh

especially painkillers

@Pervavita:

i think making it legal has more benafits then not.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Sincerely,
Elliot Spitzer

P.S. Can I have my job back?

@Cmdr:

then it becomes a game of can we see Jenny’s breasts and it goes down hill from there.

Well, of course it’s all downhill from there. :-o

@Imperious:

They wont make skinny Soviet tanks.

However the new trick they do pull out of the hat is make the claim that its got 600 pieces, and the reality is is does not have 600 plastic miniatures, but rather they count the freeking dice, chips, and tokens in this total.

Thats bogus. I want 600 plastic TOYS.

Well if that’s what you want…
24 bags of 100 toys for only $60! ;)

Hmmm… it appears that the image was converted to jpg and the quality seriously degraded when I put it on aycu.  I’ll just attach the bitmap file.  I’ve added the extension .txt to get it to load on the boards, just remove this extension from the bmp file and it should work.

The problem with using BigPieces is that if you use a map from someone using the normal pieces, they could be placed too close together and when you view it with the big pieces turned on they will overlap and be more difficult to see.  What I found necessary to make battlemap usable was to redraw the normal sized toolpieces bitmap so that they were easily distinquishable.

Here’s the one I use.

You would just put this file in your Program Files/ABattlemap/AAR folder as toolpieces.bmp (I’d highly recommend saving off the original before overwriting it.)

This was discussed in the CSub 18 thread.  Basically, it depends on which rules you are playing under

• The OOB rules are vague about which happens first, even using the FAQ/Errata info from the web
• LHTR clearly states the attacker retreats first, then the defender can submerge if the attacker is still there.
• CSub’s has their own rules clarification sheet that clearly states that the defending subs can submerge before the attacker can retreat.

Just curious about one thing:  Given the cost of sending the Russian Figs on holiday in London on R1, and the otherwise possibile G1 Sea Lion, how would that change the bids?  How far would bids come down?  Might they go away completely, or even go negative (positive bid for the allies  :-o )?  For the sake of argument, let’s say the per-territory turn limits were in place, but not delayed techs.

Now, this still doesn’t address the “scripted” nature you discuss, and good gameplay should be the highest priority.  (I’d MUCH rather have high bids and good gameplay than an even matchup that doesn’t require bids, but boring play.) But I was just wondering what people thought the “cost” of the instant-tech rules would be to the Allies.

@Cmdr:

As for lightly defended islands, after his fleet was sunk, what did you want him to do?  There was nothing for Japan TO do.  He was effectively out of the game at that point, it was just a matter of his armies getting the notification.

I was referring more to the end when they completely vacated the asian coast and took all their planes out of tokyo as well.  As an outsider, that looked to me as if Japan was promised it would be spared if they went to contest asia.

I don’t remember the circumstances of the fleet conflict (who had the numbers advantage/who initiated conflict, etc), but I was also surprised japan didn’t at least attempt to rebuild fleet to cut you off.  Even though you won, I seem to recall your fleet was pretty decimated too.

Whatever.  All I know is that it was a good read regardless.  :-)