Posts made by TimTheEnchanter

It was just things like Britain not reclaiming empty territories, and Japan just vacating all it’s valuable territories and leaving its capital lightly guarded, it sure seemed like there must have been a promise involved.  Like I said, I don’t know what was agreed upon, I was just going by how it looked.

It may have been mutually beneficial for Germany and Japan to go towards each other to soak up Russia at first, but at some point attacking each other in central Eurasia becomes counter-productive.  The US was becoming a massive threat in the east that Japan, the only ones in position to do anything about it, did virtually nothing to counter.  I was surprised that Germany and Japan didn’t reach an agreement to lay off each other for a while  and go pick off Britain and slow down the US respectively, but Germany didn’t think any agreements were appropriate, so I guess that wasn’t going to happen.

And I understand you never went directly after Germany…Of course you didn’t have to since every one else seemed to do it for you, leaving you to clean up the rest of the globe ;)

@Magister:

Then what happens if 2 powers besiege the third (say Germany+Japan vs Moscow) ? if any one attacks, the other may win easily whoever wins the first one. So the situation would become a stable triangular deterrence ?

To some extent this happened for a brief time in the 1st game.  Moscow held out for a turn or two when it appeared either Germany or Japan could take the capital, because the other would be able to beat the forces remaining after moscow fell.  But it didn’t last long.  And it certainly wasn’t “stable” because russia couldn’t even pretend to keep up with the other two by that time.

Two things that surprised be about that game were 1) apparent agreements with little benefit to one side.  Specifically, britain and japan seemed to be cooperating with the US but at least from the outside I couldn’t see much benefit they were gaining from it - especially toward the end when the US was obviously the biggest force to be reckoned with.  2)  agreements that could only end in backstabbing. When I’ve seen good diplomacy in something like Risk, it was best to set non-aggression for a limited period of time, or just across a certain border rather than absolute alliance.  If it’s absolute, you know someone will eventually have to break it because in the end ,there will be only one winner. And if you do many of these you want the reputation of being someone who doesn’t break their agreements (rather than, say, the one who gets their opponent to leave Japan poorly defended, then takes it ;) )  I don’t know exactly what agreements were made, but there definitely seemed to be some backstabbing involved.

@mojo:

@mojo:

and yes there’s only 1 MOJO  :-D

O RLY?  :-D

+1 for making me laugh on a Friday :lol:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10481.0

49 pages of game-play, ending with some good old-fashioned bickering and such.  Had it been played face-to-face I’m pretty sure the board would have been knocked off the table at some point near the end…in other words a good game!  An interesting game to follow along with.

There’s been a couple more FFA games started in the main “play boardgames” forum but I haven’t followed them closely so I don’t know how they have played out.

@newpaintbrush:

@TimTheEnchanter:

So NPB, in OOB/FAQ rules, if there is a sea zone battle, and the defender takes all but subs as losses, can the attacker retreat, or can the defender submerge the subs and trap the attacker in that sea zone?  I couldn’t find a clear answer to that.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

Retreats (section)

Can I retreat if I’ve eliminated all the defending units or if all defending units have submerged?
No. You can only retreat if enemy units remain on the battle board.

I believe that indicates that the defender can choose to submerge subs first, leaving the attacker stuck.

That is still vague to me, because the subs may have submerged on a prior combat round. :shrug:

So NPB, in OOB/FAQ rules, if there is a sea zone battle, and the defender takes all but subs as losses, can the attacker retreat, or can the defender submerge the subs and trap the attacker in that sea zone?  I couldn’t find a clear answer to that.

@newpaintbrush:

I’m pretty happy with Wizards of the Coast; all they’ve ever done for me is put up helpful FAQs and ship me free stuff to fix what I think was wrong with my purchased products.

How does one get this free stuff of which you speak?  I like free stuff. Free stuff is GOOD! (and Tanks are STRONG!)

Oh, and allow me to add:

Fricking subs!

It’s not so much that the OOB rules specify that they are similtaneous, it’s just one of the vague rules in the OOB that doesn’t specifically dictate the order so you’re left to wrangle it out with your opponent.  LHTR specifies the order as Attacker, then defending subs.  I just found out a few minutes ago in the Unbaltic thread that CSub’s rules say the sub submerges before the attacker, so it all depends on who you’re playing.

@Funcioneta:

Pals, better end the sex-war debate  :-P All wars are bad (saving wars with plastic pieces , of course), but war of the sexes (spelling?) is the worst war of all :cry:

not if you wage it correctly  :-o :wink:

@Mazer:

The problem is, this isn’t quite how it works in reality.  While it’s true the attacker can’t retreat from submerged subs, they can retreat before the subs submerge.

Now, I do see your worry and wonder whether CSub papers are built from TripleA playtesting data.

Guys, this is just silly.

Don’t you think that a CSub paper would be written under CSub rules?

We don’t write for LHTR, or TripleA, or DAAK, etc.  We write for our own system because it is the simplest and most coherent.

CSub rules are only one page long, and half of that is explaining the bid.  It is completely logical that we would use our own system, not someone else’s.

If you haven’t taken the time to understand the shortest rules around, then don’t be so quick to criticize.

Rules (last link):
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/files/

Peace

Hmmm… didn’t know you had a rule set.  Sorry to have offended you.

I don’t intend to play by them, but they your comment in the paper makes much more sense given those terms.

I wanted to follow-up to this paper based on what I learned trying to use something similar (before I even saw the paper), as I mentioned above.

There is one problem with part of the discussion of what the UK can do in response.  The paper states:
@Crazy:

So ignoring the fleet is bad, how about attacking the boats with everything?  The UK could send 2tra 1btl 2ftr 1bmr against 1tra 3sub 1des.  Clearly that is a good fight for the UK, but it has some interesting risks.  First off, if the UK gets two hits on the first round, the Germans will lose the transport and the destroyer and submerge the subs.  Because you can’t retreat from submerged subs, the UK fleet will be pulled out of range of the American reinforcements.

[[i]emphasis added]

The problem is, this isn’t quite how it works in reality.  While it’s true the attacker can’t retreat from submerged subs, they can retreat before the subs submerge.  Most of the time, for expediency, we just declare our OOLs and submerges at the same time, but that’s not how the rules work.  The defender has to declare their OOL first in conduct combat, then in press attack or retreat, the attacker has the option to retreat. So when you choose to sink the DD and TRN, the UK just retreats before you can dive*.  It seems the best scenario is to strafe with the British fleet (which, by the way, can only score 4 hits so it can’t possibly get trapped by sinking the entire german flotilla), then retreat to sz8 for US reinforcements and perhaps a CV build that was probably going to happen soon anyway.  That’s what was done to me.  Then those subs get hammered by the USAF - especially if they leave an open spot on the brit cv for the EUS fighter. Then you’ll likely get your entire navy smoked if you try to link any remaining subs with the med BB (again, speaking from experience).

So running the fleet limits what the UK can do offensively for a turn, but it lets them bring an extra 4 dots from the BB, and gives them the BB damage and plenty of fodder instead of risking the RAF completely which seems to counter the addition of the subs to the battle.

*LHTR is crystal clear that the attacker has the option to retreat before the defender can dive the subs. Actually the OOB rules are a little vague (surprise!) on who can declare retreat first - the attacker or the defending subs.  But even if you’re playing OOB, the best case scenario is you get in a big argument about who can retreat or submerge first which will inevitably end with the board getting flipped up in the air with pieces flying all over the room.

@Amon:

@Cmdr:

(And this works against the axis too, get that British submarine to SZ 60 and stop the Japanese for a round.)

can you please explain this

I suppose it would be something like

• Aussie sub attacks sz45 and survives to UK2
• Aussie sub attacks sz60 on uk2 and survives opening round of combat from trans and any defenders, if present., then submerges

At that point, japan would not be able to unload those transports to any friendly territory on J2. They could, of course land on any hostile territory.

Frankly this rule is one part of the LHTR that i think is very, very broken.  The thought that a single newly launched sub can scare the amassed allied navy from landing in controlled territory along the baltic is comical.  In my mind, the trannies should be allowed to unload in friendly territory even if the boat itself was involved in combat.  It’s not like the units are getting extra movement.  But what do I know.  :shrug:

@Krieghund:

@Heckler409:

I’m sorry, I need to add another question in here.  Can the aircraft carrier fire on it’s own or is it like the transport?

Yes, a carrier can fire, but so can a transport if it’s defending.

Just to clarify:
when attacking, the Carrier attacks on a 1; the transport can be taken as a casualty, but does not fire
when defending, the carrier defends on a 3, the transport defends on a 1

furthermore with carriers  any figs (including ones from other powers) on the carrier are an additional part of the defense, rolling on 4s - i.e, a fully loaded carrier rolls 3 dice hitting on one 3 (carrier) and two 4’s(the 2 figs); when a carrier attacks, any figs from the attacking power may be added to the attack (or they can fly somewhere else).  However, if there are planes from an ally of the attacker on the attacking carrier, they are considered cargo.  This means they do not participate in battle and will go down as well if the ship carrying them sinks.  On both attack and defense, any land units on the transport are cargo and can not participate in the sea battle (and they go down if that transport sinks).

@Heckler409:

We where trying to play the minor victory but none of us really knew what we were doing.  We almost just played the whole game like risk but with the cost and traits of the different units.  None of us wanted to do that so we attempted to give the whole game a go, with no faction specific advantages.  I would love to give that a try when we get this game down.

I thought I had the most up to date version of the game, I went to “Avalon hill games” and downloaded a 2004 pdf.  It looks the same as the OOB I have.  I should probably go dig around for this LHTR version.

I did quite a bit of digging here in these forums and saw some of the typos posted up.  Some of them seem like common sense, others have quite a different meaning.  Cool game none the less.

You can get the latest LHTR from this site.  Here’s the link

Whats the specifics on Liberating Capitals?  My bud was playing Germany, and thought that it would be tremendously hard to take Russia if he took the capitol and I pumped out units from the UK and USA in Moscow every turn.  My understanding was that Russia wouldn’t collect any money with that one capitol being under German control and that it would be too expensive to continue to pump out units.  Also, I would guess that once all of the Russian territory was under German control, Russia just wouldn’t exist and then the UK and USA couldn’t produce units in Moscow.  I guess what I’m looking for here is an explanation of how this is balanced.

Not sure I understand what your saying, but I don’t think it works the way you think it does.  When Germany captures Moscow and holds it for a turn, it is Germany who can build units there.  If the US or UK liberate a non-capital territory from the axis that was russian at the start of the game (e.g. Caucasus) while the germans control moscow that occupying ally can collect money for and build units in that territory.  (Note that the ally must liberate the territory- i.e., take it from the axis.  If Caucus is “red” when Moscow falls and the US and UK protect it, NOBODY can collect income for or build units in that territory) If Moscow is russian, it is only Russia who earns money and can builds there.  Once the allies liberate moscow itself, ALL liberated territories that were Russian at the beginning of the game, and any ICs and AA Guns in them revert control to russia.

Put another way, Either Axis power can build in Moscow if they capture it, but the ONLY one of the Allies who can ever build in moscow is russia.

I keep seeing something about bidding.  I think I understand the concept but which one of the two sides is at the disadvantage?  Or is it just a perception(ie, I like the allies and so does my bud, I’ll give my bud an extra 9 dollars to play axis).

The general consensus is that for equally skilled players, the Allies have a distinct advantage.  Bidding is the amount extra you think you need to take the Axis.  Note this is extra, not taken from the opponent.  Bidding can either be done by starting with a high value and the two sides alternately going lower and lower until someone says they won’t go any farther, or by using a website (e.g., http://frood.net/aacalc/makegame/ ) which allows “blind” bids to be placed, with the lower value getting the axis.  Different places have different rules about how you can use the bid (some require no more than one unit in a territory, some only let you use part of it on units, etc) so make sure you understand the rules before you decide on a bid amount.

Also, the play boardgames forum has editing/deleting posts disabled, so unscrupulous folks can’t keep replaying their rolls until they get favorable results.  Trust, but verify. ;)

:lol: Wouldn’t it have been easier to just say “Good players should generally avoid battles with questionable outcomes” and leave it at that.  Entertaining read, but not sure I understand what makes that a “policy paper”.

You explain why avoiding questionable outcomes results in what seems to be more “bad dice” results than “good dice” results, but you really don’t explain why that is an advantageous strategy over aggressively pushing more battles each with slightly lower odds.  I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong, just that you don’t show why that approach is better (unless that’s what the whole “Tanks are STRONG!” thing was all about and I just missed it). :shrug:

Thanks! That was my assumption but I hadn’t found the reference.

@tekkyy:

1. For defender is true that the only way a submarine can retreat is by submerging, not the traditional way.

Well, technically the only “traditional” way for defenders to retreat is to get shot. ;)

Re: #2 Yes, it only applies to defenders who submerge because if the attacker submerges, the boats must resurface before the next player moves.  It applies during the attacker’s non-combat move phase.

It says they “may” retreat by submerging, it does not say “must”.  Earlier in the OOB rules it states you can retreat if you “Move all attacking land and sea units in that combat to a single adjacent friendly space from which at least one of the attacking units moved”  Note that it does not say all sea units except Subs.

I think the implication is that if you do a full retreat, you can bring your subs with you, OR you can submerge them and the other units can carry on with the battle if you so desire.

I think this is even more clear in the Larry Harris Tournament Rules (LHTR) which are the default rules for a lot of the league and tournament games played at this site. The LHTR 2.0 clearly states that subs’ ability to submerge is in addition to normal retreat.  "Sea units normally withdraw by retreating one space away from the contested space. The retreat space must have been friendly at the beginning of the turn.

Submarines have an additional withdrawal capability that may be exercised at the end of ANY round of combat. Submarines may withdraw by submerging. They do not have to all submerge at the same time. Only submarines may submerge." (emphasis added)