Posts made by zooooma

The trickiest thing with the AAs is that they are now country specific and do not necessarily belong to the nation that controls the containing territory, so you might need to mark it somehow.  You can also try to by the missing pieces online.

@StuckTojo:

I believe I’ve seen Paris hold about three times.  The dice gods can be a fickle lot.

Well if the odds of Paris holding is 1%, I bet there were 100 games of Global played in the first week of the games release.

It’s arguably not good design.  Especially if optimal German play means skimping a little more (to pick up extra percentage points when the battle goes well).  Yeah, it’s fun to reenact the fall of Paris, but ultimately does it just introduce unnecessary variance?

@Private:

Although I have known Paris not to fall G1, when as F I threw some very lucky dice, there is now way that it can withstand a follow-up attack G2.

So taking Paris remains the G priority until it falls, ahead of either London or Moscow.

If France fails, all those starting French IPCs translate into French defenders (more dead Germans) instead of German units.  The swing cannot be overcome.

@taamvan:

there is no way that you should fail to take Paris.� it is a 99% odds battle in your favor if you only bring the ground units that can reach and there are 2 planes that you can elect to bring that cannot really go anywhere else on G1.

If you are failing to take Paris it is because you are undercomitting the battle and trying to grab other squares or move other directions.� �

Why should a 1% chance of failure be the acceptable risk?  This is wholly arbitrary.  You can lessen that risk by neglecting other battles, or you take bigger risk in France to gain a bigger edge elsewhere.

Taking France doesn’t guarantee an Axis Victory.  Accepting an extra 1-2% chance of failure might be the right play if it gives you a good head start the 97% of the time that you still crush France.

@taamvan:

After WW2, nukes aren’t fun.   They make for a rather boring game, though it exists (Supremacy) and has many editions, but not all that many current followers, I suppose.   Ships and armies are just wooden blocks…they don’t have a ton of character.

Supremacy has been reimplemented as Supremacy 2020 - they’ve seriously ramped up the pace and it’s not boring at all.

True there aren’t many followers, but it’s only been back for < 2 years, and it’s a small company without the marketing power of Hasbro or FFG.
I’m a big fan and I run a little blog:
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/

Regarding pieces, yes, they are more like Diplomacy Pieces than A&A pieces.  I think they are meant to look like low detail images on a computerized war-room map.  A recent expansion has added more unit types, and a miniatures upgrade should be available soon.

That said, we really don’t need 2 WWIII games with plastic mushroom clouds.  I’d enjoy seeing a tactical level WWII game set in the Russian Front.  Not sure about a Global 1939 scenario.

@Kreuzfeld:

Haha, GHG.

Yeah, that was quite the pivot.  All along it’s been about what the actual US would have done in 1940.

That argument falls apart, so the goal posts get moved and we should actually look at SZ 26 from the perspective of an A&A player instead of its historic context.

Yeah, in A&A the American player knows that Japan is their enemy and is eager to get involved in the war.  That’s exactly why we have restrictive political rules.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

If I’m the American player and you are the Japanese player and you move your fleet to Hawaii I can see that perfectly.

You continue to ignore the fact the SZ 26 =/= Hawaii!
Maybe if you had focused on debating your point instead of ridiculing and insulting people who disagree with you you’d be a better listener?

That sea zone is more than 25% as wide as the entire distance between USA and Japan.  That makes it about 1500 miles across.  Loaded transports 750 West of Hawaii are sufficiently hostile enough for a US DOW.

Basically you’ve invented an interpretation of the board where SZ 26 encompasses just PH, and now are are complaining that your (unfounded) interpretation makes one of the rules look bad.

@Wolfshanze:

Using houserules isn’t messy at all… if it’s messy, it’s because you created a mess to begin with.

Suppose I have an idea for a house rule.  It’s elegant and tidy and I’ve done my best to not create a rule with drastic effects .  I suggest this rule.  My friend ponders (briefly) and counters with a hastily modified version of my rule - not necessarily clean and definitely not well thought out in terms of game play.  Messy.

I can’t expect people to willingly play my house rules unless I do the same with their house rules.  I’ve played with people who want to make house rules purely for the sake of constantly mixing the game up.  I played with another group who had a plethora of house rules based on what they thought was realistic despite almost all of these rules being a big help to the Allies in a game that grossly favoured the Allies already (MB).

I don’t create such messes, but I do avoid them by trying to keep the floodgates closed.

That said, A&A edition rules cross-over is pretty mild.  I’m sort of tempted to play AA50 with AAAs and SBR rules from Global or 1942.

@Ichabod:

No one has argued or made a point of even why the rule was even written in the first place SINCE it actually doesn’t stop Japan and block them like the way that the US is restricted in the Atlantic.

It’s does facilitate blocking Japan.  As long as the IJN has to pass through another sea zone before they get to SZ 10, America can block them.  Without this rule, Japan could park loaded ships in SZ 9 or 12 and USA could not block the amphibious assault.

This actually has been mentioned:

@zooooma:

@Karl7:

Japan moves to Hawaii, the US pulls back to the WUS, and puts 2 dd blockers out to stop attack.  USA build troops in EUS to counter Germany advance.

This.  The rule does not keep Japan out of striking range (like some people think it ought to), but it does ensure intervening sea zones that USA can block. Essentially it allows America to thwart a landing - but not if they just sit in Hawaii.

@zooooma:

@Ichabod:

A rule was written which expressed a PURPOSE of restricting the Japanese from being too close.

What’s “too close”?  Japan can attack USA from SZ 26, but only if the American player chooses to let themselves be attacked (by not blocking the intervening sea zones).

@zooooma:

@Ichabod:

So we have rule intended to keep the Japanese fleet back, but not really keep them back?

Apparently, we have a rule intended not to prevent the Japanese from “sneaking up” on the US, but to give the US enough of a buffer to intercept the invasion.

The rule doesn’t “keep the Japanese fleet back”.  But it ables America to do just that.

@Wolfshanze:

If you’re a fan of the AA50 weapons development, it wouldn’t be very hard to house rule that into 1941 or 1942.

I might go as far as to not update my FAQ for A50 (HB nerf), and to not update my Global map (Western Canada).

House rules can get messy, though.  Plus I like to think playing at home prepares me for tournament play (in case I ever play another tournament).

Nova Scotia, friend!  So close, but so far away.  :-(

@P@nther:

“Only” in the English version of the rulebook? I am aware of only one official rulebook, and this is the one provided by AH, English for sure.

Surely Hasbro’s rulesbook translation team are better suited to reflect the designer intent than those hacks who wrote the actual rules!  :?

This thread is just not sane.

@ch0senfktard:

But they also sell entire sets of all 54 dice:

That’s 33% made up of dice I already have.  Also, no Canada?  :-P

@Hunter:

And have you noticed, it only said this in the ENGLISH version of the rulebook as one of the first replies pointed out?

I’m not seeing this.  Which reply?

But is it unusual that an English speaker who buys an English game printed in English with English rules should use the English rulebook as their source?

Am I to locate a translated rulebook, have it translated back, and then override the original rulebook where applicable?

@Ichabod:

A rule was written which expressed a PURPOSE of restricting the Japanese from being too close.

What’s “too close”?  Japan can attack USA from SZ 26, but only if the American player chooses to let themselves be attacked (by not blocking the intervening sea zones).

Maybe there could be good reason to let them slip through if you think the invasion will fail and you want an early DOW?  That’s up the the player.

@Ichabod:

So we have rule intended to keep the Japanese fleet back, but not really keep them back?

Apparently, we have a rule intended not to prevent the Japanese from “sneaking up” on the US, but to give the US enough of a buffer to intercept the invasion.

The rule doesn’t “keep the Japanese fleet back”.  But it ables America to do just that.

@Ichabod:

Both for gamism reasons, and realism it just flat out doesn’t make sense for an entire enemy Navy to be permitted to park itself right next to the US Navy’s most important Naval Base in the Pacific Ocean…

… Regarding the size of the sea zones. Yes, they’re huge. But they’re pretty darn close to an area that a navy could patrol; which means for gamism reasons, make no sense that any nation’s Navy could pass through undetected for a very long time.

Visually the width of SZ 26 appears to be no less than 25% of the distance between Japan and Western USA.  This is a bit of stretch to be considered “right next to Hawaii”.  It’s not even an issue of USA knowing they are there.  It’s an issue of whether their presence (in so large an area) would trigger a DOW. Seems unlikely considering:

@taamvan:

One of the last islands in the Hawaii chain is French Frigate Shoals, and the Japanese in real life lurked right there with ships subs and seaplanes, right before and right after PH.

By the time it’s apparent those ships are heading further East, it’s already Japan’s next turn.  In this game you cannot intercept a fleet on your opponents combat movement phase.

Anyway, it’s silly to argue too much about realism in this game, and it’s silly to second guess designer intent.  I’m only posting because I want to read GHG’s next enlightening and persuasive analogy to giving the RCN an armada of unstoppable flying undead pirate ships.

@Hunter:

GHG is not being weird, he’s trying to prove a point to you guys and its going completely over your head.

Not even close.  He is trying to assert a point.  Trying to prove something entails presenting an actual argument.

That sounds reasonable.

One thing MB has going for it is viable Weapons Development.  I remember thinking this was really cool when I first played in 1990, and the game just doesn’t feel whole without it…

Weapons Development is good in MB’s A&A.  Especially late game when the board gets a bit stalemate-ish and progress slows right down.  Even better if you use the optional rule that Japan starts with Super Subs, that’s one extra shot at HBs or IT.

1941 & 1942 have no Weapons development at all.  Global Weapons Development is terrible - without Research Tokens it’s just a poor investment considering how useless the nerfed HB upgrade is.

AA50 was the last game to have Weapons Development worth spending IPCs on (although the HB nerf was a big hit).

Weapons Development aside, I’m sure you are dead on.
All this talk is sure getting me antsy to throw some dice!

My Grandfather was stationed to a mine sweeping sub during the Battle of the Atlantic.  Luckily he came back.  No missing parts - I think it’s all or nothing in a submarine!

My Great Grandfather served in the Royal Navy during WWI.  RN booted him out later on account of his poor eyesight (cost cutting).  He’s been a cadet since childhood, and the military was all he knew.  So he immigrated here and joined the RCN.

When he got to Halifax he was immediately (and unexpectedly) redeployed to BC.  His wife and children arrived in Halifax with no money, expecting him to meet them.  The Salvation Army took care of them and sent them on a train to BC - otherwise I wouldn’t be here.

@Karl7:

Japan moves to Hawaii, the US pulls back to the WUS, and puts 2 dd blockers out to stop attack.  USA build troops in EUS to counter Germany advance.

This.  The rule does not keep Japan out of striking range (like some people think it ought to), but it does ensure intervening sea zones that USA can block.  Essentially it allows America to thwart a landing - but not if they just sit in Hawaii.

@Baron:

Does SZ 13, 14 and 26 are out for Japan until war is declared?

No.  The only sea zones of limits are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
This gives America enough space to defend themselves.

It also means Japan cannot invade Canada without declaring war on the US before actually invading.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

You can get both games at Amazon.ca with free 2 day shipping in Canada as well but they cost a little more. The prices shown are in Canadian dollars, whereas you have to convert if ordering from the US. I think 61 bucks for 1942 and 40something for 1941.

Nice - I hope those prices hold up.  I’ve been o0ff work temporarily for a couple months and going through hell with insurance.  plus I just shelled out for new Supremacy 2020 expansions against my better financial judgment.  :-P

What I want even more than the games I’m still missing is more FMG WWII dice.  I ordered some years ago, but they were so poorly stocked I could only get Germany, Italy, France, and China.

@P@nther:

No, sorry, those rules for Global/Europe/Pacific 1940 2nd edition on the one hand and 1942 2nd edition on the other hand are different, as Baron Munchhausen correctly said. The Anniversary forum is not the right place to outline the rules of these other games - but it is an easy read in the respective rulebooks anyway.

Okay.  The Barron wasn’t clear.

@Baron:

SBR rules, escort and intercept are different from Spring 1942, which is also different from 1942.2

I assumed he meant rules from those games were different than AA50 - not different than Global

I don’t own those rulebooks, and trying to read PDFs on my tablet is an exercise in frustration.
Good to know they are different, I don’t need them outlined.

@taamvan:

.  
this is probably not a case of an error, a mistake, or any kind of grammatical problem.   it is that you interpret the word “within” in light of how a transports move and want it to say “within reach of” with transports but that’s not what it says.

This.  So much this.
It’s very presumptuous.

I for one have a little more faith in Avalon Hill and LH’s team to represent the desired game system.  And they’ve had ~5 to catch this supposed mistake.