Posts made by zooooma

I don’t feel any obligation to do the designer’s job. I also think that it’s fair that my opponents (who don’t read these boards or HGD) should be able to reference the rules of play using the documents provided. In my gaming circles, it is common for less experienced players to look through the rules to see if their strategy is legal. They don’t want to ask, because that gives away their plans.

If designers want us to play a certain way, it’s their job to reflect that in the rulebook or errata/FAQ. It’s not our job to guess their intentions and have a debate. Sometimes what a person says is more important that what they mean - especially with regards to a formal document.

Personally I would never assume the rules are meant the way you think they are meant. That would buffer would encompass almost half the Pacific Ocean. By your (generous) interpretation, Japan parking a transport in sea zone 7 would be an act of war! Really?

This would be ridiculously ahistoric, completely unnecessary from a balance perspective, and totally unsupported by the rulebook and FAQ.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

This is all a bunch of B.S.

Players exploiting this rule because of a grammatical error should hang their heads in shame. You know damn well what the intention of the rule is but you exploit it like a despicable lawyer getting his guilty client off on a technicality.

Maybe you are joking?

To compare my desire to play by written rules to a serious moral lapse, I guess you can’t really be serious.

Worth noting I intend to play by the rules when I am assigned the Allies too. This ought to shoot a big hole into the notion that I am somehow exploiting something.

@Wolfshanze:

Is 1942.2 quicker than AA50? It is certainly quicker…

Okay, makes sense.

@Wolfshanze:

Well, there’s a lot of haters of 1941 on this Global-dominated forum, but myself and at least one other guy really appreciate 1941 for what it is… a stripped-down version of A&A, built for speed, ease and a basis to introduce new blood to the A&A world.

I’m certainly a fan of the more advanced games.  But I like to remind myself that, had MB’s 2nd edition been the last A&A game ever made, we would still be playing it and considering one of the best games ever made.

I get that 1941 is more “bare bones” than MB.  And of course I haven’t played it yet.  But I’m optimistic it will be a good game in its own right, even if it pales in comparison.

Plus there is at least 1 friend I have who is interested in learning.

@Wolfshanze:

As for you, your friends, your time commitments and the fact you already own AA50… I dunno… I still think 1942.2 is a quicker game than AA50, for the very same reasons 1941 is a quicker game than 1942.2. It’s really up to you how much time you want to save, in exchange for how much depth of A&A you’re willing to give up.

Yeah.  I was actually making a pitch for (buying and) playing 1942 but I got “talked up” to AA50 and Global!

@Wolfshanze:

The choice is up to you, but realize I think 1941 runs for about $15 on Amazon now… heck, just for the unique unit sculpts alone, its worth the purchase…

Wow, that’s hard to ignore!  I wonder what shipping to Canada comes to.  1941 & 1942 2nd are both on my want list.  Going to have to check out that Amazon deal.  :-)

@Ichabod:

If Admiral Kimmel, US Naval Commander at Pearl Harbor knew how close the approaching Japanese Fleet was, then the majority of the US Naval warships would not have remained nicely parked at battleship row and US Sailors wouldn’t have been taking Sunday leisurely strolls.

There is widely believed hypothesis that US officials were aware of the impending assault on PH, but chose to let it happen.  The story goes that the White House felt they needed to actually be attacked in order to garnish popular support.  As you pointed out, Japan tried to sneak a sub into PH yet still no DOW.

These things are never proven.  But it’s well established that FDR wanted to bring USA into WWII well before he had the popular support to follow through.  Hence the lend-lease act.

I think it’s good that the USA political rules should reflect the the fact that the the will of the populous was the lynch pin in the US declaration of war.

@Ichabod:

Having said that, if there was ever to be a rule book change, or update, I would wish there could be an addendum changing the rules here! No way the US shouldn’t get the option to DOW on Japan if their warships can travel 2 spaces and be the in any sea zone adjacent to mainland US or Alaska. That’s ridiculous to me. Like I said in my initial post, in real life a Japanese sub was sunk trying to sneak into Pearl Harbor. Even for gamism purposes, I think it ridiculous that Japanese ships can park in Hawaii when not at war.

To be fair, sz 26 is represents a lot of space.  in A&A, boats in sz 26 are not necessarily parked in the harbour!  They could be going somewhere else

In the real war USA did not declare war when ships were in the vicinity - they declared war when they were attacked.  There was strong public opposition to the war before that.

@Ichabod:

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I read 2 spaces within to literally mean 1 and 2 spaces…as in if ships are within 2 spaces because they can travel 2 movement points.

Ships can never actually travel to the US mainland!  The rules don’t mention “travel”.  They define an off-bounds area.

If you can’t see the difference between:

within 2 sea zones of Western USA

and

within 2 sea zones of SZ 10

I would question your objectivity.  Most people can tell the difference.  You seem to want to interpret those as meaning the exact same thing!

@Ichabod:

Look again. Sea Zone 26 is 2 spaces from mainland US meaning that ships could go there without a Naval Base.

No it is not.  They are 2 spaces from another sea zone which is adjacent to the US.

@Ichabod:

The rule book doesn’t mean 1 space away otherwise it would have said Japanese ships can’t be 1 space away from the US mainland or Alaska.

The rules don’t use the terms “away” or “from”.  That’s what’s causing confusion.  They define an area within which Japan may not park its navy.

@Wolfshanze:

If you have the time and the friends willing for the commitment of Global, by all means play Global… but if you’re looking for a shorter afternoon so you can go out with the family and get other things done… maybe there’s a place for 1942.2 on your schedule… it won’t eat up as much time as Global.

As I said, Global will be set up on a shelf, and we’ll try to play for an hour or two a week while enjoying a cold beer after work.  It will take a long time to play, but I can spread that out so it fits into my busy life.

As for 1942 2nd edition, is it really that much quicker than AA50?  Regardless, I suggested recently buying 1942 2nd for a faster game, but that friend would rather play AA50.  I just wish AA50 had gotten a 2nd edition with updated SBRs and AAAs.  The other contemporary games were upgraded while poor AA50 was left behind.  That’s the only reason I can think to play 1942 2nd over AA50.

Honestly I’m looking at 1941 before getting 1942 2nd.  That game is even faster, and would be great for recruiting players!

@taamvan:

the USA can pretty easily hold off these moves if it sees whats’ about to go down, Kill USA Firsts are hardly optimal strategies for winning, mostly for fun and to see what can be done.

Playing 1st edition a few years ago, my ultimate goal was to stifle the allies by forcing them to pro-actively defend.  A J1 naval congregation threatens KAF without committing to it.  A G1 poise in Gibralter threatens Sea Lion or KAF, but is also noncommittal.  My idea was to gain momentum in a standard strategy by forcing the Allies to defend against an attack I’d never actually launch.

That said, it would be cool if KAF could be a legitimate strategy that is neither under=powered or over-powered.  That’s certainly not the case in 1st edition.  I can’t opine regarding second edition, as I haven’t played it yet.  Maybe it will help that I will be using the 1st edition game board with a split Western Canada (BC and Yukon)?  I’m not overly optimistic, though.

@taamvan:

So, what they consider an important thing to change may be different than what you or I think is a priority.

True that!

Alberta became the boon province around the late 1990s.  I know because I’m from the East, and there has usually been a city where us maritimers migrate to for better employment.  In the 80s it was Toronto.  Early nineties, Vancouver.  Late 90s till recently, Calgary.

Harper ramped things up for oil production via the loosening of environmental policies and the expansion of corporate welfare (tax breaks).  But he failed to negotiate (not his strong point) a pipeline deal, and also put too many of our country’s eggs in that sector - causing bad times when the price of oil tanked.  These two failures probably cost him reelection.

@Black_Elk:

I don’t know, if Larry was truly persuaded to make this map change on the basis of Operation Hollywood, I’d really have to question “Why that?” and not any of the other map areas that are clearly more problematic for Axis game busting strategies?
:-D

The thing is, this is is the only play-based motivation that’s plausible.

I’m I to have a hard time believing LH and crew were bothered by Operation Hollywood, but readily accept that they were bothered by the aesthetics of the the Canadian Pacific coast?

We already know 2nd edition intentionally cracked down on Kill America First - why else change the rule to let USA enter the war when the Axis attack Canada.  Makes more sense to me if Yukon/BC was part of the same discussion.

Edit - I forgot about your theory that it was accidental.  That is actually consistent with them accidentally omitting the Canadian emblem (as per the FAQ).  Probably I’m reading too much into this.

@Baron:

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

AFAIK Global/Europe/Pacific 1940 2nd and Spring 1942 2nd all have the same rules for that - meaning the rules have been streamlined and are consistent across all the current editions.

My point is that it’s a crying shame that the 1940 and 1942 games got upgraded rules (2nd editions) while AA50 was left behind with its outdated (and obsoleted) rules set.  It’s not fitting for what ought to be the pride of my (vast) A&A collection.  As is, I feel more inclined to play 1942 2nd; and that just sucks.

I wish WotC would simply augment the FAQ with options for updated AAAs and SBR rules.  Sadly they have dropped all support.  :-(

@Wolfshanze:

Unless it’s 50th Anniversary Edition A&A… it’s always cheaper to cobble together Anniversary then to buy it (unless someone who is legally insane is selling it cheap).

But here would one acquire the board?
I have AA50, so it’s just a curious question.

@taamvan:

The 42.2 edition is worth playing, anyway…

…the game is only like $42 on amazon, its a bargain whether you need the pieces or not.

I have no doubt 1942 2nd is worth playing.  The question is when?

I have one friend who wants to play AA50 sometime soon but not until after golf season.  Another friend is building a shelf in his garage to host an ongoing game of Global.  I only know a few A&Aers, and we all have limited time.  When we do play a big game, we often want a one that better accommodates more friends - Britannia, Titan, Supremacy 2020, Star Trek Ascendancy, etc.

SS might be able to hook me up with the pieces I need to upgrade to Global 2nd edition.  Probably I’ll get the other versions I’ missing (1941 & 1942 2nd) later when I’m not so broke.

Looking at my map, sz 26 appears to be within three sea zones of USA, but not within two sea zones.  Boats in sz 26 (and 15) leave a two sea zone buffer between themselves and the USA; two sea zones which they are by no means ‘within’.

The operative word here is within.  If there is no smoking within two meters of a government building, that defines two meters that can’t be smoked in.  If you are outside those two meters, smoke away.

If you can’t swim within two hours of eating, that defines a two hour period of no swimming.  Anything beyond those two hours is safe.

According to the English language, the rulebook defines a two sea zone safety margin for the USA.  This margin does not include sea zones 15 or 26.
If LH’s rules crew intended something different, that should be addressed in the FAQ.

Funny thing about those Canadian roundels, I just found this

Axis & Allies Pacific 1940, 2nd Edition, FAQ
November 24, 2014
Errata
The Map:  Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem.  It is originally controlled by the United Kingdom.

As far as I can tell the Canadian Emblem is rules-wise equivalent to the UK emblem.  I guess the errata is also a nod to Canadian patriotism?  I’ll take it.   :-)

Regarding our Prairie Provinces, I thought they were relatively undeveloped back in the 30s and 40s.  I could be wrong.

@Arthur:

Perhaps you can have a house rule where A.S.M. is worth 2 IPCs and the United Kingdom is worth only 5 IPCs.  That shouldn’t have any practical affect on the game play…

I think I’m going to have a house rule where I play on my 1st edition board.  Hopefully I can pull of Operation Hollywood sometime and it will have a practical effect on game play.   :evil:

@taamvan:

there is quite a distinct GAME reason why this was “unsplit”.� �

I tried Operation Hollywood in the 1st edition OOB rules.  I spent hours planning the perfect assault - I even had Germany invade Eastern Canada from Gibraltar turn 2.  I forget why - probably just to force USA from sending everything West.  Edit - I think this was also intended to fake Sea Lion, not as a trick, but to stifle the Allied options.

I captured BC to secure a landing strip for my air, planning to attack California the following turn.  USA responded cleverly by pulling everything back to the Midwest.  This way the big battle for California would be his counter-attack, meaning my planes are not involved.  I couldn’t use my planes to wipe out the Midwest because I didn’t have the range.  :(

That was the last OOB game we played.  My impression was that Operation Hollywood was a major commitment for the Axis but not effective.  I could keep USA busy for a couple turns, but at the cost of the war effort.

This was back when I could invade Canada without declaring war on America!  Now that this brings USA into the war, it’s very hard for me to imagine Hollywood to bea game breaking strategy.  Do you think this is abusive from a game-winning perspective, or simply a strategy that is considered distasteful and undesirable?

@Herr:

But are you sure the people you talk to, know where Alberta is?

Alberta is Canada’s closest equivalent of Texas.  The very idea that not everyone knows about Alberta is borderline offensive.   :-D

Thanks, Kreig, that was a fun read.

Looking back, I kind of wish I’d gotten hold of the 3rd edition PDF twenty years ago and tried it out.

Maybe if I ever dust off my GM edition I could try those rules.  Not sure how likely that is though.

@Krieghund:

Many people now don’t even know about the MB 1st or 3rd edition rules, so the continued use of “2nd edition” to refer to Classic just causes them to assume that the Nova version is the “1st edition”.  In fact, the Nova and MB versions are as different from one another as 1940 is from Classic.

I have a copy of the Nova Games edition, so I’m aware of the differences.  I came to believe that was the “1st edition” because every GM set I’ve ever seen over all the years has had the same rulebook.  I’m fascinated to learn there was an actual 1st edition MB game.
There were guys I used to play with who refered to the CDrom rules as 3rd edition.  Did the disc come with a paper copy or PDF?

@ Wolfshanze,
It’s interesting, there are separate sections for the 1942 1st and 2nd editions, but not for the 1940 1st and 2nd editions or the Gamemaster 1st and 2nd edition.
Maybe the idea is to have separate thread iff there was a (nontrivial) change made to the map?

Was there actually a Game Master version sold as anything other than 2nd edition?  I have never seen one.

I have come to the strong suspicion that Milton Bradley’s big box A&A was always called 2nd edition, simply to distinguish it from the Nova Games “bookcase” version.

@calvinhobbesliker:

One possibility when you have a fractional number of expected hits is to round down for your units and to round up for the opposing units, to give a more conservative estimate of whether you can win the battle with a certain number of units left.

This makes sense - if you are playing conservatively.  If you’ve been having bad luck or have been getting outplayed, a riskier strategy is usually correct.

I normally just round down, but I find I’m rounding down a lot I might round up in a subsequent battle round.  Especially if the exact same remainder keeps “lingering”.

The big thing about rounding IMO is to adjust the next round.  If your combat strength is, eg, 45, that’s 7.5 hits.  if you round down to 7, and the rounded off 3 points to your calculated combat strength next iteration.