Thanks
BIZARRE question… re Canal's.
-
What about Canals in situations where your ally controls them?
Do they HAVE to let you through?
I’ve seen incidents, where british planes for example, have snubbed an American player and their aircraft carrier, leading to it’s doom.
Said American would then not be interested in allowing british or anzac units through the Panama Canal.
Say the French Want to send their destroyer into the med. But you want them coupled with your fleet off of Egypt. The french are being silly and not listening… can you tell him he’s NOT allowed to go through the Canal because you control it?
These are IMPORTANT aspects of the game to understand… :P
Per the letter of the rules, they are allowed through if they’re an ally of the controller. You can yell, scream and plead, but even if you try to convince him that he’s doesn’t have permission, per the letter of the rules, he’s allowed. There’s no rule that prevents them from being foolish or ignoring your requests to consolidate, etc. If they’re allowed through because it’s a friendly power that controls it, they’re allowed through, end of story.
-
You’re no fun KCD!
-
You’re no fun KCD!
house rule your game partners into submission… You seem to be looking for a way to hamstring or punish one of your allies. Nothing is preventing you from doing that in your own home. But this isn’t Munchkin - there is no “cheat with both hands” card.
-
Why would you have a rule where you can ask permission of a player you may officially be neutral to, but who is still your opponent in the game? If it’s something you want it is by definition something they don’t want, and permission should not be granted EVER.
-
Why would you have a rule where you can ask permission of a player you may officially be neutral to, but who is still your opponent in the game? If it’s something you want it is by definition something they don’t want, and permission should not be granted EVER.
duh. that’s why it’s silly. Unless your opponent is a complete buffoon and is setting himself up for utter devastation, which is rare.
-
The rules are written the way they are. That was the designers intent.
It’s not every case that the allies are going to agree on everything. In Face to Face games, this can sometimes be the Axis edge.
Do you remember the Middle East money? in the Original Europe circa 2001? If the allies can’t decide who pays… Germany decides. :P
Power brokering, and politics is a -part- albeit small, of the game.
A move I’ve seen allowed on a few occassions, is to let the Russian cruiser out through the straight of denmark, but ONLY in the case, that the Russian Sub goes with it.
The rules stipulate the condition… and that’s why it must be explored.
Belligerent allies, are also incredibly common ONLINE. As an Axis player, another angle of your game, is getting your enemies to blame each other. :P
-
One only has to read how Cow treats
His partner to understand that this is possible. -
Like not declaring war as the U.S unless attacked… Ever.
Excuse my French, but you play with assholes.
-
with a community as large as A&A it was bound to happen.
That’s why official ruling’s are required.
-
Keep the scenarios coming Gargantua; I’m enjoying this :evil:
-
Warwinner, did you ever see my post about the “secret retreat” at Gibraltar?
Basically, using a sub to pull all your units through an enemy controlled Canal? :D
Krieghund deflated it :S
-
@Most:
One only has to read how Cow treats
His partner to understand that this is possible.Amen, I know I’m never playing with Cow as a teammate. I lost a lot of respect for Cow after witnessing firsthand how he treated his partner on his first ever time playing Japan.
-
Warwinner, did you ever see my post about the “secret retreat” at Gibraltar?
Basically, using a sub to pull all your units through an enemy controlled Canal? :D
Krieghund deflated it :S
Yeah, that and your ridiculous planned carrier retreat to boost carrier range and setup a landing spot… deflated that too.
-
Well actually… that was approved overall, just the caveat of the canal portion was rejected.
It’s still entirely possible to abuse the combat phase, by planning a retreat, that will move a carrier 3 spaces to the combat, then forward another space (4 total) to create the -possibility- of a valid landing zone.
Even if all battles involved are absolutely hopeless.
-
Well actually… that was approved overall, just the caveat of the canal portion was rejected.
It’s still entirely possible to abuse the combat phase, by planning a retreat, that will move a carrier 3 spaces to the combat, then forward another space (4 total) to create the -possibility- of a valid landing zone.
Even if all battles involved are absolutely hopeless.
Really, we’re doing this again? No, it’s not. You CANNOT plan to use a retreat to extend carrier range to create a landing zone. I’ll find the thread if you like - it was soundly rejected.
-
Well you can land on a carrier that has retreated…
and it’s legal to retreat to ANY zone you sent attacking forces in from.
And retreating is a CHOICE you can make at any stage of a battle, so the power is in your hands.
It’s no less absurd then sending 1 sub to a sea zone of 1000 battleships, so that the zone could be ‘possibly cleared’ allowing planes to land on a carrier that moves there.
Atleast my example is functional. :)
-
Well you can land on a carrier that has retreated…
and it’s legal to retreat to ANY zone you sent attacking forces in from.
And retreating is a CHOICE you can make at any stage of a battle, so the power is in your hands.
It’s no less absurd then sending 1 sub to a sea zone of 1000 battleships, so that the zone could be ‘possibly cleared’ allowing planes to land on a carrier that moves there.
Atleast my example is functional. :)
I’m not disputing that you can land on a retreated carrier. You simply cannot set up the fight from the beginning REQUIRING the carrier to be in a seazone that it can ONLY reach if you retreat.
The letter of the rule implies you plan to win the engagement to get access, not plan to lose the engagement to leapfrog.
The rules also clearly state that you cannot use a planned retreat to secure a landing space.
-
Krieghund clearly states that. Fine.
But the rules don’t! :p atleast I’m not seeing it… ?
-
Krieghund clearly states that. Fine.
But the rules don’t! :p atleast I’m not seeing it… ?
Pacific 1940 Rules pdf available online
Page 26, Air Units: paragraph 5:
“In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You may NOT, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate a possible safe landing zone for any fighter or tactical bomber.”
-
Damnit KCD…
Suggested Topics
