@taamvan OK, I’ve discussed this with Larry. I have apparently erred on the side of “realism”. While my answer made sense from that point of view, it over-complicates the rules in play. To keep the rule simple, moving units using an ally’s transport is in effect the same as moving them with your own, with the exceptions that a) they must be offloaded on a later turn than when they were loaded, and b) the transport moves on its owner’s turn, if at all. I will amend my answers above accordingly.
Best posts made by Krieghund
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
RE: Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense
It always interests me from among the many, many things that are abstracted in the broad-brush approach of these games what certain players home in on as “unrealistic”. I guess it depends on either what each individual’s pet interest is or what game mechanism they dislike the most. In any case, the bonus movement from bases is simply a very broad abstraction of the logistical advantage they provide, and, like it or dislike it, they do add an element of strategy to the game.
-
RE: Playtesters Wanted for A&A: North Africa by Renegade Games
@imperious-leader Thanks, IL. I’m already on board!
-
RE: Submarine withdrawal question
@the_good_captain You may withdraw some or all of them. If a group withdraws together, they must all withdraw to the same sea zone.
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
@contango said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Question: During the same UK non-combat phase, can the UK land unit starting in United Kingdom load onto the US transport whilst the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into Normandy Bordeaux?
The rules say that allied units must remain on the transport for a round before offloading, even if the transport doesn’t have to move, strongly implying that the transport “moves within the sea zone” during the ally’s turn between the moving power’s turns. Applying that principle disallows a move such as this.
Yes, but loading must occur before offloading, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.Bonus Question 1: If the answer above is “yes”, would it still be “yes” if the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into United Kingdom?
While the above answer is “no”, it would be “yes” in this case. Since the two units loaded from and offloaded to the same territory, it would be OK. Of course, the only reason I can think of to do that is to trade an infantry for another unit type (or vice versa). Needless to say, the unit not on the transport must load before the unit already on the transport offloads, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.
Yes.Bonus Question 2: If the answer to the first question is “yes”, would it still be yes if neither of the UK land units were infantry? (is the spirit of the rules that loading always happens first and hence would not be allowable because two non-infantry units would be aboard the transport together, or could the offload be seen as happening first?)
This would not be allowed at all, as loading must occur before offloading.
-
RE: Larry Harris' website had been shut down - and is back again!
I have uploaded the FAQs for all of the OOP games (Classic, Europe, Pacific, Revised, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Guadalcanal, 1942 1st Edition) in their appropriate forums. Could someone please “sticky” them?
-
RE: Those blind U-Boat Commanders
@chaikov Yes, you’re interpreting the rules correctly.
However, WWII submarines didn’t “block” convoys. They attacked them, causing significant losses, but not stopping them altogether. Submarines were given the ability to pass through enemy units (countered by destroyers) in order to give them better survivability so they could live to attack on their own turn. This works both ways so that players can’t flood the board with cheap blockers and slow down game play.
I hope this helps.
-
RE: 2nd Edition Western Canada Misprint
@The-Lone-Wolf Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It’s in the FAQ, also available at Panther’s link above.
-
RE: Applying Casualties Question
@the_good_captain You have it right.
Unfortunately, it’s very common to run into people who have something wrong but insist they’re right. Misconceptions can be very deeply ingrained. When they concern game rules, I’ve often found they come from being taught the game by someone else who got it wrong without ever really reading the rules for oneself.
The first time I ever played Risk (in the 1970s), I was taught by an older boy at a community center. I enjoyed the game so much that I soon bought a copy for myself. After reading the rules, it was a very different (and better) game than I was taught.
-
RE: When USA not at War
There must be a certain amount of historical accuracy in order for the game to “feel like” the subject matter. Axis & Allies has always dealt with this accuracy at a macro level, striving for “feel” rather than simulation, and thus not dwelling on minutiae. It’s a fine line to walk, but some historical realities must be observed in order to maintain the ambiance. In this case, the restriction presents the feeling of threat without overly burdening the Japan player, as forcing avoidance of all USA territories would.
I won’t pretend that there aren’t game play reasons why this restriction is in place. If there weren’t, why burden the game with it? However, any such rule must be grounded in historical events and realities in order to not come off as “gamey” and ruin the feel of the experience.
All of that being said, the USA did rather famously (infamously?) allow the IJN to get within striking distance of Hawaii, as well as several other of its Pacific possessions, without raising much of a fuss until it was too late. I doubt the same would have been true if the mainland had been so threatened (my original post did make this distinction). In game terms, the “threat zone” of the mainland extends two sea zones out. Since the Hawaiian sea zone is outside of that radius, and since Hawaii could just as easily be attacked from Japanese-held territory (Marshall Islands), there was little point in game terms of excluding Japan from that sea zone.
-
RE: Larry Harris' website had been shut down - and is back again!
The site is down for maintenance. I have no word yet on how much longer this will take, but it will return.
-
RE: Larry Harris Semi-Official Tournament Game Patch
Now that this setup adjustment has been out for a while, I’m curious as to whether people are playing with it outside of the tournament setting, and, if so, what the results have been. Actually, I’m curious to know whether people think it’s balanced (and makes the game more fun) in both tournament and casual play. All opinions are welcome!
-
RE: Nomenclature
I think IL is on the right track, but some iterations are left out (even though they are not popular, they do exist). A complete list of grand strategic games would be:
Nova
Classic.1
Classic.2
Classic.3
E
P
Revised
Revised LHTR
50
E40.1
E40.2
P40.1
P40.2
G40.1
G40.2
41
42.1
42.2
14While I agree that “.0” and “.1” might be more accurate from an academic point of view, it’s just confusing that the numbers don’t line up with the edition numbers. Also, having no number after games that have no second edition differentiates them from games that do.
-
RE: Unasked Revolution Question
@superbattleshipyamato It’s not a loophole. It’s no different than the Central Powers avoiding the revolution by not meeting its conditions. The revolution occurs when its conditions are met. You just have to be aware of how the rule works.
-
RE: Question About Kamikazes
@kwaspek104 The answer to all three questions is “yes”.
-
RE: Classic rules, and some disagreements.
@Cernel said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:
@djensen renamed this section as “Axis & Allies Classic” (it was called “Axis & Allies 2nd Edition”, or something like that, in the old forum, I recall), that I think it is going to be confusing (we have a good example right here). I suggested to name it “Axis & Allies (Classic) 1st/2nd/3rd Edition” or “Axis & Allies 1st/2nd/3rd Edition” (just adding “Classic” between parenthesis or in the description), but this has been already discussed here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32567/chicago-nfl-team-bears
Calling it the current way would have been fine if the description would have been something like:
Includes MB Gamemaster Series 1st and 2nd editions, and the two Hasbro Interactive (CD-ROM) 3rd Edition.
or like it is called in the official Larry Harris forum:
Original Axis & Allies 1984-2004
(though this is rather vague, or surely not very clear)
but I see it currently is:
The original MB Gamemaster Series game from 1984-2004
that is substantially a wrong description, as long as @Krieghund or anybody can confirm the 3rd edition is Classic too, as I believe it is, and those are not part of the Gamemaster Series.Yes, 3rd Edition is part of Classic. I’m not sure what your problem is with the nomenclature, though. While “Classic” may mean different things to different people, its proper usage is really in reference to the MB version and its computer offshoots.
@Krieghund can you please confirm this is what it is supposed to happen:
If you have 1 submarine and 1 fighter attacking 1 transport and 1 submarine, if the attacking submarine misses and both defending units hit:
- In 1st/2nd edition, you only lose the attacking submarine, as long as the attacking player doesn’t take a fighter as casualty when the transport hits (that would be absolutely idiotic).
- In 3rd edition, you lose both attacking units (you are not permitted to do the trick of assigning the transport’s hit to the submarine, thus being unable to assign the submarine’s hit to anything else).
Confirmed.
If the above is true, I’m curious what is the implied intended rule for assigning defensive submarines and others hits (say, if you would be playing by 3rd edition rules on a board). Should defending submarines hits be assigned before anything else or should you assign them at the same time, but taking care to lose the maximum number of units you can (I know in practice both would work the same)?
The latter.
-
RE: UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?
I agree that a strict reading of the exemption rule in and of itself would indicate that Dutch territories could be claimed by AAA, as this case is not mentioned explicitly. I wrestled with this for a while before making my ruling. However, I also believe there’s enough wiggle room there when combined with the rules on Dutch territories and friendly neutrals to interpret it the other way, for the reasons I’ve outlined. The fact that we’re even having this conversation supports the view that there are two ways to interpret it.
For what it’s worth, I am certain that Larry didn’t want AAA to claim Dutch territories, any more than he wanted them to convert friendly neutrals, for the reasons I stated. This in itself wouldn’t cause me to rule the way that I did, but in combination with the aforementioned “wiggle room”, I deemed it to be enough. If I had my way, there would be an FAQ update to reflect this, but getting one these days is like pulling teeth.
As an aside, this issue was originally addressed in the AAE40 1st Edition FAQ, at the same time that the 2nd Editions of both games were being developed. The AAA exception should have noted this case explicitly in AAP40, but it simply got dropped during the development of the 2nd Edition and it has remained lost until now.
-
List of Sculpts
Here is the comprehensive list of A&A sculpts, rescued from Larry’s site and updated for newer games:
Soviet AAA: 85mm M1939
Soviet Artillery: 152mm Howitzer in AAE40.2; 105mm Howitzer (US) elsewhere
Soviet Mechanized Infantry: ZIS 42 Halftrack
Soviet Tank: IS-2 in AA41; T-34 elsewhere
Soviet Fighter: P-40 (US) in AA41; MiG 3 in AAE40; Yak 3 elsewhere
Soviet Tactical Bomber: IL-2 Sturmovik
Soviet Strategic Bomber: Lancaster (UK) in AA41; Petlayakov PE-8 elsewhere
Soviet Battleship: Hood class (UK) in AA41; Gangut class in AA42, AAE40 & AAZ; Royal Oak class (UK) elsewhere
Soviet Cruiser: Kirov class in AA42 & AAE40; County class (UK) in AA50
Soviet Destroyer: Sumner class (US) in AA41; Gnevnyi class in AA42, AAE40 & AAZ; Johnston class (US) elsewhere
Soviet Carrier: Project Kostromitinov in AA41; Illustrious class (UK) elsewhere
Soviet Submarine: U class (UK) in AA41; S Class in AA42.2; Srednyaya class in AAE40.2; Ray class (US) elsewhere
Soviet Transport: Fort class (UK) in AA41; Baltic Timber Ship in AAE40.2; Liberty Ship (US) elsewhereGerman AAA: 8.8cm Flak 36 in AA42.2; 8.8cm Flak 41 in AAE40.2
German Artillery: 10.5cm LeFH 18 in AA42.2 & AAE40.2; 88mm elsewhere
German Mechanized Infantry: sdkfz 251 Halftrack
German Tank: Tiger I in AA41; Panther elsewhere
German Fighter: Fw-190 in AA41; BF-109 in AA42, AA50, AAE40, AAZ & BoB; Stuka elsewhere
German Tactical Bomber: Ju-87 Stuka
German Strategic Bomber: He-111 in AA41; Ju-88 elsewhere
German Battleship: Kongo class (Japanese) in AA41; Bismarck class elsewhere
German Cruiser: Admiral Hipper class
German Destroyer: Akitzuki class (Japanese) in AA41; Friedrich Eckholt class elsewhere
German Carrier: Akagi class (Japanese) in AA41; Graf Zeppelin class elsewhere
German Submarine: Kaichu type (Japanese) in AA41; Type VII elsewhere
German Transport: Yamazuki Maru class (Japanese) in AA41; Hilfskruezer elsewhereUK AAA: 3.7in QFAA
UK Artillery: Ordnance QF 25 Pounder in AA42.2 & AA40.2; 105mm Howitzer (US) elsewhere
UK Mechanized Infantry: M5 Halftrack (US) in AA40.1; Priest in AA40.2
UK Tank: IS-2 (Soviet) in AA41; Matilda II in AA50, AA42, AA40 & AAZ; Sherman (US) elsewhere
UK Fighter: P-40 (US) in AA41; Spitfire elsewhere
UK Tactical Bomber: Mosquito
UK Strategic Bomber: Lancaster in AA41; Halifax elsewhere
UK Battleship: Hood class in AA41; Royal Oak class elsewhere
UK Cruiser: County class, Kent subclass
UK Destroyer: Sumner class (US) in AA41; Saumarez Class in AA42.2 & AA40.2; Johnston class (US) elsewhere
UK Carrier: Project Kostromitinov (Soviet) in AA41; Illustrious class elsewhere
UK Submarine: U class in AA41; Truculent class in AA42.2 & AA40.2; Ray class (US) elsewhere
UK Transport: Fort class in AA41; Liberty Ship (US) elsewhereANZAC AAA: 40mm L/70
ANZAC Artillery: 105mm Howitzer (US) in AAP40.1; 5.5in BL in AAP40.2
ANZAC Mechanized Infantry: M5 Halftrack (US) in AAP40.1; Ram-Kangaroo in AAP40.2
ANZAC Tank: Matilda II (UK) in AAP40.1; AC 1 Sentinel in AAP40.2
ANZAC Fighter: Spitfire (UK) in AAP40.1; CA-12 in AAP40.2
ANZAC Tactical Bomber: Mosquito (UK) in AAP40.1; TB.Mk.1 in AAP40.2
ANZAC Strategic Bomber: Halifax (UK) in AAP40.1; PV-1 in AAP40.2
ANZAC Battleship: Royal Oak class (UK) in AAP40.1; Warspite class in AAP40.2
ANZAC Cruiser: County class, Kent subclass
ANZAC Destroyer: Johnston class (US) in AAP40.1; Tribal class in AAP40.2
ANZAC Carrier: Illustrious class (UK) in AAP40.1; Majestic class in AAP40.2
ANZAC Submarine: Ray class (US) in AAP40.1; S class in AAP40.2
ANZAC Transport: Liberty Ship (US) in AAP40.1; Monowai class in AAP40.2Italian AAA: Cannone da 90/53
Italian Artillery: 70mm Howitzer (Japanese) in AA50; 88mm (German) in AAE40.1; Cannone da 75/32 in AAE40.2
Italian Mechanized Infantry: sdkfz 251 Halftrack (German) in AAE40.1; SPA Dovunque 35 in AAE40.2
Italian Tank: M14/41 in AA50; Panther (German) in AAE40.1; M15/42 in AAE40.2
Italian Fighter: C.202 in AAE40.2; BF-109 (German) elsewhere
Italian Tactical Bomber: JU-87 Stuka (German) in AAE40.1; SM.79 in AAE40.2
Italian Strategic Bomber: 24J “Betty” (Japanese) in AA50; JU-88 (German) in AAE40.1; P.108 in AAE40.2
Italian Battleship: Littorio class in AAE40.2; Bismarck class (German) elsewhere
Italian Cruiser: Zara class in AAE40.2; Admiral Hipper class (German) elsewhere
Italian Destroyer: Soldati class in AAE40.2; Friedrich Eckholt class (German) elsewhere
Italian Carrier: Aquila class in AAE40.2; Graf Zeppelin class (German) elsewhere
Italian Submarine: Marconi class in AAE40.2; Type VII (German) elsewhere
Italian Transport: Iridio Mantovani class in AAE40.2; Hilfskruezer (German) elsewhereUS AAA: 90mm M1
US Artillery: 105mm Howitzer
US Mechanized Infantry: M5 Halftrack
US Tank: IS-2 (Soviet) in AA41; Sherman elsewhere
US Fighter: P-40 in AA41; F-6 Hellcat in AA50, Guadalcanal & Pacific; P-38 Lightning elsewhere
US Tactical Bomber: SBD Dauntless
US Stategic Bomber: Lancaster (UK) in AA41; B-17 Flying Fortress elsewhere
US Battleship: Hood class (UK) in AA41; Iowa class elsewhere
US Cruiser: Portland class
US Destroyer: Sumner class in AA41; Johnston class elsewhere
US Carrier: Project Kostromitinov (Soviet) in AA41; Wasp class elsewhere
US Submarine: U class (UK) in AA41; Ray class elsewhere
US Transport: Fort class (UK) in AA41; Liberty Ship elsewhereJapanese AAA: 75mm Type 88
Japanese Artillery: Model 92
Japanese Mechanized Infantry: SdKfz 251 (German) in AAP40.1; Type 1 in AAP40.2
Japanese Tank: Tiger I (German) in AA41; Type 95 Kyugo elsewhere
Japanese Fighter: Fw-190 (German) in AA41; A6M2 “Zero” elsewhere
Japanese Tactical Bomber: D3A1 “Val”
Japanese Strategic Bomber: He-111 (German) in AA41; 24J “Betty” elsewhere
Japanese Battleship: Kongo class in AA41; Yamato class elsewhere
Japanese Cruiser: Takao class
Japanese Destroyer: Akitzuki class in AA41; Fubuki class elsewhere
Japanese Carrier: Akagi class in AA41; Shinano class elsewhere
Japanese Submarine: Kaichu type in AA41; I class elsewhere
Japanese Transport: Yamazuki Maru class in AA41; Hakusan Maru class elsewhere -
Larry Harris’ Axis & Allies WWI 1914 Tournament Rules
For your reference, Larry’s Tournament Rules for 1914:
-
RE: Firing of AA Artillery alone
I’m going to go with the principle that all combat movement is simultaneous, so the bomber is fired at by the AA gun as it is being captured by the tank.