NO !!! Not the scouting debate again !!! :)
BWhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!1!
I’m making an, um, educational video!
NO !!! Not the scouting debate again !!! :)
BWhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!1!
I’m making an, um, educational video!
Subs in the old edition only got one round of opening fire, if I remember correctly.
Actually, in classic, the attacking subs shoot in opening fire every round, defending subs never shoot in opening fire.
It’s been a few years.
The industrial complex costs 15 IPCs. You need to commit transports to the Indian Ocean to utilize that 4 unit producing industrial complex. You will not utilize Japan’s industrial complex to its fullest. You will not have IPCs to purchase air and/or naval units to counter a light US push in the Pacific.
It’s okay as a counter to an Indian IC, but if there is no Indian IC, I believe there is usually no point to that 4 producing industrial complex. (Actually, I believe that not only is there no point, it’s a waste of IPCs, and forces Japan to commit to the Indian Ocean, and slows Japan’s advance in general because of the IPCs required to build the complex and transports were not used for early tanks.) That is to say, if the Allies have a KGF going with units going to Africa and Europe, Japan will have to commit a decent sized force of infantry to Africa, meaning that the Japan attack on Russia will be far weaker. If the Allies have a KJF going, the Japanese industrial complex does not help defend against a US navy/air force (Japan does gain a positional advantage with that industrial complex, but the cost of the industrial complex, combined with the need to continue the battle in Asia, combined with the need to defend multiple targets against US invasion, makes for a difficult game for Japan.)
You can force the Russians to withdraw from Ssinkiang AND force the UK to retreat from India with a tank force at Kwangtung combined with moderately sized infantry forces in China and French Indochina (respectively), plus a couple of loose fighters.
That is, in brief - I think it’s a viable tactic in certain situations, including some situations in which UK does NOT have an Indian industrial complex. But I would generally recommend against the industrial complex.
Germany and Japan must work together to win.
One key play is flying Japanese fighters in to reinforce a newly taken German territory.
@Craig:
@ncscswitch:
…I DO like those VT’s that Craig posted though. I may give those SERIOUS thought for our next Tournament.
You are a man of wisdom! :wink:
I am glad that someone has seen the light. :-D
Craig
Although I sort of like Craig Yoper’s territory idea, I would like it a d*** sight more if it were officially recognized and accepted by Avalon Hill as the tournament standard.
Actually, I would like ANYTHING to be accepted by Avalon Hill as the tournament standard.
As it is, there are different tournaments, but no OFFICIAL tournament standard. LHTR is close, but it is not the Official Deal.
@ncscswitch:
Being beaten by dice SUCKS. No other way to put it.
I have been beaten by gutsy players that go for long shots that got lucky on dice.
I have been beaten by regular players that went for regular strategies and got lucky on the dice (creating unpredicted results)
I have been beaten by players that took advantage of weaknesses in my position after I suffered higher than predicted casualties in particular battles.
But I have never been beaten by dice.
Dealing with bad dice is a part of good strategy.
–
Yes, sometimes the dice ARE completely ridiculous, but that’s part of the fun of the game.
Subs in the old edition only got one round of opening fire, if I remember correctly.
In Revised, subs get opening fire EVERY ROUND.
They do NOT get opening fire and regular fire. Just opening fire.
@ncscswitch:
I experimented over several games with the Libyan bid, and I have to be honest…
Africa is too easilly countered and contained by too many potential Allied moves for that bid placement to be worth it… unless you are German Fleet Unifcation player.
But for non-fleet unification, keep your bid on the front lines of your primary target… RUSSIA.
An INF in Ukraine add the likelyhood of an additional Russian casualty on R1, and increases the odds of a serious loss by Russia dramatically. Also, reducing the force needed to re-claim Ukraine on G1 gives Germany more flexibility on where and how to stage and stack for their main strike… allowign them to choose center or north instead of being forced south.
KEEP YOU EYE ON THE OBJECTIVE!
If your objective is UK, then bid into the Baltic.
If your objective is Russia, then bid into central Europe
If your objective is the US, then bid to Japan.
If you place units in Africa and use the German S. Europe transport, you can often survive with 1-2 inf and 3 arm. Countering that is extremely costly for UK in the Pacific, requiring the commitment of the Indian fighter, the Indian transport, most of the infantry near India and Africa, and the UK bomber.
Restricting your lines of play simply means that the Allies have an easier time countering your strategy.
I think it better to leave different lines of play open, either to exploit an opponent’s mistakes, or - more likely against a skilled opponent - to create more viable threats that must be defended against.
For that reason, I almost ALWAYS bid units at Africa. If the Allies do NOT counter Africa, I gain IPCs. If they DO counter Africa, I gain time on the Karelia/Archangel front.
Assuming you came up with that Anglo-Egypt idea on your own, you have pretty good intuition.
That’s a pretty standard move for a lot of German players, as mentioned. But that’s only because it’s a good move.
Sometimes, if you have an African bid, you can stop the UK from reclaiming Anglo-Egypt on UK1 (bomber, Indian fighter, and various infantry; the bomber and fighter land in Africa, forcing the Germans to risk their own air if they want to kill the UK air). Or, if you have an African bid, you can forgo attacking Anglo-Egypt with your transport, and use that transport to take Gibraltar instead (while STILL taking Anglo-Egypt with the African bid units plus the Libyan units plus German air).
I very rarely pass by an opportunity to at least destroy the UK units in Anglo-Egypt (even if I don’t take the territory).
You do it in noncombat for LHTR. But for OOB/FAQ, you land your fighter in the territory where the industrial complex that will produce the carrier is. During your mobilize units phase, you move fighters from the (land) territory to the sea territory.
That is how you do it it in TripleA as well. You land your fighters in, say, Western US, then you build your carrier in one of the two adjacent sea zones, then you move fighters on. TripleA lets you choose if you want to move 0, 1, or 2 fighters on.
I do believe he claimed he was getting his butt kicked by a bikini clad babe.
Were you planning on denying that? :-o
(glazed look)
I have no knowledge of these alleged events.
Hi
Some questions if I may.
Subs: Can air units attack a sub or does the sub have the right to refuse combat? It seems to me that the only way for air units to attack a sub is in conjunction with a destroyer who can prevent the sub from submerging. That said, can a sub defend and kill an air unit?
Armor: Can tanks who attack one space and fight enemy troops and win can then use their second movement point to retreat?
Transport: To do an amphibious assault do the troops need to be loaded onto the transport the previous non-combat movement phase? Also, how does that work? If forces from Britain attack Western Europe, do the forces on the transport fight or do they need the beaches cleared by air power or another force? Also, when moving air power one counts the sea area as a space and then the island as a space, do transports? I.e., can a transport from Japan reach Alaska in one turn with a movement of two?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Jeff
Pretty much as already posted.
When moving fighters or bombers (not just “air power”), here is what happens, using a fighter on the Hawaiian islands as an example. First, it takes off. This takes no movement, it is still on the Hawaiian Islands. Then, it goes into the sea zone SURROUNDING the Hawaiian islands. This takes a point of movement. Then the fighter can use its three points of remaining movement however it likes. It can fly to a sea zone adjacent to the Hawaiian Islands and attack something IN THAT SEA ZONE (two points of movement left), fly back to the sea zone surrounding the Hawaiian Islands (one point left), and fly into the Hawaiian Islands themselves (zero points left) and land (free). Or whatever it wants to do with that movement.
The transport in your example STARTS in the sea zone. It fires up its engines (costing no movement and remaining in the sea zone it started in), moves to an adjacent sea zone (costing one movement point, leaving one movement point), then moves to yet another sea zone that is adjacent in turn, using up its second movement point, where it must end its move (apart from unloading uniits of course).
That whole description of firing up engines and taking off is not really part of the rules, but it helps picture things in your mind.
jen bikini jen bikini jen bikini jen bikini jen bikini jen bikini jen bikini
Greenland is a territory worth 0 IPC that is owned by the US.
It does not count as an island for Axis and Allies Revised purposes.
My opponents can talk as much as they want, wherever they want.
It gives me time to go to the bathroom, grab a snack, take a brief nap, those sorts of things.
Or POSSIBLY discuss things with my team.
–
I really don’t care. If my opponents are REALLY GOOD, then their discussing things isn’t going to help them much, because the level of play was so high to begin with. If my opponents are REALLY BAD, their chatter will not help them anyways.
The only time I object to table talk is if player A is basically making all the moves for player B, even when player B objects. But that really goes beyond “table talk” to bad taste.
Well, okay, I also object if I’m sleepy, and my opponents are just wasting time.
Or if I was told to expect a good game, and one of my opponents is basically trying to set up a tutoring session for another player, complete with detailed explanations. (I don’t mind tutoring sessions, but I think it only polite to inform your opponent ahead of time if you are going to be spending a lot of time doing something that slows the progress of the game. Like the previous Friday or Saturday or whatever, not “oh hi, this is Joe, imma teach him A and A” )
Or if they are saying things like “i wuv u sooo much chickie-poo! y dun u move some fighters over here? did u remember to get some eggs?” ahhhh domestic talk . . . ahhh!
–
Well, okay, there are actually a LOT of times I object to table talk. But NOT when it increases the quality of the opposition.
it’s not the losing that bugs me, it’s losing and then the being made fun of for playing the Imperial March from Star Wars back at the beginning of all my turns during the game and still losing.
That’s why I wait to play the Imperial March until I am either going to take Moscow, Berlin, or Tokyo.
I don’t know where sea zone 7 is. I am guessing it is southeast of London.
If you are unloading from a sea zone, all hostile naval units in that sea zone must either be destroyed or submerged before you unload.
The presence of absence of hostile naval units in other sea zones adjacent to the territory you are unloading to make no difference. It makes no immediate difference if the US has twenty battleships southwest of London if you are unloading southeast of London.
So usually if you have a big UK fleet southeast of London, Germany should not try invading, because most of Germany’s navy will die, and there will be very little ground and air left to attack London. At least one transport has to survive the naval battle, because the naval battle takes place BEFORE any units can be unloaded from transports into enemy territory.
–
Much better in most cases is sacrificing the Baltic fleet and attacking together with Western Europe fighters to decimate the UK navy.
You can either sacrifice the Baltic navy to destroy the UK battleship, or retreat. If retreating, the Baltic fleet will often be destroyed by either the UK battleship plus UK air, or by hit and run by UK followed by US air (this allows the UK battleship to possibly be preserved if UK builds some fodder units, but unlikely if Germany’s air still strong). If the Baltic navy does not retreat (so the UK battleship is destroyed), any Baltic units will probably be destroyed by the US Atlantic fleet along with US air from London.
Exactly, lots of players use NAs, more and more every day
I say that more and more people STOP using NAs every day.
pwned?
I have the strong impression that some groups of players are not used to encountering effective strategies other than the ones they already employ.
I debate the objective validity of just about EVERY post on this board.
Except MY posts, of course, which as any discriminating poster will know, are the very quintessence of objectivity, wit, brevity, and modesty.
I disagree.
If you have a sub-forum, that forum will not be visited by as many regulars. Hence, the rule question will not be answered as quickly, or completely as if it were posted in the main forum.
I do not mind using my time to answering questions about Axis and Allies (Revised).
Having confirmation of answers is necessary so there is a sense of consensus rather than having a single poster’s opinion.
My strong preference is to leave things the way they are.
“Basically, if you could have 3 Russian ARM retreating to CAU leaving 1 GER FTR in UKR, or 3 Russian Arm holding UKR, which would you choose?”
I do not do Ukraine.
If I attack Belorussia and West Russia, I have good odds at both places, a few bad rolls will hurt neither battle, and I preserve Russia’s attack strength.
–
If you do Ukraine, and face the situation described, you KNOW Germany is going to retake. So you are trading 3 tanks for a fighter and an infantry. (You can probably kill something of Germany’s as they retake). 15 for 13, sounds good. But it isn’t so hot. That fighter probably isn’t going to be aimed at Russia anyways, and even if it was, I would far rather preserve the 3 tanks attacking at 3. You can threaten FAR more territory with tanks; you can pull tanks back into Moscow and threaten any number of Axis contested territories, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Losing tanks means you lose flexibility as to where you will attack, as well as attack strength.
I would choose to conserve the tanks.