Bossk,
The text “if all units are hit” appears only in step 8, AFTER step 7 which is the chance for sub withdrawl. Since step 8 begins with the sentence “Repeat above steps 2 to 7 until…” It seems to me that you do not test to see if the battle is over until AFTER sub withdrawl.
Zero
[ This Message was edited by: zero on 2002-06-15 17:48 ]
I agree this is how my group has always played, but…
From the printed 2nd edition rules. There are 8 numbered steps in the combat resolution sequence. Step 6 is casualty removal. In step 6 there is no mention that if all attacking units are dead, the combat is over. Step 7 allows sub withdrawal.
Step 8 says “repeat steps 2 through 7 until…”, and then lists the conditions for declaring the end of a combat. Based on the first line of step 8 it seems that attacking subs have the chance to withdraw even with all the defenders sunk.
So I think its correct to argue for attacking sub withdrawal after all defenders are sunk. Did I convince anyone?
I don’t like the idea of a G1 assualt on Caucasus either. It overextends the german armor too soon.
Caucasus is key to Germany breaking Russia’s back. If the Germans manage to have a Med. fleet on turns 4 or 5 they can land 4-6 inf in Caucasus. This inf can be supplemented by inf pushing up through Persia from Africa to hit Caucauses on the same turn. The resulting German stacks on E.E. and Caucasus can turn Karelia and Ukraine into a Deadzone for Russia, by forcing Russia to commit hvy forces to Moscow defense. If Russia attacks Caucasus, then the E.E. stack will take Karelia. If Russia doesn’t attack, then the combined stacks will take Karelia next turn, or worse, the E.E stack will advance toward Caucasus, while the German fleet continues to pump inf into the stack. Most fun.
I think RR does help the axis. Primarily it helps Germany because at the start of the game the German forces are not in ideal positions with lots of opportunities for the Russians to kill German aircraft or Navy.
With RR, the German ships in the Baltic survive to G1 to help in the attack on the UK fleet which helps protect the Luftwaffe from heavy losses.
One bad thing about RR is it makes a Japan First Strategy hard to implement, since it prevents the Russians from participating in the first turn.
Okay, this is something that we have been debating in our play group, and I wanting to see what everyone else’s opinion is.
The combat turn sequence contains the following steps.
The point of question is: If the attacker has destroyed all enemy units, can remaining attacking subs withdraw to an adjacent seazone before the battle is declared officially over? Looking at the sequence for a round of combat it suggests that attacking subs could withdraw before the check is made to see if the battle is finished.
So far we have played that the attacking subs can not withdraw, but I have been pushing lately for the ability to withdraw. There have been times when being able to withdraw the sub would be nice because it moves the sub out of the range of potential plane attacks. Am I off base here, or do subs have this ability? Thanks,
Hi Chris,
I have been waiting for Horten to respond, but if we can find 3 other players then we can proceed with the game.
Okay, Horten and I were squeezed out of the first game, so we are starting a second one. We need three more players. pick your country when you sign up. Horten signed in 1st on the last thread so he gets to pick first. I will choose Germany/Japan in that order depending on what Horten picks. I reccommend the following rules:
We will use the Dicey online tool to roll dice for our turns. The pace of the game will be easy, players will have 4 days to take their move otherwise it will be assumed that they do nothing for the round, and play will proceed accordingly. Horten, do you agree?
So please join us, and name the country you want to play. 1st come, first serve.
Horten, I would to try this too. Maybe we can get another group of 5 together. We need 3 more, or we could try just a 2 player game. Let me know if you’re interested.
Hi,
Glad to see all the discussion on this topic. Some points:
1. As pointed out by others, SBR requires some bookkeeping to remember how much damage was done, and then subtract that amount from the money earned by the country at the start of their turn.
2. My group of players have been discussing this rule, but we haven’t been able to try it yet. I have been working too many hours lately. Hopefully we’ll get to try it during the next month or so.
3. I’m not sure that I agree with the analysis that this will hurt the Axis more than the allies. Russia gets the jump on Germany, but after that I think this rule favors the Axis. I say this because in the early game the Axis is on the offensive capturing territories. Every captured territory is reduced income for the Allies, and if the axis holds it for one turn, increased income for the axis. This system favors which ever side is taking and holding new territory, which is the primary goal of the Axis in the early game.
4. This rule does not favor turtleing. I think it promotes “smart” aggressive behavior. A victory denies the previous owner of income, and holding it for a turn yields income for the aggressor.
Zero
[ This Message was edited by: Zero on 2002-05-17 08:03 ]
Hi,
For those looking for a new optional rule to spice up game play. Consider if you will:
This change has some interesting effects on the game
1. A player has to hold a captured territory for a complete turn before it generates any income. I think that’s more realistic. Its hard to manufacture tanks and planes in an active warzone.
2. The overall economy of the game is slightly reduced, so the game will move a little slower.
3. It elminates lame land grabs for quick income, because you have to hold the land for a turn, so you better mean it when you attack.
4. On the otherhand, you can clearly impact your opponent’s income by capturing poorly defended land even if you know you can’t hold it.
Enjoy!
I think the key to A&A is really resource management. Since its a zero-sum game, the player that manages their resources the best will do the best, and ultimately win the game. What do I mean by Resource management:
Getting the most out of your units on offense and defense. Planes are a good example. You want to position your planes so that they can participate in an attack every turn, and provide defense until the next turn. If you position planes so that they miss a turn without being able to attack, then that’s wasted resources.
Another example is buying transports, and not having enough troops/tanks to fill them up. Again, this is generally wasted IPCs/resources.
It is vital as any country to use exactly the right amount of resources to acomplish your goals. If you use too much, then those wasted resources will cost you position elsewhere in the game. If you use too little, you will fail in your goal and again the resources are wasted.
For example, if Russia is playing to stall the Axis, then the Russian player must spend just enough IPCs on the Western front to stop Germany. All other resources go to the East to stall Japan. If the Russian player miscalculates, then either Japan or Germany will advance faster than optimally possible.
Another example, Japan must spend exactly the right amount of resources to attack Moscow/Asia, and send the remainder East into North America, or West into Europe to help Germany. If Japan stikes the right balance, then The Axis is hard to beat.
This is true for all countries. I once played the US, and I bought 3 bombers during the game, but I positioned them terribly, and they hardly ever saw combat. It was a huge waste of 45 IPCs.
The flip side to this problem of course is risk management. the closer you come to using just the right amount of resources, the higher the risk you will miscalculate, and use too few.
What do you guys think?
I think the key to A&A is really resource management. Since its a zero-sum game, the player that manages their resources the best will do the best, and ultimately win the game. What do I mean by Resource management:
Getting the most out of your units on offense and defense. Planes are a good example. You want to position your planes so that they can participate in an attack every turn, and provide defense until the next turn. If you position planes so that they miss a turn without being able to attack, then that’s wasted resources.
Another example is buying transports, and not having enough troops/tanks to fill them up. Again, this is generally wasted IPCs/resources.
It is vital as any country to use exactly the right amount of resources to acomplish your goals. If you use too much, then those wasted resources will cost you position elsewhere in the game. If you use too little, you will fail in your goal and again the resources are wasted.
For example, if Russia is playing to stall the Axis, then the Russian player must spend just enough IPCs on the Western front to stop Germany. All other resources go to the East to stall Japan. If the Russian player miscalculates, then either Japan or Germany will advance faster than optimally possible.
Another example, Japan must spend exactly the right amount of resources to attack Moscow/Asia, and send the remainder East into North America, or West into Europe to help Germany. If Japan stikes the right balance, then The Axis is hard to beat.
This is true for all countries. I once played the US, and I bought 3 bombers during the game, but I positioned them terribly, and they hardly ever saw combat. It was a huge waste of 45 IPCs.
The flip side to this problem of course is risk management. the closer you come to using just the right amount of resources, the higher the risk you will miscalculate, and use too few.
What do you guys think?
Shuck Shuck is the name I’ve seen given for the strategy of having two sets of transports and cycling them back and forth to make a continuous stream of landings across come body of water. Usually its from East US to somewhere in Africa or Europe.
I don’t know why its called shuck shuck.
SUD:
Its irrelevant that the US can take Panama back. Its interesting that the US would divert a trans 2 inf and a plane to do so, since the whole point of the Jap attack is to pull US resources out of Europe. So a Jap attack on Panama is having the ideal result in this case.
If the UK builds an AC on turn 1, the US fighters are committed to fly to it and can do nothing in the Pacific theatre or else the German airforce will kill the AC with ease. At this point the Allied assault into Europe would stall for 1 maybe 2 turns. Against a good Axis player you have just lost the game. So by attacking Alaska, and you responding as you said you would will cost you the game.
The optimal response to the tired shuck-shuck strategy is for Japan to shuck-shuck into Alaska, and move its Airforce to Western Europe or Canada. The US will be tied up, and all the shuck shuck transports become wasted. The UK is at low teens income and effectively out of the game. Russia is caught in a 2 front war which it will eventually lose.
Japan can build an IC in Alaska, to build 2 tanks per turn and ship 4 to 6 inf per turn into Alaska while still pumping a tank and 4 inf into Asia. That’s enough for Asia because the only Allied player in Asia is Russia. The US will not be able to hard pressed to destroy the invading Jap forces. Any US ships lauched into the Pacific will be sunk by the Jap airforce in Western Canada. A force of 8+Jap infantry some tanks will take Western canada on J3. The US has to be careful, if it attacks Western Canada, it still needs to park enough forces in Western US to avoid a Japanese amphibious assault from Alaska to Western US. Most US players are not used to being invaded, and I think you would be surprised how hard the Japanese will hit you.
The Allied shuck-shuck strategy is flawed because it is so predicable, and easy to counter if the Axis works together. Germany sinks the AC on G2, and builds a fighter every other turn. Japan builds a fighter every turn and sends all its airforce to Western Canada/Europe. No allied ship in range goes unattacked. The Allied shuck-shuck stalls. Asia is now Axis dominated, and Germany has most of Africa. The allies are in dire straits because the UK has no IPCs, and America has no transports. Capital ships are expensive, and irrelevant. If the axis sinks all the transports, the allies are dead. Sorry I’m rambling.
Yanny, you don’t need to go from Alaska to the East Canada SeaZone for this trick to work. The planes start in Alaska and then move: Western Canada->East Canada SZ (Hudson Bay?) -> UK SZ (Attack) -> Western Europe = 4 spaces.
Unfortunately, this only works in the 2nd edition rules. The 3rd edition rules say that Western canada is no longer connected to the Easy Canada SZ. Bummer. Of course that jkust means Japan has to base its airforce in Western Canada, which is certainly doable, and would be highly entertaining.
Actually, Western Canada is connected to the Seazone above Eastern Canada. Its mentioned in the rules addendum for 2nd Edition at least. That makes it 4 spaces from Alaska to Western Europe. :smile: So let’s go kick some Allied butt!
Something to consider:
A Japanese airforce stationed in Alaska can hit the UK seazone and land in Western Europe. I think this is a good way to smackdown a British/US fleet and provide extra defense for Germany to boot.
SUD: On G2 why didn’t the Germans attack the AC, 2ftrs, and transport with its 4 planes and a bomber. This seems like the logical move to me. Waiting to G4 when the whole fleet is together to take action makes no sense. Plus why did you have germany buy 2 subs?
Overall I think Ozone’s strategy would make more sense to hit Hawaii and maybe Mexico on the way though the panama canal to the atlantic; killing the entire US fleet if possible.
If the UK builds an AC on UK1 rather than a IC in India, then operation Sea Lion has no chance because all UK production will come out of the UK.
If the UK builds an IC in India, however, then the UK must spend money to protect that investment which mean a weaker UK mainland. Also I think the mere threat of a UK invasion is as valuable as the invasion itself since it forces the UK player to buy and place units in the UK rather than building in India or shipping stuff off to Karelia where the battles are really taking place.
Our last game ended with Germany taking the U.K… It was only by a bit of deception, and luck that it worked.
The Allies were playing a Japan 1st stratedgy, so UK had an IC in India, and was spending most of its money there build a plan and 2 tanks per turn. Japan was strapped, but holding its own at about 25 IPCs
Germany was a monster of course, and was able to decisively take Karelia on turn 6. After the Karelia battle, Germany landed its planes in Norway, which should be a tipoff to the UK, but the UKL didn’t notice. The German Med fleet had 3 transports, and was shuttling troops to Africa to counter the steady flow of troops a from the US. On the turn before the UK attack the German fleet dumped troops into Algeria, so as to be in striking distance of the UK. It looked like a reasonable counter move to the US invasion of Africa to UKs alarms were not going off.
With a strong German force in Karelia, all Allied focus was on defending Moscow. Moscow was in no immediate danger, but would clearly fall in 2 or 3 turns, so the allies were nicely distracted when Germany invaded the UK the next turn with 6 inf, 3 ftrs, and a bomber. the UK had 4 inf, 1 tank, and 1 fighter. The AA guns missed, and Germany was able to take the UK. It was an awesome surprise attack.
I think the only chance for Germany to take the UK before Moscow, is a sneak attack like what happened in our last Game.