'Larry Harris' Tournament Rules ' :Initial concepts

Apparently The Axis & Allies site over at Avalon Hill is going to be phased out soon. A new one will replace it. If you have something over there that you don’t want to be evaporated into thin air then cut and paste it, and bring it over here so that it is not lost forever.
User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

'Larry Harris' Tournament Rules ' :Initial concepts

Post by elbowsanchez » Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:56 pm

05-21-2004, 10:42 AM #1
Carico67
Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To all club players:

Below is a link to 'Larry Harris' Tournament Rules . This is the official ruleset for A&A Revised that will be used in the following clubs: AAMC, DAAK, FoE, IAAPA. It is quite possible that AAWC will also support gameplay in the near future as well.

If you intend to play a club game please familiarize yourself with this ruleset as several things have been either clarified, or modified. The project is the end result of work done by a panel of club officials of the 4 clubs, Larry Harris, Greg Smorey, and for a portion Mike Sellinker. Whether these rules are an improvement to the ones issued in the box currently is open to opinion; they are different. We did not do this project to compete with the work done to the original draft, but to clarify what we perceived "vague" areas, as well as gamebreaking issues and items that weren't perceived as being operationally functional at advanced play levels. It is our utmost aim that these rules allow for a clear, strategic, enjoyably competitive game of Axis and Allies.

The clubs involved by no means consider this project as a "finished" thing, as issues such as bid-management will be reviewed over the course of time. For the most part though, the document is in concrete wholeness, and Avalon Hill not only has a copy of our work but is likely reviewing in interest how things develop. Please feel free to post questions on the thread there (the link below), or post them here, or at your clubs, and we'll get answers out ASAP. Thanks for reading, and many wishes you enjoy this great game for at least another 20 years!

Larry Harris, and his revision staff (FIDA).

http://dicey.net/revised/index.php

[ May 21, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Carico67 ]
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67

05-21-2004, 10:50 AM #2
TrimChris
Hail Caesar!



Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallasium
Posts: 3,743

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, my company's firewall blocks it with the link categorized as "Sex", but I can't wait to review this weekend.
__________________
Are you not entertained?

Wizards of the Coast, let my Avalon Hill go!


TrimChris

05-21-2004, 10:59 AM #3
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ughhh, probably explains to me why I can't access it here from school as well. I'll try to get that resolved when I get home tonight...

Thanks for the heads up TrimChris.
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67

05-21-2004, 11:01 AM #4
aibrahim
Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I took a quick look at the rules and in general they seem well thought out. The only one I didn't like is that tech only starts working at the end of a round, delaying the tech's effectiveness. I suspect this will almost eliminate any tech other than heavy bombers from play. Most of the techs currently rely on surprise to be effective most notably LRA. LRA, combined bombardment, and supersubs will all lose some of their effectivess which is not much to begin with. I guess we will see if anyone goes for tech with this ruleset change.
__________________
-Ali


aibrahim

05-21-2004, 11:06 AM #5
smo63
Touranment GM




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 978

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris,

I also have the HTML format on the web if you want to check it out...Let me know and we can post it...

GS [img]smile.gif[/img]


smo63

05-21-2004, 11:08 AM #6
smo63
Touranment GM




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 978

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I was able to access them fine...Not sure what the hang-up is?


smo63

05-21-2004, 11:17 AM #7
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heavy bombers is now as useless as jet power, super subs and combined bombardment.


Zombie

05-21-2004, 11:19 AM #8
Sniper
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 65

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that delaying tech is a good move.

(1) That way the lame Sealion Move is out in G1.

(2) I have always thought it was weak that a unit just magically was upgraded once tech was acheived. This has a better feel to it. It now takes a turn to upgrade units.

(3)It minimizes the impact tech (luck) has on the game.

Good move Larry!


Sniper

05-21-2004, 11:27 AM #9
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction : i meant that heavy bombers as a tech is now as useless as super subs and jet fighters used to be. The new super subs and jet fighters clearly kick ass compared to the new heavy bombers.


Zombie

05-21-2004, 11:36 AM #10
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 255

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

I quickly skipped over the most interesting parts (techs especially) and I`m not pleased with all rule changes as they don`t go far enough imho. E.g. you didn`t change any unit costs at all. That techs should be effective at the end of one`s turn and that HB had to be brought down is obvious, but "normal" bmb are a very bad buy. They should be at 12 (and des, bb should be cheaper too).

As you severely cut HB, there`s almost no reason to go for it now. I calculated the average sbr-demage of the "old HB" (if the bmb was not hit) on Germany. It was 6 8/9 (with the income-cap) and now the demage on any country of at least 6 IPC income is 4 17/36 if I added it right. That`s pretty much the same as one dice plus 1 which first off all would have been much easier. And second and more important, just giving an advantage of 1 IPC on a sbr makes this "strategy" almost useless! There`s no reason to buy bmb at 15 IPC and there`s almost no more reason to go for HB now! A 5/2-unit with sbr+1 at a prize of 12 would have been simpler and better. If you leave it a 15 IPC, the (potential) advantage of HB should have been higher (sbr d6+2)!
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:58 pm

05-21-2004, 11:51 AM #11
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You missed one crucial part. Damage is now limited to the IPC value of the territory for the whole attack, not per bomber! This makes both normal bombers and heavy bombers totally useless.

I'm still telling you though, if anything, BBs should cost more, not less.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-21-2004, 11:52 AM #12
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: las vegas
Posts: 1,464

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Carico67:
To all club players:

The clubs involved by no means consider this project as a "finished" thing, as issues such as bid-management will be reviewed over the course of time. For the most part though, the document is in concrete wholeness, and Avalon Hill not only has a copy of our work but is likely reviewing in interest how things develop. Please feel free to post questions on the thread there (the link below), or post them here, or at your clubs, and we'll get answers out ASAP.

I must say the majority of the changes are good. I dont understand the reason behind this one:


Quote:
Mobilize Units
A newly built fighter can be placed directly on a newly built aircraft carrier. Can a newly built fighter be placed on an existing carrier, or can existing fighters be placed on a new carrier?
An existing fighter that is in the territory containing the industrial complex or that is in the sea zone where the aircraft carrier is built can immediately be moved onto a newly built carrier. New fighters, however, can't be placed directly on existing carriers.

Changed. New fighters can be placed on new carriers or on carriers already owned by the new fighter's power. NO UNITS (ftrs) can move in the mobilize units phase, so you cannot shift existing fighters on new carriers during the mobilize units phase.

What about my ally's fighters? Can they be placed on newly built carriers if they meet the position requirement?
Yes. For example, if the UK builds a carrier adjacent to England, US fighters in England can immediately redeploy onto the carrier.

Let me say this is a BAD change. The purpose of allowing the carrier to absorb fighters is to give Germany the option of protecting the fleet. It is pointless to force Germany to buy 2 fighters when 6 are already available.

By making this change, you again force a rehash of A&A classic, where Germany usually had no navy and forced the USSR strategy.

What is so imbalancing about moving the fighters ??? I note here that the UK can STILL build a carrier and STILL have USA fighters aboard them, so the allies DONT have the same disadvantage that the Axis now has. Thats what the carrier rule was designed to fix in the first place !!!

Squirecam

[ May 21, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: squirecam ]
__________________
smo63: Guys, got to step away for a minute to tuck in the next AA world Champion...!

squirecam: I'm not sleepy.


squirecam
View Public Profile
Send a private message to squirecam
Find More Posts by squirecam

05-21-2004, 11:54 AM #13
Mike Selinker
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 726

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
The project is the end result of work done by a panel of club officials of the 4 clubs, Larry Harris, Greg Smorey, and for a portion Mike Selinker.

To be clear, I haven't seen most of this before today (and haven't yet read it). For a couple weeks, I answered questions and clarified rule intentions for the clubs like I do on this site, but I didn't participate in most of the significant rewrites in this unofficial rules set. I'm not sure if that matters much, but I didn't want to leave an incorrect perception out there.

Mike


Mike Selinker
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Mike Selinker
Find More Posts by Mike Selinker

05-21-2004, 12:09 PM #14
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely Mike. Mike worked with us, when time allowed, on a lot of the wording clarifications of his previous work early on in the project. He was fabulous to work with, and a lot of things you might read in our text and say "yes, that sounds better" to is likely the result of his editions, before things advanced on to more gameplay issued topic analysis by the others involved. Mike, apologies if the introduction above did not make such clear enough, and many thanks for all the crazy hours of assistance you offered when you had the time before resuming other works.

Chris C
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-21-2004, 12:12 PM #15
Mike Selinker
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 726

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No problem. I just didn't want to take responsibility for something I didn't do.

Mike


Mike Selinker
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Mike Selinker
Find More Posts by Mike Selinker

05-21-2004, 12:17 PM #16
Babu
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ack! Don't have time to read the changes yet, as am heading off to lunch. Was the fighter/new carrier rule actually changed like that? Hope not...


Babu
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Babu
Find More Posts by Babu

05-21-2004, 12:30 PM #17
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Squirecam:

Stopping the movement of fighters in the "mobilize units" game phase was part of an overall effort to re-draw clear and absolute lines between the major game phases, and to somewhat simplify the overall game experience for a newcomer.

We are hoping that anyone picking the game up will be able to play ACCURATELY the first time through.

Most pieces now move in either the combat move phase or in the noncombat move phase (some additional movement, of course, make take place in the event of retreats during the conduct combat phase). Only air units may normally move in BOTH combat and non combat. NO movement of any pieces occurs in the mobilize units phase.

Thanks,
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-21-2004, 12:32 PM #18
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 255

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
The maximum combined damage inflicted in one turn by all strategic bombing raids one one industrial complex is the territory`s income value

Hey guys, bringing down HB is one thing, bringing it down that severely is another thing, but what you do is DESTROYING this technology and removing additional bmb from the game! Even with HB you only have an advantage of a little more than 1 IPC per bmb (because the bmb can be shut down). But also limiting this advantage to practically 2 bmb on GER and one on SEU means that you have to invest 45 IPC for a net gain of about 3 IPC per round. That`s really impressive ! Now HB is the weakest tech of all imho. Even the lame DesBomb is better!


Atlantikwall
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Atlantikwall
Find More Posts by Atlantikwall

05-21-2004, 12:37 PM #19
ressukka
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SBR isn't their only use. On attack or defense heavy bombers have double chance to hit. IMHO that is still not as bad as you claim.


ressukka
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ressukka

05-21-2004, 12:53 PM #20
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 255

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by ressu:
SBR isn't their only use. On attack or defense heavy bombers have double chance to hit.

The chance of a bmb-hit is increased from 2/3 to 8/9 with HB. That`s only an increase of 33% and not double!

[ May 21, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:59 pm

05-21-2004, 01:09 PM #21
ressukka
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right, I meant double dice not the probability percentage.


ressukka
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ressukka

05-21-2004, 01:31 PM #22
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 255

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new fgt/ac rule means that if you want to keep your Baltic fleet on Ger1, you have to buy an new fgt for the ac. That`s 26 IPC and only 14 IPC for land units left. Or even buy 2 ac and no fgt so that you don`t have this problem on turn 2. But then you just have 8 IPC left. This is really a gamebreaker !


Atlantikwall
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Atlantikwall
Find More Posts by Atlantikwall

05-21-2004, 01:48 PM #23
aa_player
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't matter what the rationale was for regulating ftr movement during the 'mobilize units' phase, it was an ill-conceived change. That part of the game wasn't broken, no one was confused & allowing fighters to hop on new carriers is a definite improvement over the older versions of A&A. If it ain't broke...

Fortunately these aren't official AH changes. So unless you're in one of the aforementioned PBEM clubs carry on as normal.


aa_player
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by aa_player

05-21-2004, 01:52 PM #24
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 255

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by aa_player:
Fortunately these aren't official AH changes. So unless you're in one of the aforementioned PBEM clubs carry on as normal.

But I am! After "criticising" some points, I would like to thank all the participants of this task force for their great work and the time spent on this issue. Most of the rule changes (especially techs effective later, i.e. "no surpise" if someone got LRA) really solved severe problem for competitive play. But the new HB and ac/fgt- rules are too much of a change imho.

[ May 21, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


Atlantikwall
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Atlantikwall
Find More Posts by Atlantikwall

05-21-2004, 02:08 PM #25
aa_player
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean they didn't ask for any input from club members before this was published? So this in essence is just another set of 'house rules' from a small group?


aa_player
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by aa_player

05-21-2004, 02:16 PM #26
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to a 'Message Board' AA_Player... as I see you're "the newest" signee on AH's...

And yes, there were a lot of players and message boards consulted and perspectives considered. Also, just a minor detail, Larry Harris had final stamp on everything that was decided...
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-21-2004, 02:25 PM #27
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was a relatively small group of individuals from the pbem clubs, plus Greg Smorey (Axis & Allies Tournament Coordinator, GCI/Origins) plus Mike Selinker (for a while - Mike had other time commitments and left before the project was completed), and Larry Harris, who worked with us through the entire revision.

These rules are being used in a face to face tournament this weekend in Holland that some of the DAAK members are attending, and will be in play at GenCon and other face to face events as the year progresses.

Larry Harris has forwarded them to AH. We are not sure if AH will officially adopt them or not, as they will likkely want to see if they work for a large group of people.

Feel free to try them out (or not) it is certainly everyone's choice to do so or not.

All feedback is welcome, as we do want to get the best play experiance possible for all concerned.
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-21-2004, 02:38 PM #28
Bismarck
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 403

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion they changed things that weren't broken. The fighters on newly built AC adjustment is a mistake, the only thing it does is limit a German AC buy.
The way they nerfed tech, they might as well have just eliminated tech altogether.
I don't understand why they changed the AA rules, it does not simplify things to have two different rule sets on things that were ok out of the box.


Bismarck
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Bismarck
Find More Posts by Bismarck

05-21-2004, 02:46 PM #29
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 question:

I only read the summary, but I take it that a "turn" (with respect to SBR/Rocket attacks) is defined as a player's turn and not a full game round (all 5 player's turns)?

3 points:

(1) I think the new rule regarding Ftr and CV mobilization is HORRIBLE. As the Allies, I want to see G slap down a CV and Trn on G1 and hand me the upper hand on the Russian front. This change will force G to play the more solid strategy (IMO) of building all troops.

Seriously though, I do think it's a bad rule as it really does deny G an otherwise popular G1 strategy and hence forces all games down a similar path.

(2) I'd have to agree that the overall reduction to HB seems a little harsh. Bombers are overpriced as they are and reducing the tech AND enforcing (an otherwise excellent) damage cap per turn (rather than per bomber) is excessive IMHO.

Personally I think the damage cap is enough of a "fix" to the US HB strategy and the rules as you have them will make HB arguably the most useless tech in the game.

(3) The "tactical" techs of SS and LRA are now also quite useless, seeing as surprise is their major advantage...

"Let me see, shall I invest 25 IPCs in dice for SS to give me a 60% of acquiring a tech that I can't use this turn; or will I invest 24 IPCs to get a 100% chance of buying 3 subs which will also only become effective next turn???"

So unless my fleet (and the upcoming naval action)is a long way from any of my ICs, surely simply buying 3 more subs is preferable unless I already have like 15 subs.

I don't see why simply banning tech rolls on game turn 1 wouldn't have been an acceptable fix to Sealion. This would still make LRA and SS very vialbe techs.

I, for one, hope that AAWC doesn't follow the rest of the PBEM clubs down this path.

Carico, I should point out that, on balance, I think you guys have done an excellent job on this project. I only hope that this ruleset isn't set in stone and you may consider ammending it in the future.

I think if nothing else, I'd like to see existing Ftrs allowed to mobilise on newly built CVs. I can probably live with the other two changes, although techs not becoming available until the mobilize phase does seem like the end of tech to me.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY

05-21-2004, 02:51 PM #30
ressukka
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, Super Submarines and Jet Fighters were actually improved. IMHO tech is not balanced at all in the official version, everyone goes just for HBs.

But of course everyone is free to play as they like, but I certainly give this ruleset more credit compared to other houserules. So at least I will prefer these to the official rules out of the box. Maybe a bit finetuning here and there and we have a winner. I also hope that the team will publish the tournament rules as a complete pdf package which incl. also pictures.
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:05 pm

05-21-2004, 03:03 PM #31
aibrahim
Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with DY that techs have become almost useless without the surprise factor. I can't imagine any strategy incorporating techs. Here are some stats (hopefully my probabilty knowledge hasn't completetly faded away).

Spending 5 ipc a turn for a tech:
Avg number of turns to obtain tech: 6
Avg ipc's spent for tech: 30

Spending 10 ipc a turn for a tech:
Avg number of turns to obtain tech: 3.27
Avg ipc's spent for tech: 32.7

Spending 15 ipc a turn for a tech:
Avg number of turns to obtain tech: 2.37
Avg ipc's spent for tech: 35.6

Spending 20 ipc a turn for a tech:
Avg number of turns to obtain tech: 1.93
Avg ipc's spent for tech: 38.6

Spending 25 ipc a turn for a tech:
Avg number of turns to obtain tech: 1.67
Avg ipc's spent for tech: 41.7

Spending 30 ipc a turn for a tech:
Avg number of turns to obtain tech: 1.52
Avg ipc's spent for tech: 45.73

So basically you are shelling out a bunch of money for a tech that will only come into play a couple of turns later. It is hard to see how that is worth it. You should also consider that ipcs now are worth more than ipcs in the future because the units you bought with those ipcs will have been on the board that much earlier.
__________________
-Ali


aibrahim
View Public Profile
Send a private message to aibrahim
Find More Posts by aibrahim

05-21-2004, 03:06 PM #32
ressukka
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the optional rules go the "Superfortresses" optional rule was maybe changed without a need anymore, because HB:s are now weaker overall. Compare it to e.g. Japan's "Most Powerful Battleships", which is real badass.


ressukka
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ressukka

05-21-2004, 03:07 PM #33
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jet Fighters weren't affected by the overall tech rule change since they are a defensive tech that only become effective at the end of your turn (in essence) anyway.

Having now read through the NAs and modified techs, I'd have to give that whole section (other than HB) two thumbs up. I'm still not 100% convinced that SS is worth trying for, but the reduction in vulnerability to air may make them useful in some circumstances.

LRA is definitely bad with the new rules.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY

05-21-2004, 03:14 PM #34
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I don't understand why they changed the AA rules, it does not simplify things to have two different rule sets on things that were ok out of the box.

As an academic exercise, please picture the following scenario.

Read the rules that come in the box (with no reference to any FAQ sheet here or elsewhere). Your only reference point is those rules as you have taken this board game to a South Seas island where you have no access to boards like these to ask for outside rules assistance.

It's partway into the game and the UK decides to try a risky amphibious assault directly on Germany. It sends bomber units from the UK to support the attack, planning to send them over another enemy AA gun after the battle for Germany is over, to a safe landing spot in the east.

There is a simultaneous assault by the UK on the territory where the additional gun is located.

Partway through the amphibious assault, the UK decides the battle is getting too risky to keep the bombers in play, and he wants to retreat with them.

Do you roll for the "extra" defending AA gun before rolling for the remainder of the land battle for Germany?

What happens if the UK took the territory where that AA gun is located in a battle it rolled first - before the assault on Germany?

The questions we would be getting from new players on issues like these would never end - so we simplified the rule - only the AA gun in Berlin gets to shoot at the bombers, and the bombers do not land until all battles are done.
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-21-2004, 03:25 PM #35
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks BW.

Guys, one of our goals was to make the rules playable by experienced and new members, and equally clear to both. On these grounds I think we will stand very strong.

I won't say more than that as I'd rather stay in the background and see how reactions develop over the course of time, and what 'perceived problems' are found to not be, and which 'as of yet unmentioned problems' might develop over time.

Those of you that know me know I'll watch this board like a hawk, and am about as quick as you'll find at "re-convening" the council when/if that necessary time should arrive. I'm pretty persistent, and as much as any of you, I want this game to be the best that it can be. Larry and all involved are not walking away either guys, we're in this till it is, simply put, the finest board game ever created; beyond a shadow of a doubt. Please, continue on with concerns and feedback as games are experienced!
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-21-2004, 03:29 PM #36
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Comments on game balance changes:

DY and others are rightfully remarking that perhaps we have "overbalanced" some of the changes we have made.

I would offer these comments:

1) ANY rule set is eventually going to be played through and "optimal" strategies devised that take into account the rules in play. So, if HB's are the weak sister in the new tech portfolio, a new optimal strategy perhaps using other techs (or even no techs) will likely emerge. As long as there are different pieces with different capabilities, players will be looking for (and in this group quickly will find) "the edge" that leads to winning games.

2) I don't think any of the group who worked on the new rule set holds out that the rule set is "perfect" from a game balance point of view (we DO hope we fixed the glaring problems of HB's and LRA). I don't know if we will have another opportunity to actually have AH revise the game rules - we don't even know if they will accept this revision.

3) What we do think we have accomplished is to write a set of rules that anyone can pick up and follow without too much difficulty or argument between players.

I hope that a good number of visitors to this forum will give the new rule set an honest tryout. If certain weakinesses in the game balance changes cause persistent problems, I see no reason why we cannot look once again at refining the rules to make this the best A&A game ever.
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-21-2004, 03:43 PM #37
Bismarck
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 403

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, regarding the example of the amphibious assault, the attacker has the choice in which order to conduct his battles so he can simply conduct the battle involving the 2nd AA gun before the amphibious assault.


Bismarck
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Bismarck
Find More Posts by Bismarck

05-21-2004, 04:07 PM #38
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 255

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:
...perhaps we have "overbalanced" some of the changes we have made...So, if HB's are the weak sister in the new tech portfolio, a new optimal strategy perhaps using other techs (or even no techs) will likely emerge. As long as there are different pieces with different capabilities, players will be looking for (and in this group quickly will find) "the edge" that leads to winning games.

We all want this to be the best game and have fun with it. And for competitive play, the game has to be somewhat balanced. Using always a US-H-bmb-"strategy" is certainly both boring and destroying the game. There`s a great balance within the land units and inf, rtl and arms all have their advantages. But I find it boring if no good player ever will buy a single bmb. And I would also find it boring, if no good player ever tried to tech. Furthermore I hope, you didn`t effectively want to "ban" tech from high-level cometitive gameplay! In the "old" game few people bought subs or bb and buying almost only infs was a good stategy. You just went to tech if the game was already looking bad and you hoped for a lucky HB to turn it. I want to see EVERY unit one the board, i.e. there should be a "reason" to buy every single unit depending on the circumstances. So, please, give me a good one to buy bmb! And you shouldn`t only go for tech if you`re in the desperate need for it!


Atlantikwall
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Atlantikwall
Find More Posts by Atlantikwall

05-21-2004, 04:11 PM #39
TrimChris
Hail Caesar!




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallasium
Posts: 3,743

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to Ali's tech probabilities... wouldn't you halve these numbers to calculate how many average turns it takes to get your FIRST tech? I think this is very important b/c the first tech you go for should have the biggest impact and additional techs will have declining values unless they work hand in hand with the first tech (LRA with either jet power or HB).

[ May 21, 2004, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: TrimChris ]
__________________
Are you not entertained?

Wizards of the Coast, let my Avalon Hill go!


TrimChris
View Public Profile
Send a private message to TrimChris
Find More Posts by TrimChris

05-21-2004, 04:17 PM #40
Larry Harris



Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Shore - Boston
Posts: 123

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Axis & Allies Revised was intended to reflect the wishes of 20 years of suggested game play changes. All changes were intended to promote and make Axis & Allies a better playing game. Upon the release of the game some undotted I’s and some uncrossed T’s were discovered. This was reflected in many post on this site and others. At one point I was asked to help create a standardized set of PBEM rules for this new version of Axis & Allies. Long story short, one thing lead to another and these rules came into existence.

I in fact helped re-write a large percentage of this new content. More than some and less than others. That which I did not personally write was written by extremely capable people. In any case I endorse every word finally written. The fact is Blackwatch would not let something be written in the final document unless I signed off on it. Sometimes this drove me crazy. This effort represents about 2 months of intensive work and it always was with the best interest of the average and elite Axis & Allies player in mind.

Are these rules better than the presently published rules? That’s for you to decide. In any case you now have an optional way of playing. Are you going to like every suggested change? I hope so but some of you probably will not. During this exercise at “attempted excellence” I explicitly requested and fought for a reduction in the importance and impact of the Weapons Development system. I thought the tail was beginning to wag the dog and wanted to reverse this trend.

Oh, one more thing, know this! I’m constantly seeking the best for this game. The best rules, the best material, and the best ideas. Don’t simply knock something you see and don’t like… Suggest something to put in its stead. I’m watching what you say here. Who knows, someday we may actually write a set of rules that are loved by all. I must admit that I kind of doubt it but I’m trying.

It was great working with likes of Carico, Nathan, Panther, Blackwatch, Raist, Attila, GSmorey, OpTorch, Zab and others. I saw that these people shared my attempt at excellence. All strived to write the absolute best game rules they could. Long hours were denoted by all and all gave their very best.

Use these rules or don’t. They are not being hailed as being better than the present set published, but I can tell you that this is the way I play Axis & Allies.

My best to you all and thanks for being part of the Axis & Allies experience.

Larry Harris
Creator of Axis & Allies
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:34 pm

05-21-2004, 04:35 PM #41
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER

:)


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: "boogerland"
Posts: 1,000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-cheers

-elbowmaster
__________________
the EVIL BERT and FRIEND...


elbowmaster
View Public Profile
Send a private message to elbowmaster
Visit elbowmaster's homepage!
Find More Posts by elbowmaster

05-21-2004, 04:56 PM #42
shaveandahaircut
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Larry and all.

Looks like a great job. Don't be overly swayed by those who are spending three times as much effort complaining as they are at seeking out games with skilled opponents and getting some actual data with which to evaluate this new game with an open mind.

The last 2 months the forums have contained some valuable insights, but mostly flooded with solutions in search of a problem and people who not only refuse to let go of the past, but are clutching at the trousers of those who are trying to walk past them.

[ May 21, 2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: shaveandahaircut ]


shaveandahaircut
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by shaveandahaircut

05-21-2004, 08:43 PM #43
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DY, i totally agree with your 3 points. Those are also the 3 changes i really disagree with.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-21-2004, 09:49 PM #44
Gorak
Slightly Above Average




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 234

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a number of good changes which will likely be adopted into my gaming group. Thanks for the hard work
__________________
I wanna cast magic missile!


Gorak
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Gorak
Find More Posts by Gorak

05-21-2004, 11:04 PM #45
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: las vegas
Posts: 1,464

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can live with every change BUT the carrier one. That was really just a wrong move and I hope you club guys are taking note. In fact, I suggest a poll be done? Would you re-consider the change assuming the majority of posters agree with me?

Squirecam
__________________
smo63: Guys, got to step away for a minute to tuck in the next AA world Champion...!

squirecam: I'm not sleepy.


squirecam
View Public Profile
Send a private message to squirecam
Find More Posts by squirecam

05-21-2004, 11:20 PM #46
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can someone (preferably BW222 or Carico)please at least explain the rationale behind the fighter/carrier relationship? Was it really just to simplify the mobilization rules for inexperienced players (ie no unit can move in the mobilize unit phase ever, period)?

If so, could existing fighters simply be allowed to end their NCM phase in a sea zone and then you slap down a CV into the same sea zone in mobilize units phase and absorb the fighters that way?

Hmmm, no that sounds a bit too complicated. Well I guess it should either be the way it was (good) or the way it is (bad) and there's probably no in between.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY

05-21-2004, 11:43 PM #47
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think that would be anymore complicated than the official rule, and i think it would be a very good idea. I had the same idea some time ago. I would have proposed it if i had known they were going to change this.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-22-2004, 12:24 AM #48
AxisRoll
Team AR Japan *****




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NW Chicago
Posts: 659


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

I have played since the 80's. Love the game. I also appreciate all the work being done here. It has made AA much more enjoyable. The revised CD game would be the icing on the cake.

I wanted to share my opinion. I am only concerned with the main rule changes, not the optional rules (Since we are still in awe of the new revised game.)

The 1st change is a great. The other 5, I feel limits the game and changes the game significantly. Moving it more toward the old game. This is bad.

“The COMBINED total of any bombing raid and rocket attack for a turn is limited to the value of the territory under attack.”
1. HB's were really the only thing possibly broken. The new rule is great. That’s all that needs to change in the game. Please leave the rest alone.

“For Heavy bombers you roll two die. You pick the most favorable roll of the two (whether on attack, sbr, or defense.)”
2. #1 just fixed HB, why are you crushing it here. Please nooooooooooo.

“No units may move in the mobilize units phase. You can place new ftrs on YOUR existing carriers or on YOUR new carriers (if the carrier is in the sz adjacent to your IC).”
3. To add an existing fighter to a newly built carrier was a great addition to Revised. This gives everyone more options and flexibility, especially the German navy. To remove it so it is easier to read and avoid confusion? “We are hoping that anyone picking the game up will be able to play ACCURATELY the first time through.” Can’t we just have a one sentence example to make it clear? I feel cheated.

“Antiaircraft guns only fire during the conduct combat phase against air units that moved in the combat move phase. They do not fire at any air units moving in the noncombat move phase, whether just doing a noncombat move or returning from battle.“
4. Again I liked how revised enhanced the AA gun to fire in non-combat. “Partway through the amphibious assault, the UK decides the battle is getting too risky to keep the bombers in play, and he wants to retreat with them. Do you roll for the "extra" defending AA gun before rolling for the remainder of the land battle for Germany?” The bombers should quit the battle, but still sit in the land or sea zone. Then in non-combat, they finish movement. Also, the attacker picks order of combat, so you should be in tune with this. When I do a SBR and attack the building, I know to do the SBR first or else how can you bomb a building you just took. So the same would apply if you withdraw planes from combat. Thumbs down…

“Tech rolls take effect in the mobilize units phase of your turn (effectively delaying their implementation by one turn)”
5. This kills all Tech. Terrible. There needs to be a better way than this. Why not add 2 Inf to UK and W Europe or something. As the allies we always kill a German fighter or at least try. In the 5 times we did not, we tried sea lion (to prove or disprove it) and it failed every time. Missing tech or MVP AA gun or bad dice. I think it is overrated. I understand not wanting to force Russia to attack or land a fighter etc, but there needs to be another way.
__________________
Resistance is Futile...
Team AxisRoll vs the World. Who wants it?
AARe - Enhanced is the only way to Play!


AxisRoll
View Public Profile
Send a private message to AxisRoll
Visit AxisRoll's homepage!
Find More Posts by AxisRoll

05-22-2004, 01:23 AM #49
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new tech rules fix Sealion but effectively kill tech for the whole game.

Banning tech on game turn 1 (ie round 1) fixes Sealion and kills tech on round 1, but does not hamper it for the remainder of the game.

I think it would have been more honest had they simply banned tech altogether, rather than effectively killing tech in an under-handed way. I usually play with tech, but I think no tech is also fine and I am more than happy to play under such conditions.

While I pretty much agree with AxisRoll, at the end of the day I think the only change that is totally unacceptable is the Ftr/CV mobilization relationship.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY

05-22-2004, 04:00 AM #50
axis_roll
Team AR Germany / *****




Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 1,755

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the new rules are akin to treating the disease but killing the patient!

Tech is not that evil! It adds a component of desperation to the game that reflects what a almost defeated country would stoop to in order to stil win a war.

You can always play with tech off... who will roll for tech now?

I also agree that limiting the SBR's to IPC value per player turn is the best solution.

Someone else pointed out earlier, and I agree, the way these rules are, I will never buy any bombers.

Also, I agree that the CV mobilization was the BEST new rule in the 4th edition. Why are we taking that out? BOO!!! I HATE this change!

Almost every rule has an exception, so the 'clarifications of the rules' rationale for making the CV change is lame, IMHO.

Otherwise, thanks for the efforts gentlemen.
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:37 pm

05-22-2004, 07:08 AM #51
richyj1
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 264


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regards to fighters and aircraft carriers:

Did anyone consider allowing existing fighters to be placed on newly-built carriers if said fighters had not moved during that turn?

Just a suggestion...


richyj1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to richyj1
Visit richyj1's homepage!
Find More Posts by richyj1

05-22-2004, 08:33 AM #52
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Fixing" Sealion? Sealion didn't need fixing! Everyone says that it's good for the game if Germany has a lot of options instead of just crushing Russia. Well that was another option! It was good for the game! Good job destroying perfectly valid game elements.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-22-2004, 08:53 AM #53
cousin_joe
Barbarian




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,436

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rich,

The problem with this is that Germany desperately needs those FTR's on G1. I much prefer the solution that:

-------------------------------------------------

An EXISTING Fighter may be deployed onto a NEWLY PURCHASED Aircraft Carrier during the Mobilization New Units phase as long as ALL of the following conditions are met:
i) The FTR and AC belong to the same nation
ii) The FTR is present in the territory with the IC producing the AC at the start of the Mobilize New Units phase
iii) The FTR has at least one movement point remaining

-------------------------------------------------

RATIONALE:
-German Atlantic Push strategy remains viable without having to spend precious IPCs on a NEW FTR (when they already have 5-6 available)
-UK1 AC Build remains viable (without the ahistorical situation of having to fly US FTRs on it immediately)
-FTR movement remains consistent at 4MP
-Germany may still use all of it's FTRs on G1
-Since you have already added the exception that Aircraft are the only units to move during the Combat and Non-Combat Phases, I see no problem to extend this exception further to include the Mobilize New Units Phase as well.
-If explained clearly (possibly in a FAQ), new players should understand this quickly (as with any other rule)
-There appears to be overwhelming public support to allow EXISTING FTRs onto NEW ACs.

[ May 22, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: cousin_joe ]
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?


cousin_joe
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cousin_joe
Find More Posts by cousin_joe

05-22-2004, 09:25 AM #54
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 255

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

I would have a solution to the "aa/airforce-withdrawl-problem" that made the always active aa dissapear in the LH-tournament rules:

" ... airforce may withdrawn (not retreat) from a battle at any round of combat. It is removed from the battleboard and considered "in the air above" a territory. After all other battles have been resolved, the remaining airforce moves to a friendly landing position in the combat movement. It is subject to enemy aa fire. If an aa has just been conquered it is not."

Certailnly you can find a better formulation, but the intention should be clear. Airforce used in an attack just moves in the cm. It stays in the territory (as subs "submerge") and moves after all other battles. Then an aa may fire when moving!

This rule change would clarify the old rule AND make an enemy aa shoot when flying home. I think you have to give aa more power and disable the movement of a nation to an ally!


Atlantikwall
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Atlantikwall
Find More Posts by Atlantikwall

05-22-2004, 10:32 AM #55
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: las vegas
Posts: 1,464

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by cousin_joe:
There appears to be overwhelming public support to allow EXISTING FTRs onto NEW ACs.

Then please vote in my poll. Of course, evidence strongly suggests you are right... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Squirecam
__________________
smo63: Guys, got to step away for a minute to tuck in the next AA world Champion...!

squirecam: I'm not sleepy.


squirecam
View Public Profile
Send a private message to squirecam
Find More Posts by squirecam

05-22-2004, 10:38 AM #56
cousin_joe
Barbarian




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,436

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts on the New Changes:

1. AAGuns no longer firing on NCM is fine. Although I did like it the way it was before, I understand the rationale for clarifying the different phases.

2. I really dislike not being able to place EXISTING FTRs on NEW ACs. I would say keep the old rules but slightly modified so that the FTR must have at least one MP left. See link for further details: http://boards.avalonhill.com/cgi-bin/ul ... 001112&p=4# 000052

3. Transports are much more clear now. Good job on this one.

4. I really like having Tech come into play on the Mobilize new units phase. It's a bit more realistic now as Tech is 'deployed' (rather than being instantaneous), much like New Units are 'deployed'. For those that say this severely weakens LRA and Super Subs, even though you don't get to use LRA immediately (as it should be), you do threaten a lot of areas immediately. Super Subs get an instant benefit in that a Destroyer must be present for aircraft to hit them although I do agree the SS not being able to attack at 3 immediately really weakens them.

5. TECH CHANGES
i) Jet Fighters - Good change. Consistent with what a jet fighter should be able to do and makes them much more useful.

iii) Super Subs - Good thought but I would much rather have the base sub get some defense vs. air rather than having to spend 30IPC to get this. The US can get 2 DD in the Atlantic immediately so this doesn't help much. I think the following would be much better: http://boards.avalonhill.com/cgi-bin...;f=10;t=000871

v) Combined Bombardment - still too weak. This one needed a change.

vi) Heavy Bombers - I agree with the others and feel that HB has been handicapped way too much and is actually now near useless. The Damage Cap is sufficient to fix the SBR problem, and the 2 die select one is just going overboard. Combat is not a problem as a player can only produce a few Bombers as he still needs TRN and INF support (unlike in SBR)

6. NATIONAL ADVANTAGES
Still just for casual games. Nowhere near ready for consideration for Competitive Play as they remain very imbalanced both between nations and within nations.

[ May 22, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: cousin_joe ]
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?


cousin_joe
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cousin_joe
Find More Posts by cousin_joe

05-22-2004, 10:58 AM #57
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are so many things i don't like about this new pack that now that i think about it, i'd rather play with the official rules and only house rule heavy bombers at 2D6 keep best. Most of the changes actually make the game less playable and less enjoyable. Sorry, but as far as i'm concerned, this was one serious misfire.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-22-2004, 01:08 PM #58
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The group working on this rules revision had two major objectives:

1) Clarifying/modifying the rules so that someone picking up the game would be able to play it CORRECTLY (and relatively painlessly) by following the rules in the box.

2) Addressing the KNOWN game imbalances (US HB's/rocket and sbr damage/Sea Lion)

of the two, MOST of the effort was spent on #1.

The two quotations below help illustrate why we changed the rules so that air units now leave the combat site in the noncombat move phase and that AA guns are active only against air units that moved in the combat move phase.


Quote:
1.) I would have a solution to the "aa/airforce-withdrawl-problem" that made the always active aa dissapear in the LH-tournament rules:

" ... airforce may withdrawn (not retreat) from a battle at any round of combat. It is removed from the battleboard and considered "in the air above" a territory. After all other battles have been resolved, the remaining airforce moves to a friendly landing position in the combat movement. It is subject to enemy aa fire. If an aa has just been conquered it is not."

and


Quote:
2.) Well, regarding the example of the amphibious assault, the attacker has the choice in which order to conduct his battles so he can simply conduct the battle involving the 2nd AA gun before the amphibious assault.

Both of the authors of these quotes are ignoring a fundamental rule of Axis and Allies (new pbem players generally have some difficulty in grasping this as well).

All combat is occurring simultaneously, even though each battle is resolved separately and completely before beginning to roll the next battle.

Thus, (quote 2 above) an air unit retreating from one battle over an AA gun in another battle site must endure a round of AA fire from that gun REGARDLESS of which order you roll the battles (all battles are occuring simultaneously - and even if you "know" you will be taking possession of the new territory the AA gun would still get a shot at your retreating air unit).

When the air units have broken off a battle in an amphibious landing, there is no direction in the rule set for which battle gets rolled next - the defending AA gun, or the remainder of the amphibious assault. (In top level play, every minute detail makes a difference, and this one would no doubt crop up)

Quote 1 has the same issue. If we are still in the conduct combat phase, then the captured AA gun still gets a shot, as all combat has not yet been resolved, and all is still going on.

If you amend quote 1 to say that AA guns fire inthe noncombat phase, then you have a total nonsequitur - a quacking bird is a duck regardless of what you call it - a firing AA gun is combat, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that it is noncombat.

You also need to couple the internal illogic of trying to keep AA guns firing at retreating or noncombating air units with another problem.

Suppose I want to reinforce a friendly territory, moving both air and ground units there (but the air units must move over a hostile AA gun). In order to feel "safe" about the territory I want to protect, ALL units must arrive there safely - even 1 lost air unit will tip the scale toward giving the space up.

Do I commit and move the ground units before or after I commit and move the air unts? Do I need a "noncombat" declaration? Nothing in the rules tells me how to resolve this dilemma.

The simplest, clearest way to fix it was by allowing all air to leave the combat zone during noncombat and to turn off always active AA guns - these were well intentioned new rules, but impossible to implement clearly and consistently without 67 pages of exceptions.
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-22-2004, 01:41 PM #59
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DY asked:


Quote:
Can someone (preferably BW222 or Carico)please at least explain the rationale behind the fighter/carrier relationship? Was it really just to simplify the mobilization rules for inexperienced players (ie no unit can move in the mobilize unit phase ever, period)?

If so, could existing fighters simply be allowed to end their NCM phase in a sea zone and then you slap down a CV into the same sea zone in mobilize units phase and absorb the fighters that way?

Hmmm, no that sounds a bit too complicated. Well I guess it should either be the way it was (good) or the way it is (bad) and there's probably no in between.

I think you have answered most of your own question, as you see the difficulties and issues involved.

Early in the discussion I also thought that if you were allowing pieces to "shift" in the mobilize units phase, then why not just let them land in the seazone to start with? Then we got into a discussion about whether they'd have to do a "touch and go" landing in the neighboring IC. Why would it make any more sense to have a ftr travel 4 spaces from one direction, land in the IC, then go one more step, rather than just coming "over the sea" just 4 steps?

Then you have the issue in a multiplayer game over who gets to decide whose ftr gets to move to the new carrier, and what happens if there is a dispute between players on the same side over this? Or if the owner of the Russian ftr has a change of heart and doesn't want his ftr moved to the new UK carrier, as it moves him out of range of his next planned attack??

We also took "philosophical" issue with the concept of pieces moving anywhere on the board on their ally's turn.

By the time we worked through all the convolutions we voted for simplicity, and to reduce exceptions as much as possible.

As best as I can recall, this pretty much covers the reasoning behind the change.
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-22-2004, 02:27 PM #60
cousin_joe
Barbarian




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,436

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blackwatch, Carico67, or Mr. Harris,

I understand your reasoning for wanting to clarify the rules, but in light of the overwhelming opposition to this change, do you see anything wrong with the following amendment?

-------------------------------------------------

An EXISTING Fighter may be deployed onto a NEWLY PURCHASED Aircraft Carrier during the Mobilize New Units phase as long as ALL of the following conditions are met:
i) The FTR and AC belong to the same nation
ii) The FTR is present in the territory with the IC producing the AC at the start of the Mobilize New Units phase
iii) The FTR has at least one movement point remaining

-------------------------------------------------

Logically, this would make sense as you can picture it like this: In the period of 1 turn, whatever length of time that may be, the FTR is capable of 4 movements (ie. 4 Movement Points). Say it uses 3 of those during Combat and Non-Combat Phases. During the Mobilization Phase, the 4th Movement Point can certainly be used to move the EXISTING FTR onto the NEW AC.

You have already made the exception that FTRs may move on Combat AND Non-Combat phases, so I see no barrier to extending this to include the Mobilization phase as well.

Even though it is an exception, the fact that logically it makes sense, should make it fairly easy for new players to grasp.

Thoughts?

[ May 22, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: cousin_joe ]
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:16 am

05-22-2004, 02:30 PM #61
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 255

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:

Both of the authors of these quotes are ignoring a fundamental rule of Axis and Allies ...All combat is occurring simultaneously, even though each battle is resolved separately and completely before beginning to roll the next battle.

Well, I now this "fundamental rule", that`s why I expressly declared it as an exception. It is also a "principle" of AA that no unit may move both in cm and ncm phase (therefore YOU changed the ac/fgt-rule), but airforce is AN EXCEPTION. So please tell me, where is the difference between the two "exceptions"? And who specifies what is "fundamental" and what is only a "principle" with possible exceptions?

[ May 22, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


Atlantikwall
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Atlantikwall
Find More Posts by Atlantikwall

05-22-2004, 02:39 PM #62
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: las vegas
Posts: 1,464

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:

We also took "philosophical" issue with the concept of pieces moving anywhere on the board on their ally's turn.

By the time we worked through all the convolutions we voted for simplicity, and to reduce exceptions as much as possible.

As best as I can recall, this pretty much covers the reasoning behind the change.

No offense, but what you did was hurt game balance and reduce choice. Just because something is simpler does not mean its better.

90% so far (although the poll reflects 100%) HATE this change. I hope you rethink this.

Squirecam

[ May 22, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: squirecam ]
__________________
smo63: Guys, got to step away for a minute to tuck in the next AA world Champion...!

squirecam: I'm not sleepy.


squirecam
View Public Profile
Send a private message to squirecam
Find More Posts by squirecam

05-22-2004, 03:10 PM #63
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:
Then you have the issue in a multiplayer game over who gets to decide whose ftr gets to move to the new carrier, and what happens if there is a dispute between players on the same side over this? Or if the owner of the Russian ftr has a change of heart and doesn't want his ftr moved to the new UK carrier, as it moves him out of range of his next planned attack??

We also took "philosophical" issue with the concept of pieces moving anywhere on the board on their ally's turn.

By the time we worked through all the convolutions we voted for simplicity, and to reduce exceptions as much as possible.

As best as I can recall, this pretty much covers the reasoning behind the change.

All of this can simply be resolve by disallowing allied fighters from ever boarding carriers. This makes the game more historical and simpler, and it allows for fighters landing on new carriers. I'm sure a good 99% of the population would like that change, as opposed to about 1% liking the change you did make.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-22-2004, 03:16 PM #64
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cousin joe wrote:


Quote:
An EXISTING Fighter may be deployed onto a NEWLY PURCHASED Aircraft Carrier during the Mobilize New Units phase as long as ALL of the following conditions are met:
i) The FTR and AC belong to the same nation
ii) The FTR is present in the territory with the IC producing the AC at the start of the Mobilize New Units phase
iii) The FTR has at least one movement point remaining

This is a reasonable and logical proposal for an advanced rule.

I believe there may be some movement to creating an entire set of advanced rules for A&A, but I have no idea what stage this may be at.

I also happen to think that an OLD A&A rule that was written out of this new set would aslo make an excellent addition to an advanced rule set, namely that transports USED to be able to load units in a hostile sea zone in combat. (They could not move out of the seazone that turn, but if they survived the sea combat, they could offload the units in an amphibious assault within that seazone)

Since you can now move out of a hostile seazone in combat, you'd need to figure out wheter you could also move out freshly loaded transports or not, but that will all be grounds for a much bigger debate later on.

Thanks.
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-22-2004, 03:24 PM #65
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advanced? If you just make it so fighters can't land on allied carriers, the rules will actually be simpler than both the official rules and your set!


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-22-2004, 03:37 PM #66
Bismarck
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 403

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blackwatch, I'm fully aware that combat is supposed to take place simultaniously. If that is the case however, then the retreat happens later than the combat itself so there is nothing wrong with you capturing the other AA gun before the aircraft retreat.
There will always be compromise since you can't roll all the combats at once, that's why we have the scenario where you can SBR a factory and then capture the territory.


Bismarck
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Bismarck
Find More Posts by Bismarck

05-22-2004, 03:55 PM #67
cousin_joe
Barbarian




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,436

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blackwatch,

While the idea of an Advanced Rules Set intrigues me, I was actually pushing for placement of EXISTING FTRs onto NEW ACs for the 'Larry Harris Tournament Rules' which I assume would be the standard for PBEM play.

(P.S. Can you tell us any more about these Advanced Rules? [img]smile.gif[/img] )
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?


cousin_joe
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cousin_joe
Find More Posts by cousin_joe

05-22-2004, 04:07 PM #68
Gearhead
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: California
Posts: 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: interactions of AA guns & planes

In the example of resolution order for multiple combats, Blackwatch wrote, "Both of the authors of these quotes are ignoring a fundamental rule of Axis and Allies (new pbem players generally have some difficulty in grasping this as well).

All combat is occurring simultaneously, even though each battle is resolved separately and completely before beginning to roll the next battle."

The Operations Manual doesn't list Fundamental Rules. There is a reference on p14 which states, "All combat takes place at the same time...". But this sentence can't logically mean all combat occurs in the exact same instant; as for example in the case of a plane flying over successive regions & taking AA fire from each, obviously it is happening at somewhat different times.

Anyway it seems a cleaner fix than proposed by the committee is to just eliminate the sentence mentioned, along with the concept of combat occurring exactly simultaneously if it occurs elsewhere in the rules. Then the solution to Blackwatch's problem becomes much simpler. As proposed by Atlantikwall the bomber(s) are moved off the combat board and complete their move after the current amphib assault is resolved. Do they take additional AA fire in the other region? If the defender still owns it, sure they do.

I've seen this solution used in lots of other games & it seems very intuitive (to me anyway).


Gearhead
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Gearhead

05-22-2004, 04:45 PM #69
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cousin joe,

At this point, the rules we have shown have been sent to AH by Larry Harris. I do not know if they will accept them as is, accept them with modifications or reject them outright. We do believe they are playable rules with both sides having a pretty even chance.

As far as advanced rules, i think they are still "in the works" and i really have no knowledge of them other than that.

Thx
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-22-2004, 04:56 PM #70
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gearhead,

Simultaneity of all declared combats is a major issue in online club play, and as far as I know in face to face tournament play as well.

The AA gun example you use seems valid at first glance, but it is really an example of an entire combat sequence that must be rolled in a particular order before you go on to the next separate battle sequence.

And yes, you could roll an "enroute" AA gun, then roll an entirely different battle, then roll the rest of the battle that the "enroute" ftr was to be involved in. I think they would qualify as 3 separate battles. It still makes no difference to the simulaneity of all combat - you still cannot rely on the results of one battle to provide an "escape route" for retreating units from another.

Each of these complete combat sequences are occurring "at the same time", regardless of the order you roll them in.

Thanks
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:17 am

05-22-2004, 04:58 PM #71
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical Accuracy AND Gameplay Mechanics:

First of I will say this: I am not going to sit here and say I pushed for this or that... I will simply say some things I felt we needed done or changed were, and others I disagreed with or felt needed little/no change were... there were a lot of perspectives given. Unlike the majority of posters on these boards who tend to be from North America, opinions on gameplay differ in various regions often not represented in a forum like this. Also, make no mistake if you unaware of the extensiveness of it, this game is widely played globally. You likely get a taste for different perspectives, where historical accuracy of a game are more closely perceived, if you follow the posts of someone like Drax who does tend to post here regularly...

That said, the rules as we have them presented allow for an early historical game. Could the Germans have gained control of the Atlantic easily in the beginning of 1942? Not a chance... Not allowing immediate placement of existing Ftr's with the 1 AC build is accurate. The allowance of an allies ftr's immediate placement onto a newly built AC I will need to look into if I'm reading concerns correctly, as I believed we had went against the idea (a definite allied advantage), but I'm strained on time till much later tonight to go through rulebook. On the topic of 'broken', 1AC/1Tran build should securely accomplish the same objective.. 10 vs 8 with sub fodder if desired against any UK air strike. I often think those of you who like to quickly cry "foul" don't think scenario's through fully, as even an AC buy makes it a very costly battle for the UK who is already stretched thin in the new game. From a gameplay perspective does the rules as we have them presented not play out well in this topic? Time will tell. I will refer to this quote a lot on what is presented. Regardless to the answer found, the rules are there and before 2 players bid for a side they know what they are playing with, so minor adjustments in the future is always a possibility.

Seeing as this seems to be a huge topic right now, here's another reason why things 'might' have went in the way they did...
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-22-2004, 05:05 PM #72
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gearhead,

I understand how to you this seems overly simplified, but believe me and BlackWatch (who are likely turning grey before our time answering Q's and A's in the past due to 'obscure' rules), the way they are presented should allow for a veteran AND rookie player to able to play by the same ruleset, with clear understanding of how things work out, and their order of proceedings. What seems simple 'tweeks' to you is not so simple to a casual gamer. These are tournament rules, designed to minimize and clarify the game to an extent it has never been previously done. In this regard, I hope all agree after reading it through... I always did this expecting objections to any gameply findings, hence the 5 pages here in just over 24 hours....
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-22-2004, 05:28 PM #73
Zombie
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 594

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:
At this point, the rules we have shown have been sent to AH by Larry Harris. I do not know if they will accept them as is, accept them with modifications or reject them outright. We do believe they are playable rules with both sides having a pretty even chance.

Seeing that so many people seem to prefer the standard rules to these, i suggest we all start sending a bunch of emails to AH to ask them to please keep the current set. I'll be the first to send one.

Edit:

Hmmm... I tried looking everywhere, but i can't find a way to contact Avalon Hill directly, only Wizards of the Coast. Anyone care to help me to an email address or a link? I think it's really important that we do this if we want our game to remain how we like it!

[ May 22, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Zombie ]


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-22-2004, 06:23 PM #74
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: las vegas
Posts: 1,464

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Carico67:
Historical Accuracy AND Gameplay Mechanics:

That said, the rules as we have them presented allow for an early historical game. Could the Germans have gained control of the Atlantic easily in the beginning of 1942? Not a chance...

If I wanted historical accuracy, there are SEVERAL things wrong with your new set, and reality. The Allies would be prohibited from attacking France UK/USA 1, as they "didnt" until 1944. Second, no allied units would ever move to Russia, such as pilots, unless they had no choice, otherwise Stalin would intern the pilots and "examine" the bombers, as later actually did happen. Nor would USSR units "invade" or "Help" India. Or attack Japan.

This is NOT a historically accurate game in the least. Really, I appreciate your work, but dont use this as a logical excuse, because its not.

Since *I* am running Germany, you should know that *I*, way back in 1939, foresaw the need for an Atlantic fleet, and a new AC (which *I* would NEVER allow to be placed in the sea w/o adequate fighters), and that it would be ready, right around Spring, 1942. So my placement of my new carrier was EXACTLY what I wanted and expected.

Frankly, I hope for 2 things, that when someone makes changes they listen to suggestions and constructive and logical criticisms. And then if proven, change because of it.

The fact is, this particular change is BAD and 90% of us know it. It hurts gameplay, but more obviously, game CHOICE. I think you know it. Why should Germany be FORCED into a USSR strategy??? You should recognize this and listen to what your future PBEM club membership base is saying.

Squirecam

[ May 22, 2004, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: squirecam ]
__________________
smo63: Guys, got to step away for a minute to tuck in the next AA world Champion...!

squirecam: I'm not sleepy.


squirecam
View Public Profile
Send a private message to squirecam
Find More Posts by squirecam

05-22-2004, 07:01 PM #75
cousin_joe
Barbarian




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,436

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carico67,

Re: Historical Accuracy and Gameplay Mechanics

The problem with 2nd Edition rules, is that the majority of games came down to an Allied Triple Team of Germany, while Japan tried to get to Russia. Games were very unhistorical as there was no Pacific Theater (huge theater in WW2), no D-Day (most important battle of WW2), and Japan taking over all of Asia (and sometimes Africa)

They tried to fix this for the 4th Edition, but despite their efforts, I'm finding games breaking down to the same old formula. This is boring and repetitive. For the game to really take off as a great strategic game, multiple options and playouts must be available. Not allowing EXISTING FTRs on NEW ACs kills (or limits) a lot of these options and playouts.

Germany: AC in the Baltic (AC+TRN for Germany is not viable as too few INF vs. Russia)
AC in the Med (for Africa campaign))
UK: AC in SZ3 (to get troops into Finland quickly while keeping Navy safe)
AC off Australia (for Pacific battle)
Japan: AC around Japan (to protect TRN while sending rest of fleet out)
USA: AC off WUSA (to go after Japan)
AC off EUSA (instafleet if Axis threatening)

In the situations above, allowing an EXISTING FTR onto a NEW AC makes them more viable, especially if under threat. I think purchasing NEW FTRs to place is just too expensive for most nations.

Furthermore, with regards to Germany being able to build a loaded AC on G1, this typically promotes an India factory with possible KJF. It also delays an Allied Triple Team. I find any rule change that gets away from the same old, same old in 2nd edition is good for the game.

One last note is regarding National Advantages. If you really want the game to be more historically accurate, let each Nation select one NA with an extra for either Axis power. With this, you can actually get things in the game like D-Day (Joint Strike), the Pacific Theater (multiple Naval and Amphibious NA's), and less Japanese dominance (by helping the allies with the global game). These of course must be reasonably Balanced (the current ones are not). Perhaps this is something that should be considered for an Advanced ruleset, though I would like to see it standard for Competitive Play.

Anyways, I appreciate all the hard work you guys have put in, but really, I think with this AC change, you're making the "purchase nothing but INF for Germany and pressure Russia with Japan" as the only optimal strategy for the Axis.

[ May 22, 2004, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: cousin_joe ]
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?


cousin_joe
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cousin_joe
Find More Posts by cousin_joe

05-22-2004, 07:07 PM #76
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 255

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:
Simultaneity of all declared combats is a major issue in online club

Well, in your last statement simultaneity was a "fundamental rule", after a very good exemple of Gearhead (thank you btw), it`s a just a "major issue". I would say, it`s going in the right "direction". Nothing is "set into stone" and there is even an OFFICIAL EXCEPTION of this so-called "fundamental rule". If you make an amphibious assault into a country (EGY) and you have to enter an enemy controlled sea zone (EMD), you have to resove this naval battle FIRST and clear the seazone. The outcome of this battle has an influence on the land attack! So you don`t have a problem of making these attacks BEFORE all other combats, but you have a problem when airforce should move in the cm AFTER all other combats have been resolved. Sorry, but I can`t understand the rationale behind this logic!

[ May 22, 2004, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


Atlantikwall
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Atlantikwall
Find More Posts by Atlantikwall

05-22-2004, 08:16 PM #77
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Well, in your last statement simultaneity was a "fundamental rule", after a very good exemple of Gearhead (thank you btw), it`s a just a "major issue". I would say, it`s going in the right "direction". Nothing is "set into stone" and there is even an OFFICIAL EXCEPTION of this so-called "fundamental rule". If you make an amphibious assault into a country (EGY) and you have to enter an enemy controlled sea zone (EMD), you have to resove this naval battle FIRST and clear the seazone. The outcome of this battle has an influence on the land attack! So you don`t have a problem of making these attacks BEFORE all other combats, but you have a problem when airforce should move in the cm AFTER all other combats have been resolved. Sorry, but I can`t understand the rationale behind this logic!

At last - something we do seem to agree on.

I agree - you must resolve the sea combat in EMed before you can resolve the combat in Egypt. The pair of battles is one long battle sequence per the rules - it is a more complicated example of rolling for subs and AA guns before you roll for other pieces. Sometimes in these battles you may even lose pieces that you hoped might participate in the "main event".

Nevertheless, this sequence of battles (sea combat followed by land combat) is occurring simultaneously with all other battles that Germany has declared. And - more imporatantly - there is no way to sequence any rolled battles in such a way as to affect any retreats from any other battles that may be going on in the same turn.

You cannot (in a rolled combat series) "capture" an AA gun in such a way as to prevent it from shooting down a retreating plane from another battle (if you allow AA guns to shoot at rereating air units during combat resolution).

Furthermore - this is the very discussion (shall I characterise it as an argument?), that led us fairly quickly to abolish BOTH air landing in combat and always active AA guns.
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-22-2004, 11:20 PM #78
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:
As an academic exercise, please picture the following scenario.

Read the rules that come in the box (with no reference to any FAQ sheet here or elsewhere). Your only reference point is those rules as you have taken this board game to a South Seas island where you have no access to boards like these to ask for outside rules assistance.



The problem is that this ruleset doesn't come out of the box and is currently only available online. So anyone who has access to these rules should have access to the FAQ (which in large part was down to me, so believe me I know how helpful the examples and clarifications you guys made in your rules will be to new and experienced players).

Given that the historical argument for disallowing old Ftrs mobilized on new CVs has been shot down and given that players with access to your rules will also have access to the FAQ, why stick with with a rule, whose whole motivation is simplicity rather than enjoyable and varied gameplay, that no one but you seems to like (OK over at Don's they haven't complained, but there have only been 5 responses there, so I'm just going by the 6 pages with a 100% disapproval rating here at AH)???

[ May 23, 2004, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY

05-22-2004, 11:51 PM #79
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical Message:

DY, don't go too fast past the words in my post, let me repeat them: I am not saying whether I sided with you or not on the issue as you want it; what I was giving you was a different perspective, that different cultures outside of the short group arrainged herein on this particular MB, could possibly have in regards to how things should gameplay. This AC thing.. I wasn't going to touch it, but now I will. I will touch it as though I agree with the rule we have made in full support, whether it was the case or not...

G1 you build an AC and INf/Art/Tanks, whatever else... but only 1 AC for fleet builds. WHERE IS THIS A PROBLEM, or greatly different? If the UK is ballsy enough to send 2 Ftr's and his Bomber after AC/DES/Tran/2 Subs then he better have a REALLY good plan on how to hold India, as that air is VERY unlikely to ever reach anywhere near Bangledesh to help, after engaging in the Baltic. This attack will set the Japanese off and running. If it goes bad then the allies are in BIG trouble. What else DOES happen is that 2 GER air pieces are not in the best possible position going into G2 as the rules would allow now (SZ3 range of 2 can be VERY important, and WEU takes away Russian front options....), which is much more accurate historically AND takes much more thought on a German players side strategically.

If a German player felt it vital to use an Atlantic threat then an AC/Tran build G1 eliminates any UK counter by a player of any skill level (a very dumb attack for the UK, beyond a doubt at that point), and the game as it is presented plays out fine in this regard. For 16 IPC's should Germany become the monster of the Atlantic in A&A, or should it be more of an investment to do so, or to do so at risk for 16....? Please think it through before responding to that...
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-22-2004, 11:58 PM #80
axis_roll
Team AR Germany / *****




Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 1,755

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carico, please refer to Cousin Joes earlier post about limiting strategies with the new ftr mobilization rule.

I agree 100% with that post as to why the new carrier rule SUCKS. IMHO.

We want more variability, not another game of the same old, same old. Again, BOO! to the limiting of ftr mobilization as written in the Larry Harris rules submitted to AH.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One more question... why not solicit the people on this boards opinions on the new PBEM standard before making a final decision and shipping it off to AH?

To me, it seems like we all agree that new rule is bad for the game.
-The evil Bert & friend

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest