'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: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:56 am

05-25-2004, 02:02 PM #161
Airship_Armada
Junior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 12

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

We would be appalled if the no play testing had been done before the revised A&A was released. But we are all quick to pass judgment on the “Larry” rules without giving them a try.

To the “Larry” authors: Please resolve the four controversial issues one way or another - quickly. Then let’s use the rules for 3-6 months and THEN give you our opinion.


Airship_Armada
View Public Profile
Visit Airship_Armada's homepage!
Find More Posts by Airship_Armada

05-25-2004, 02:02 PM #162
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
2. Wants these two options considered: Place fighters with 1 MP remaining – place fighters that did not move in either the CM or the NCM phase. NO and No, but thanks anyway. There can be no movements during this phase. There can be placement of new fighters and that placement may be on CV’s in Sea zones next to IC’s

Zombie – Never good to hear from you.


Mr. Harris,

Your opposition to the rule seems to be based upon movement in the placement phase as opposed to the major concerns you should have, i.e. overall game balance, specific balance, and game choice.

I think it is a serious error to

1 - reject a EXTREMELY popular idea. I mean, its well over 90%

2 - allow a rule which negatively affects ONLY germany, forcing the "same game"

3 - (Did I mention your CUSTOMERS think this is a VERY POPULAR IDEA)

4 - allow a rule which reduces game choice

5 - allow a rule which has, no offense, little historical accuracy

for no other stated reason other than "no, no movement in placement. All of the suggestions (even with a fighter which NEVER moved) is preferrable to your blanket no.

And frankly, no offense sir, but your "no" seems to be more of, "I wrote it, therefore it must be". I did not like that approach before, and just because its you (and you DID design a great game and many thanks for that btw), doesnt mean I wont call you on it.

First rule of business - the customer is always right.

You should remember that and give proper to considerations to people's ideas rather than dismiss them.

Let me ask you, assuming the rule was that old fighters can be placed on new carriers, how would you modify that rule acceptably without eliminating it??

Zombie has been a PITA on this board. Despite that, I feel your remark was beneath a person of your stature. See DY's above post (pg 9)...

Squirecam

[ May 25, 2004, 04:22 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

05-25-2004, 02:13 PM #163
Larry Harris



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

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

Cousin_joe - Which one of the mice are you?
1. 3/3 does not address air vulnerability – True
Keep present LHTR but let subs choose if they want to submerge (no DD Present) – complicated (somewhat) but interesting… Why not do this?
2. Logic example presented (see message). Speaks of rules exception. “Not letting the Ftr move at all is too strategically harmful to Germany.” I’m not interested in contriving a rule to satisfy Germany’s need for strategically beneficial situation. He does not deal with the fact that both movement phases (CM and NCM) are over this turn.
3.Likes that tech is delayed till next turn.
4.Wants to keep damage cap. Lose the roll 2. I think I agree with this.
5. He suggest having two categories of tech. one worth 5 IPC’s(JF HB & RO) and one worth 3 IPC’s.(SS, CB & LRA). Frankly I’m beginning to think that we should go back to the blind grab bag. Stick your hand in the bag and pull out a surprise Tech. – Remember how easy that was?

Atlantikwall – Hallo, nett, Sie zu treffen.
1.Likes 3/3 Supersubs. Easy and Good…. Can’t ask for more than that!
2.Asking for a “compromise” How can I say no? Ok only Germany can place fighters on their CV’s - why because I want to compromise. While we’re compromising lets all design a race horse.
3.Likes that tech is delayed till next turn. (Most important – likes it because its more strategic in nature) –Bravo Atlantikwall, bravo!
4.Thinks HB limits are necessary but only on SBR. Make them separate from rockets (right ?). Old double dice system too strong. He says: Would suggest 2/6 H-bmb with sbr d6+2 and territory´s income limit. What? (sorry don’t understand ).
5.DD tech too weak and DD’s over priced. Give them a full time shore bombardment at 2. and look for another tech (suggest tanks at 4/3 wow)
Believe it or not I like this suggestion. The DD part not the tank part. The problem with this is that it undermines the BB’s special ability.


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 02:29 PM #164
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
He says: Would suggest 2/6 H-bmb with sbr d6+2 and territory´s income limit. What? (sorry don’t understand ).

I.e. the sbr-demage is limited to the territory`s income-value (same like your, but excepect rocket-demage)

The attack value of H-bmb should be increased by 2 both on normal attacks and on sbrs. That`s a sure hit in offence and defence with 2. On sbrs roll one dice and add 2.


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

05-25-2004, 02:50 PM #165
Larry Harris



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

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

Airship_Armada “my Vote” - this is not something we vote on. You must be an American or something. Cut that stuff out.
1. likes 3/3 and talks about supersubs being chosen as casualties. Ok course subersubs can be casualties. For me this is a given. (good point however)
2. No opinion on placement of fighters on CV’s
3. Likes that tech is delayed till next turn.
4. Want the 2 die HB…. Why not? I could probably live with that.
5. Airship – I have participated in writing a more detailed set of rules. These are called Larry Harris’s Tournament rules. (sound impressive, no?) I think they clear up and improve many aspects of the game. I say this because I am taking advantage of this new thing called the web. Immediate and important feed back is possible. I love it. I affords an opportunity to create the best rules possible. All that is required is for one to listen. That’s what this is all about.

Squirecam – Love your town!!
I think Squirecam is telling me that I’ve got my priorities mixed up. I should be more concerned with game balance and game choice rather than my concerns with movements being conducted in the correct phases. Really?
1. I should be lead by popular demand. – I have nothing against popular demand, as long as it's right. I'm here to discuss this matter not bow to popular demand.
2. Are you telling me there are only two ways to play Germany?
3. Yes you did mention that. What’s you point?
4. Well now you’re talking…. Ummm, Me, Larry Harris reducing a players choice.? No, do what you want but do it in the structure of the game mechanics.
5. Historical accuracy. When using history to defend or attack something in this game is foolish. There are always great historical arguments one way or the other that can be used. Axis & Allies is a very broad brush to a Historical simulation. If you want History watch it on the History Channel. In any case what we are talking about here is not history its about game mechanics. If you want to move your fighters to your CV do it during the CM or the NCM phase – that’s why they exist.

Cut the “customer is always right” stuff…. You want to be right or do you want to be goooooood..? I’m not dismissing any ideas. That’s why I here!

You said “Let me ask you, assuming the rule was that old fighters can be placed on new carriers, how would you modify that rule acceptably without eliminating it??” I’m not sure what you are asking here...

Well I’m glad you’re taking care of Zombies affairs. Actually with his wit and obvious intelligence, he does not seem to need you to protect him from big bad me.


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 03:01 PM #166
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER




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

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

mr harris,

your warped...!! (i hold those in high regards)

hehehe..!!

keep it coming!!

-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

05-25-2004, 03:12 PM #167
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

1) super-subs:

I tought that we would only give the ss 3 on defence to strenghten it. Giving both (no air vulnerability without des and 3 in defence) seems a liitle bit too much for me. And btw, it seems not logical to me if you could take it as a loss if the ss can`t be hit by airforce. Allowing this would be a contradiction imho and counterfare with the clarity of the rules! So away with the sub/des-interfarence: Revised is not AAE or AAP!


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

05-25-2004, 03:13 PM #168
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
Squirecam – Love your town!!
I think Squirecam is telling me that I’ve got my priorities mixed up. I should be more concerned with game balance and game choice rather than my concerns with movements being conducted in the correct phases. Really?
1. I should be lead by popular demand. – I have nothing against popular demand, as long as it's right. I'm here to discuss this matter not bow to popular demand.
2. Are you telling me there are only two ways to play Germany?
3. Yes you did mention that. What’s you point?
4. Well now you’re talking…. Ummm, Me, Larry Harris reducing a players choice.? No, do what you want but do it in the structure of the game mechanics.
5. Historical accuracy. When using history to defend or attack something in this game is foolish. There are always great historical arguments one way or the other that can be used. Axis & Allies is a very broad brush to a Historical simulation. If you want History watch it on the History Channel. In any case what we are talking about here is not history its about game mechanics. If you want to move your fighters to your CV do it during the CM or the NCM phase – that’s why they exist.

Cut the “customer is always right” stuff…. You want to be right or do you want to be goooooood..? I’m not dismissing any ideas. That’s why I here!

You said “Let me ask you, assuming the rule was that old fighters can be placed on new carriers, how would you modify that rule acceptably without eliminating it??” I’m not sure what you are asking here...

Well I’m glad you’re taking care of Zombies affairs. Actually with his wit and obvious intelligence, he does not seem to need you to protect him from big bad me.

Glad you like Vegas. Now to your post...

I'm not asking you to bow to popular demand. I'm asking you to be smarter than both Hillary Clinton and G.W. Bush combined.

1. Obviously, you and your customer base have a large difference of opinion. When I present an idea, and 9 out of the 10 people I tell think I'm making a mistake, it usually causes me to rethink my idea, that maybe I'm wrong. I dont want you to bow to P.O. I want you to consider the fact that P.O. may be "the better way" as you put it.

2. There "are" two ways to play germany. Make USSR the primary goal, or the delay/absorption of the UK. I dont think you can really make the US the goal, so that leaves 2.

USSR requires land assault units. If a "UK" strategy is to be successful, that requires Africa AND a delay of UK landings in France or Norway. That requires a fleet.

3. I say it because it really bears repeating.

4. The structure of game mechanics can be just as fluid if you wanted. Heck, you could have said that planes land during placement, not NCM, in which case, planes could land on carriers. You can also make exceptions to rules that make sense.

5. I raise historical accuracy to prove that its not. Or logical for that matter.

What my Hitler example was supposed to indicate was the absurd LOGIC which exists with your rule. It would be an EXTREME WASTE OF RESOURCES for a country to build new fighters when SIX sqauds of fighters already exist.

It would be like requiring transports to ONLY carry newly built tanks and men. Existing tanks and men could not be transported. Thats absurd.

NO leader would EVER allow a carrier to be put to sea w/o fighters. And every leader would use nearby fighters on new carriers. Its just logical.

Though you give a reason as "no movement in placement", you do not show

1 - a logical or historical reason for the rule

2 - that the rule is overpowered (like HB were)

3 - That your rule is "fair to Germany". I again point out that your rule allowes the very ahistorical example of russian planes aboard a UK carrier, and allows the GAME IMBALANCE of the UK being able to defend its carrier with fighters prior to an enemy attack, while Germany cant

4 - That the other 4 countries either will never build a carrier (USSR) or wont be damaged by the rule (Japan USA UK)

5 - That adherence to the placement rule is better than game balance and choice

6 - that the rule is too "complex" for players to understand. Actually, its less difficult than the "super sub needs a destroyer" rule.

As for me asking you about the rule, its simple. You have experience in game design. You have dismissed many pretty good ideas so far. So, lets assume the "powers that be" have decreed that old fighters MUST be allowed to be placed on new carriers. How would you modify that rule, BUT not eliminate it, to say its balanced according to your standards. (must have 1ncm remaining, fighter not moved at all, etc).

Squirecam

P.S. As for Zombie, yeah, he could fight his own battles. But when something bothers me I say so. So I did.

[ May 25, 2004, 05:15 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

05-25-2004, 03:25 PM #169
ButchOHare1
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 304

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

Great work guys. I like the tournament rules.

Was consideration given to changing rockets back to 1 shot per turn? If Germany achieves rockets it should be able to do about 10 IPC damage per turn (3.5 to London 3.5 to Moscow and 3 to Stalingrad) without investing in additional units (already 3 AAguns on the board) and without any replacement cost(Can't shoot down a v-2).

Do the other techs result in a +10 IPC benefit per turn? To get +10 for tournament rules HBs you would have to have 4 or 5 extra bombers raiding. That's a lot of additional investment. You'd be spending 60 to get an extra 10 damage. I'm sure there are flaws in that but it seems like rockets are the best tech to get.

How does 15 IPCs invested by Germany for rockets play out?
__________________
If I win it's strategy, if I lose it's dice.


ButchOHare1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to ButchOHare1
Visit ButchOHare1's homepage!
Find More Posts by ButchOHare1

05-25-2004, 03:47 PM #170
Larry Harris



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

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

Elbowmaster…Warped? What is this “Warped” thing.

Atlantikwall – Gut, von lhnen wieder zu horen
Supersubs - For the record you’re not for giving SSubs both 3/3 and no air vulnerability.
You’re probably right. I’m leaning more and more in this elegantly simple rule.

Squirecam - Chill out my good man, life’s too short…
There has been no decision made about this CV – fighter placement rule. The fact is, it is being discussed here as we write… A few hours ago it was a solid written rule in the Larry Harris’s Tournament Rules pages. I have simply been saying that I don’t like it. It require an exception to a rule that I’m not comfortable to make. Allow me to suggest that there is a way to fully equip your carries with aircraft, the problem is you don’t like the way that is. If their was not way to place fighters on a carrier I’d better understand your VERY HOT attitude.

As much as I’d like to grant you satisfaction – I respect you and the game too much to simply acquiesce to your wishes.

If I were to really reach out and try to make this work my “rationale” would sound something like this – Moving aircraft from local facilities to our newly constructed aircraft carries is simply a matter of loading up trucks and moving them to the port. Once at the port we can use our cranes to lift them aboard. - ok but when do we do that? Well during the nonecombat movement phase of course. That’s when that kind of thing is done in this universe.
Squirecam .. That’s it, I’m not going to debate it with you any further. I have heard your strongly expressed desire. I’m moving on. Hang around and lets see how this ends up.

Because humor is sometimes lost in this format …I’d suggest you take all my comments as “well intended” and in no way are any of them a put down or slam at any one here.
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:58 am

05-25-2004, 03:57 PM #171
Larry Harris



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

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

ButchOHare1
Thanks for the WorldClub site Very nice. Never heard of them before.
Likes the Tournament Rules. Great!

Rockets are kind-a under discussion. Thanks for you comments.


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 04:01 PM #172
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Quote:
If I were to really reach out and try to make this work my “rationale” would sound something like this – Moving aircraft from local facilities to our newly constructed aircraft carries is simply a matter of loading up trucks and moving them to the port. Once at the port we can use our cranes to lift them aboard. - ok but when do we do that? Well during the nonecombat movement phase of course. That’s when that kind of thing is done in this universe.

If this is the case, then why not let the FTR "tag" up with the territory with the IC on NCM, and then move out to the SZ where the AC is to be produced (also on NCM). This would be similar to the suggestion previously (such that the FTR does not exceed 4MP), except that it all occurs on NCM. The FTR doesn't need to be considered hanging in mid-air, but rather at port, ready to be placed on the 'yet incomplete AC, as it is being built.'

The AC can then be placed in the SZ on the Mobilize units phase.

Furthermore, there 's already a precedent for FTR's waiting in a SZ, as FTR's at the end of Combat movement, sometimes must wait for the AC to arrive there in NCM.

What would be wrong with this? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ May 25, 2004, 06:03 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

05-25-2004, 04:01 PM #173
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
Well I’m glad you’re taking care of Zombies affairs. Actually with his wit and obvious intelligence, he does not seem to need you to protect him from big bad me.

Well, since you like to completely ignore me (when you're not downright insulting me), it's pointless for me to respond. I'm glad that someone else did.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-25-2004, 04:04 PM #174
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER




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

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

warped... meaning your dry humor ooozes...!!

i like that in a person...very subtle if needed, "very not so" if needed as well...

-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

05-25-2004, 04:08 PM #175
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Zombie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Larry Harris:
Well I’m glad you’re taking care of Zombies affairs. Actually with his wit and obvious intelligence, he does not seem to need you to protect him from big bad me.

Well, since you like to completely ignore me (when you're not downright insulting me), it's pointless for me to respond. I'm glad that someone else did.</font>[/quote]i can completely understand why mr harris ignores you...dedication thread...dead...he asked you politely to stop, you decided to disrespect his polite request...

-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

05-25-2004, 04:11 PM #176
richyj1
Senior Member




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


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

With regards to ftrs and CVs:

I did not care for the ftr/CV placement rules in the manual as first published. There did not appear to be any rationale for what you could and couldn't do, and the "extra" move to place existing ftrs on new CVs was different than any other game in the system.

The rule as written in the current release of the Larry Harris ruleset feels more correct to me.

However, I appreciate that people might want existing ftrs on new CVs. In Axis & Allies: Pacific, we accomplish that by establishing a CAP in that SZ using the ftr (the ftr cannot have moved at all during the turn). CAP might be a bit of a stretch to add to this ruleset, however... and would not satify those who also want to use said ftrs G1.

I do hope this can be resolved, as I see great potential for a single ruleset (for 2nd Edition, it seems like every club has slightly different interpretations of the rules when dealing with fringe areas, and I would love to see that avoided this time around.


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

05-25-2004, 04:58 PM #177
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Rich:
However, I appreciate that people might want existing ftrs on new CVs. In Axis & Allies: Pacific, we accomplish that by establishing a CAP in that SZ using the ftr (the ftr cannot have moved at all during the turn). CAP might be a bit of a stretch to add to this ruleset, however... and would not satify those who also want to use said ftrs G1.


While it is not what I'd like to see, I would agree that the CAP rule does accomplish protection of the carrier (until G2, when fighters could be flown onto it). Therefore, I'd have to say this is an improvement over a straight "no", and therefore I'd support it.

As to Mr. Harris,

I'm sorry if I "care" too much about your game. I'm sorry that I attempted to express my opinion to help make it better. And I'm sorry I waste so much of my time making logical arguments in support of my ideas.

You can choose to debate me, or ignore me. Its a free country. And of course I will stick around and see "how it comes out".

But the point of all this IS to make the game the best it can be.

If your going to change the rule, fine. If your not, thats your call and you can do that too. But I suggest that to sooth your customer base, you discuss (if you wont with me) WHY the rules/arguments/considerations are the way you made them.

And again, I'm well aware of your prohibition against movement in the placement phase. What I'm arguing for is WHY that rule does not make logical sense in the case of your carrier rule.

I really do understand why you dont like it. Its just that when a "rule" doesnt seem to have any rationale and seems to adversely affect gameplay, it shouldnt exist.

I would/have/will give Mike the same "grief" if I thought his rule did not make sense. I expect the same for myself. I created an "Italian" set of rules, and Zombie pointed out how one of my rules sucked. And he was right, and I changed Italy to go first in my ruleset.

I really DO appreciate your work on the initial game and Revised. And even on "your" ruleset.

Despite the strong disagreement I have with you, I can still say that you put alot of effort into them and I appreciate that. But, of course, I dont see my feelings changing on this issue, and nothing that anyone has said in opposition has made much sense to me. But I appreciate your work, and everone elses work on the project. I just hope you keep thinking about it and decide differently.

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

05-25-2004, 06:02 PM #178
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Larry, regarding point #2, given that it sounds like you are directly opposed to the views of 90% of your customers on these forums, I think it's time we all search for some "middle ground."

With that in mind, what do you think of Rich's idea about introducing CAP into the LHTR? Granted, it is slightly more complicated than moving fighters during mobilisation, but it allows Germany and the UK in particular to better defend their navies and it satisfies your desire to disallow any movement in the mobilisation phase.

It doesn't help Germany that much on G1 since you'd find it hard accomplishing a "standard" opening if you were effectively a fighter down, but down the track the ability to place 6 fighters on CAP in Baltic could be of great benefit to Germany.

Anyway, those considering a G1 navy can make a strategic decision to forego or weaken one of their "standard" opening attacks in order to get that navy up to strength.

So on the other points, would I be correct in thinking you are now leaning strongly towars:

1) 3/3 SSX

3) Delaying techs will stay

4) Considering the "old" roll 2 dice keep both HB.

5) Keep CB as is

Okay all I want to say about #3 is given that you really want delayed tech to remain (and for at least 4 of the techs this definitely is a good thing), then maybe LRA needs to be "beeefed up" slightly in some other way to make it an attractive option. Can you honestly tell me you'd try for LRA in a directed but delayed tech game?

I know that delayed LRA is important because it prevents a G1 Sealion and hence delayed tech is here to stay.

Carico67 will be angry with me if I don't come up with any suggestions about how exactly to improve LRA. All that I can suggest is something along the lines of:

Long Range Aircraft:

Increase the movement of your fighters from 4 MP to 6 MP and reduces their cost from 10 IPC to 9 IPC

Increase the movement of your bombers from 6 MP to 8 MP and reduce their cost from 15 IPC to 12 IPC.

Under these circumstances I would certainly consider investing in LRA as their will be some future "pay-off" if I choose to increase my airforce.

I made up the prices of $9 and $12 because they seemed fair, but if you like this idea in principle, then maybe you could tweak the costs to find the right balance.

Regarding #5, on a similar note maybe Combined Bombardment could also reduce the cost of Destroyers form 12 IPC to 10 IPC.


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

05-25-2004, 06:20 PM #179
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Some of us don't care what the rule does to Germany, and just want fighters to land on new carriers because it makes sense. For us, CAP won't help, whatever that is.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-25-2004, 08:02 PM #180
Larry Harris



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

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

Elbowmaster – notice I used a capital E… Your not so subtle but your dry humor also ooozes.

Cousin-Joe – You wrote..”
Quote:
If this is the case, then why not let the FTR "tag" up with the territory with the IC on NCM, and then move out to the SZ where the AC is to be produced (also on NCM). This would be similar to the suggestion previously (such that the FTR does not exceed 4MP), except that it all occurs on NCM. The FTR doesn't need to be considered hanging in mid-air, but rather at port, ready to be placed on the 'yet incomplete AC, as it is being built.

' ” This is a very strong possibility. I think this could work. I’ll discuss this with the committee.

Rich – Thanks for you point of view. Yes the need for a standardized set of rules is important. Once we set these babies up however there is no going back. With all the work that was done on the LHTR I very surprised how few issues have come up. It says a lot for the guys who helped put this together.

Sauirecam – A CAP would give immediate DEFENSIVE protection to a CV. At the end of G1 the CV would be protected by the CAP forces. There will however be no CAP in this game. So the point in mute. I would suggest you read my comments back to Cousin-Joe however.

DY - Wow I happen to think that LRA is really something strong and wonderful in and of itself. Reducing cost of different techs is a viable method of increasing the value of a given weapon. First I must see the need to increase the value of a given weapon before I’d consider reducing its cost. Where do you see an application?

[ May 25, 2004, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Larry Harris ]
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:58 am

05-25-2004, 08:14 PM #181
tactical
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 284

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

To Larry,
Personally, I feel that the possible new fighter/ac rule is hurtful to germany strategically. But this is not why I am putting posts up saying that this is unfair. The real reason is " about choices". No other, and I mean no other, rule offered limits a country on what they can or cannot do(with adverse effects). Some people have said that people are complaining because the AC buy is a good opening startegy, and now without the rule they are forced into a new strategy.
LOOK, wether people buy an AC on G1 or not is not the issue. The issue is taking a choice away. You could technically say that you could still buy the Ac on G1, but that isn't very realistic. By taking away the fighter/Ac rule you are actually doing something "and I can't believe I'm about to say this" negative. You are limiting options. No one forces a German player to buy an AC, It's his/her choice, and if they want to buy one, fine, and if they don't, fine.
But by making a rule that turns an option,AGAIN, TO ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ, AN OPTION, NOT A STRATEGY(the caps were not intended for you, Mr Harris) into an automatic suicidal idea is no fun or fair for your players. I will reiterate one last time( I'm sure you have heard enough) your taking away choices,and choices are what this game should be about, and thats whats unfair(if this rule goes through).
__________________
" Allow nothing to be in your life that you cannot walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner"


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

05-25-2004, 08:17 PM #182
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Techs as they currently stand and how many IPCs per roll i think they're worth :

Combined bombardment - 1 (many people are asking to put this as standard for destroyers)
Heavy bombers - 1 (but should be made better soon)
Super subs - 1 (but should be made better soon)
Long range aircraft - 3
Jet fighters - 5
Rockets - 7


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-25-2004, 08:22 PM #183
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

If changing unit prices is not an option, how about making bombers attack at 5 standard? This would justify their price a lot better.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-25-2004, 08:31 PM #184
Larry Harris



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

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

Hello randell, I’m not sure if we have spoken before or not. In any case thanks for you comments. You are talking about CHOICE . I completely agree with you. 100% agreement here. Nonetheless there are some game structures that can not be denied. There are two very specific moments when playing pieces can be moved on the board. They of course are the Combat Movement phase and the None Combat Movement phase. These are like rule structures that I must obey.

On the page just before this one Cousin Joe suggested making a dedicated action or event (my words) that take place in the NCM phase. This action or event would situate fighters in such a way that they may be placed (not moved) onto CV’s during the mobilization phase. This could be the answer to this issue. It works for me. I’m not sure it can stand up to inspection but lets see.

Thanks for your comments

[ May 25, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Larry Harris ]


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 08:35 PM #185
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Quote:
Cousin-Joe – You wrote..”
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is the case, then why not let the FTR "tag" up with the territory with the IC on NCM, and then move out to the SZ where the AC is to be produced (also on NCM). This would be similar to the suggestion previously (such that the FTR does not exceed 4MP), except that it all occurs on NCM. The FTR doesn't need to be considered hanging in mid-air, but rather at port, ready to be placed on the 'yet incomplete AC, as it is being built.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

' ” This is a very strong possibility. I think this could work. I’ll discuss this with the committee.

Hopefully it keeps everyone satisfied [img]smile.gif[/img] Thanks for coming out here and reading and responding to our posts.
__________________
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

05-25-2004, 08:41 PM #186
Larry Harris



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

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

The fighters(that were slated to be placed on the new CV's) could be actually positioned along with all the other new pieces waiting to be placed. They would be moved to this pile during the NCM phase of the turn


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 08:55 PM #187
Sniper
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 65

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

(1)These are the the tourney rules if you don't like them don't use them.

(2) So you have to build a fighter under these rules to protect your CV, big deal. This fighter can come in handy whether your strategy is: (A) Sea Lion, (B) Take out Russia, (c) Delaying invasion of Europe.

Stop complaining and either don't play with these rules or adjust your 2 month old strategies.


Sniper
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Sniper

05-25-2004, 08:58 PM #188
Zero Pilot
A&A Fanatic




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Pacific, PA
Posts: 287

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

Well I for one am very thankful for all the time and effort put forth into the new clarified, enhanced ruleset by all who have worked so hard "behind the scenes" these past months. I think your true dedication of making this the very best board game shows, obviously it's a labor of love for Mr. Harris and those involved. We are also extremely fortunate that Mr. Harris as a game designer has continued to support, debate and perfect his creation and is truly open to new constructive thoughts and suggestions. I really don't think there are many others in a similar position who would do so. And to me it makes all the difference in the world that we have the input and blessings of the game creator in making a concrete ruleset for all of us. Anything less would be arbitrary. I won't add to the debate other than to say that hopefully you will be able to find a way to deploy fighters onto new ACs in a manner that is befitting the game phases and mechanics. I for one must respect and abide that Mr. Harris certainly has the final say because this is his creation after all. That's part of what goes along with having your name on the box.

In all the debate I hope some don't lose sight of the fact that any gaming group on any given night can add/delete/modify the way they play the game however they wish to suit their tastes and opinions. So I cannot help but wonder if everyone debating the rules so very hard is even interested in PBEM or tournaments at all. Of course for these venues, one and only one ruleset can be adopted. Personally, I think it's great that Mr. Harris would go to such lengths above and beyond to perfect the game and ruleset to this end. After all, he designed the boardgame as a stand alone product and nowhere does it mention that the creators will support and refine the ruleset above and beyond the published product. But it's that dedication to improvement which has given us the revised edition in the first place to enjoy. Mucho cudos Larry! ~ZP

[ May 25, 2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Zero Pilot ]
__________________
If the enemy is in range... so are you.


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

05-25-2004, 09:11 PM #189
playa1
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 64

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

LARRY HARRIS- I should have known you had it in you. I browsed through the last few posts. Looks like you're trying to put out a couple of fires. [img]smile.gif[/img] I love the comment "too bad, wait for tech anyway!!" That's great stuff LOL . Preach it brotha, Amen!! Its great to see the creator of the game in the trenches with these pack of wolves. I know, you don't have to admit it, you just want to be involved. Well, believe me, most of the sane AA players love your new rules. Do what you gotta do chief, we'll back you. It looks like you only have the same 5 complainers, I mean concerned members. .
You're a real trooper, Harris, a real trooper. Keep at 'em tiger. Alright that's enough props. I'll hit ya after 10 more pages of whining.
Peace
Q-Ball


playa1
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by playa1

05-25-2004, 09:15 PM #190
Larry Harris



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

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

That was very kind of you Zero - (I needed that) thanks
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:59 am

05-25-2004, 09:15 PM #191
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Making a case for having Major and Minor Techs...

1. Jet Fighters - as in LHTR
2. Rockets - as in LHTR (with Damage Cap/Territory/Turn)
3. Super Subs - Their attack increases to 3, and when DEFENDING, they may forego their sneak attack during the 'Conduct Opening Fire' phase, and dive to avoid combat instead. This results in the sub being immediately submerged, and removed from the battle board. If there is a destroyer in the attacking fleet, they lose their ability to dive to avoid combat .
4. Long Range Aircraft - as in LHTR.
5. Combined Bombardment - as in LHTR.
6. Heavy Bombers - Damage Cap/Territory/Turn still exists, but remove the roll 2 dice keep 1.

Note: Super Subs are just like you had before, but with the ability to stay or submerge. This gives them less vulnerability to air, but at the same time allows the defender to choose them as casualties if he so wishes. There is also no problems with substall with this change [img]smile.gif[/img]

Now, on average, tech currently is 30IPC. With the movement of Tech coming into play at the end of the turn, LRA and SS (even as above) have lost a lot of value. CB has always been a weak Tech and is also weaker from this change.

The new JF, HB and Rockets are still worth the 30 IPC so they should stay the same. However, no one in their right mind would pay 30IPCs on average for LRA, SS, and CB, especially considering there are better Techs out there - but they might be willing to pay 18IPC on average!

So why not introduce the following for LHTR:

Major Techs (HB,RO,JF) cost 5IPC/roll
Minor Techs (CB,SS,LRA) cost 3IPC/roll

CB,SS,LRA now actually become more viable options for the player... Thoughts? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ May 25, 2004, 11:18 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

05-25-2004, 09:21 PM #192
Larry Harris



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

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

Thank you Questioneer


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 09:29 PM #193
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by cousin_joe:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Cousin-Joe – You wrote..”
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is the case, then why not let the FTR "tag" up with the territory with the IC on NCM, and then move out to the SZ where the AC is to be produced (also on NCM). This would be similar to the suggestion previously (such that the FTR does not exceed 4MP), except that it all occurs on NCM. The FTR doesn't need to be considered hanging in mid-air, but rather at port, ready to be placed on the 'yet incomplete AC, as it is being built.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

' ” This is a very strong possibility. I think this could work. I’ll discuss this with the committee.


Hopefully it keeps everyone satisfied [img]smile.gif[/img] Thanks for coming out here and reading and responding to our posts. </font>[/quote]FWIW I think its a good idea.

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

05-25-2004, 09:46 PM #194
Larry Harris



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

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

I'm glad to hear that Squirecam

[ May 25, 2004, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Larry Harris ]


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 11:03 PM #195
AxisRoll
Team AR Japan *****




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


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

How about this for carriers. It's a thought.

Keep the new rule. But add this.

If a seazone is attacked and there are Carriers that are not full, but there are fighter(s) in an adjacent land territory, the fighter(s) get to choose if they want to up in the sea battle or not. (There might also be a land battle)

Baltic might be wierd if fighter(s) are in Norway, I would rather say if fighters are at an IC that is adjacent, but I am not sure if that would work.

Thoughts???
__________________
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

05-25-2004, 11:10 PM #196
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

This would make carriers and fighters even more powerful than they are now. Fighters, one of the best defensive pieces in the game, could be used to defend 2 or more zones (a land territory, defended against Russia for example, plus one or more sea zones adjacent to it).


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-25-2004, 11:30 PM #197
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Einstein43:
Wow---I stayed away from these boards when I decided the 2nd edition was just so much better than the new edition that I would stick to the old game. But now I see some of these new PBEM / tournament rules I think the new game has a chance again!

Anyway, here are my dos centavos on the current discussions:

Allowing existing ftrs to land on new AC is something I would like to see. There have been several suggestions already as to how this can be accomplieshed without violating the action sequence. I hope this one is included in the final ruleset.

Technology: Don't see any reason to delay implementation by a turn. (This sounds like maybe there are too many tech-o-phobes on the rules committee). I would also like to have the option to try for more than one tech type in a turn. Limiting HB to the best of the 2 dice seems like overkill, especially since damage by SBR is now limited (bravo on that, by the way. I've wanted to see that since forever!) DD bombardment is still awful, IMHO. (Just what we needed, ANOTHER reason NOT to build Battleships!) Bring back Industrial Tech and make it apply ONLY to the higher-cost units (i.e., exclude infantry and tanks). Supersubs at 3-3 is good, too.

As for destroyers, they are just too powerful. Make them 2-2 or else increase the cost to 15 or 16 at least if they are to be 3-3 units. Better yet, discard the DD altogether and make BB cost only 18 IPC, with all the destroyers special abilities, but without the 2-hit abomination (perhaps the least elegant rule in the game is the 2-hit BB, IMHO).

I would like to see transports carry only ONE unit, even if it means cutting the cost of trns in half. However, I don't expect much support on that position

Einstein

A one hit BB it worthess at 24, and only marginally less so at 18, considering carriers are 16.

As for delayed tech, its a good thought. In the "real world" you dont obtain jet fighters as a tech and suddenly all your built fighters have it. It takes time to implement, and the turn delay does that.

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

05-26-2004, 12:38 AM #198
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Larry as for my suggestions about improving LRA and CB I really don't have anything else to contribute.

May I suggest that the PBEM heads review their ruleset after 3 or 6 months and search through their game logs to see the frequency of techs attempted.

If they find (as I suspect) an incredibly small percentage of players going for LRA and CB compared to the other 4 techs, then maybe they can discuss LHTR 1.02 with you (assuming 1.01 comes out soon addressing SSX, HB and possibly CJ's suggestion re Ftr/CV mobilisation) at that point.


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

05-26-2004, 01:12 AM #199
pagan
MOONINITE




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,357


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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:

Here are my proposals or comments to you - Please react with short concise messages


1.Supersubs - I like the idea of simply making them 3/3.

I think that a super-sub 3/3 is a fine idea. Not too powerful considering the costs of the tech.
I do think that subs should be able to dive on a 3in6 against aircraft without a destroyer present.

2. I still cannot bring myself to allow aircraft to be moved during the mobilize units phase. I can accept newly purchased fighters being placed on CV’s (new or old CV's) that are in sea zones that are adjacent to an IC.

You are the game designer. If you think germany's atlantic defenses are up to the task of a triple-team germany thing, then I guess it is. considering a russia land push, and atlantic naval buildup by Uk/USa

3. Techs being delayed is just good game dynamics. This turn you get the tech – next turn you get the weapon.

Do not forget that the turn aspect of this game is really very small. Although a game can go 10+ rounds to a victory there is a small amount of rounds before that time where the game is not yet decided. By delaying a tech, you are only making it less-likely that it will be used. I think that techs make the game better and more dynamic. But with such a small number of rounds to actually make a wining diference, a tech round delay sucks. (for lack of better words)

4. Heavy Bombers - I’m wide open on this issue. I don’t really care for limited bombing damage. I hate the prospect of the US player simply being able to bomb Germany into a boring surrender.

Damages listed with Q1 & Median & Q3:

basic SBRs = 2 _ 3.5 _ 5
1d6+1 SBRs = 3 _ 4.5 _ 6
1d6+2 SBRs = 4 _ 5.5 _ 7
2d6 HBSBRs = 5 _ 7 _ 9

It's easy to note two things: That basc SBRs is a number that is not broken, and the HBSBRs is a gamebreaker. The current change of roll 2 dice and keep the best one approximates (1d6+1). Remember this 'fix' does NOT overpower the standing rule of SBR damage per bomber.

Fixing HBs you only need to do one of three things:
1) drop the damage
OR
2) make an IC damage cap
OR
3) remove the HB tech

DO NOT do BOTH 1 & 2. Doing this makes this tech worthless and it would be best to remove it at that point.

Also, putting an IC-sbr-damage-limit ONLY is a fix, BUT this limit should not be considered together with Rockets or you devalue that tech.

[ May 26, 2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: PAGAN ]
__________________
AARe : Axis & Allies Enhanced global warfare, where the leaders of nations will decide the destiny of the world. Do you have what it takes?


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

05-26-2004, 02:26 AM #200
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by PAGAN:
2d6 HBSBRs = 5 _ 9 _ 13

It's 5 _ 7 _ 9. I don't know how you got those numbers.
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:00 pm

05-26-2004, 07:07 AM #201
pagan
MOONINITE




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,357


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

Those are my numbers !!

(my new ones at least)
__________________
AARe : Axis & Allies Enhanced global warfare, where the leaders of nations will decide the destiny of the world. Do you have what it takes?


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

05-26-2004, 07:08 AM #202
Der Panzinator
Cartographic Reticulator




Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Liberty, MO
Posts: 329

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

Larry,

You da man!!!
I don't think there are many game designers willing to thrash in the muck with the animals...
My hat's off to you sir.

I'm quite honestly surprised at the reaction to the new proposed rule suggestions.
If the old rule was to NOT allow fighters to land on carriers during mobilize phase and the new ruleset wanted to change it to allow fighters to land, then I would understand the outcry of disbelief.
What you are proposing in the new ruleset makes perfect sense. And should, in fact, be made into an official addendum to the rules.
Of course the idea that fighters can NCM into the purchased units box and placed during mobilize phase is the perfect solution for those who must place existing fighters onto new carriers.

As for the rest I am indifferent. I don't like techs and never use them. I prefer to take the battle to my enemy with a level playing field.

As far as bombers go.... I don't like to open the pandora's box of industrial bombing. With people I play with there is an understanding that we don't do SBR. Of course someone will on occasion break out the genie and then the game quickly degenerates into a post-apocolyptic waste land.
As far as I'm concerned I think that industrial bombing is WAY overpowered even without heavy bombers. During WWII even at the peak of Allied industrial bombing campaign Germany was producing ever increasing numbers of weapons. The old war footage looks impressive but the fact is that it was such a minor impact on the war as a whole as to contribute to a very small percentage point of the cause for Allied victory. In A&A you can literally halt an entire nations production capacity with SBR.
I don't want to make this a history vs. gameplay thing but it really affect both in my opinion. Games where SBR is used tend to get boring very quickly. If I wanted to roll a bunch of sixes I should probably just play Risk.

Keep the fire burning Larry.
Soon we'll get it right!


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

05-26-2004, 08:34 AM #203
Enigma
Daimyo


Join Date: May 2004
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 72

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

I like the idea of being able to NCM fighters into the "Place Units Box" via the IC that the AC is coming out of. It seems like this is the type of compromise that the people in this board are looking for. I personally don't see the death of the German navy through the new rules, although it would require a different approach than placing a fully loaded AC on G1. But that's being discussed on the "German Navy" thread so I won't go into that here.


Enigma
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Enigma

05-26-2004, 10:23 AM #204
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

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

Wow---I stayed away from these boards when I decided the 2nd edition was just so much better than the new edition that I would stick to the old game. But now I see some of these new PBEM / tournament rules I think the new game has a chance again!

Anyway, here are my dos centavos on the current discussions:

Allowing existing ftrs to land on new AC is something I would like to see. There have been several suggestions already as to how this can be accomplieshed without violating the action sequence. I hope this one is included in the final ruleset.

Technology: Don't see any reason to delay implementation by a turn. (This sounds like maybe there are too many tech-o-phobes on the rules committee). I would also like to have the option to try for more than one tech type in a turn. Limiting HB to the best of the 2 dice seems like overkill, especially since damage by SBR is now limited (bravo on that, by the way. I've wanted to see that since forever!) DD bombardment is still awful, IMHO. (Just what we needed, ANOTHER reason NOT to build Battleships!) Bring back Industrial Tech and make it apply ONLY to the higher-cost units (i.e., exclude infantry and tanks). Supersubs at 3-3 is good, too.

As for destroyers, they are just too powerful. Make them 2-2 or else increase the cost to 15 or 16 at least if they are to be 3-3 units. Better yet, discard the DD altogether and make BB cost only 18 IPC, with all the destroyers special abilities, but without the 2-hit abomination (perhaps the least elegant rule in the game is the 2-hit BB, IMHO).

I would like to see transports carry only ONE unit, even if it means cutting the cost of trns in half. However, I don't expect much support on that position

Einstein


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43

05-26-2004, 10:34 AM #205
aibrahim
Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 43

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

I would like to add my gratitude for the hard work put in for the revised revised rule set [img]smile.gif[/img] It is great to be able to hear from the game designer and I am impressed he has been so involved in the revised rules and this forum.

I agree with most of the changes especially with the new NA which I think are a big improvement. I do prefer the old fighter/carrier rules, however, I am not as disappointed as other people that it has gone away (mainly because I usually go 13 infantry or if I am messing around 1 ac and 3 transports neither of which is really affected by the changes). I also like the fact that tech is delayed since it eliminates some of the luck factor since you always have a turn to prepare for it (believe me, the US can abuse LRA the first turn with the current rules since you can threaten transports with a fighter and bomber). The only issue is that some of the techs are a little weak now especially LRA and Supersubs which were situational techs anyway.

I have not played the game enough to be an expert, but my intution is that techs as currently are a bit weak. My only constructive criticism is to maybe lower the price? Maybe two tech rolls for 8 or 6?
__________________
-Ali


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

05-26-2004, 10:36 AM #206
Larry Harris



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

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

Well thank you Mr. Einstein. You are indeed a genius. Your coming back to this latest edition is nothing short of brilliant.


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-26-2004, 10:39 AM #207
Larry Harris



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

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

Thanks for you comments Ali


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-26-2004, 10:39 AM #208
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Einstein43:
As for destroyers, they are just too powerful. Make them 2-2 or else increase the cost to 15 or 16 at least if they are to be 3-3 units.

I guess you haven't played this game much. Too much 2nd ed perhaps? Everyone and their dogs agree that destroyers and bombers are the two overpriced units in the game and that both should cost less if they remain as they are.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-26-2004, 11:29 AM #209
graaf6
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 28

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

greetings to all and salutations to Larry,

regarding the discussion points:

1 Supersubs - I also like the idea of simply making them 3/3.
2. Existing fighters jumping on newly built carriers (and building new fighters on new or existing carriers) – I would be ok with such fighters doing so if they didn’t already move during the combat round. I wouldn’t even care if this essentially gave them a “fifth move” after the non-combat phase because the leapfrog retreat already kinda gives ground units this same “extra move” ability (albeit in a movement phase as opposed to a placement phase”. But i would eliminate a lot of the related permutations by simply removing the ability of “allied fighters to land on other allies’ carriers” and the same with mixed nationalities on xports. No big deal but it sure would eliminate a lot of those (‘rules that need explainin’)
3. Techs being delayed a turn – i like it.
4. Heavy Bombers modifications – no opinion, but i hope the decision is simple and not based on the “square root of Lancaster/B17/B24 circular error probable statistics”.
5. Love the game. Enjoy the forum. Many thanks.
regards,
Graaf6


graaf6
View Public Profile
Send a private message to graaf6
Find More Posts by graaf6

05-26-2004, 11:34 AM #210
Tallabuck
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 5

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

Larry,

I've been lurking on this board for several weeks now but not posting as I wanted to try out a few things in gameplay before passing judgement on your changes.

The only 2 rules changes that I take any issue with are the rules about existing fighters landing on new carriers and the rules on heavy bombers.

I'll start with heavy bombers first because they're easier. It seems as if the big issue with HB are in the SBR, not really in their role in combat. It seems to me that reducing their effectiveness in that role in 2 seperate ways is a bit too harsh.

I would suggest that bmr's as a whole can only do a maximum of whatever the IPC number of that country is per turn (for ex. Germany can lose only 10 IPC's per turn, SEu can lose 6 IPC's per turn), but as an incentive to buy heavy bombers, the maximum number of units that can be built out of any given IC be reduced by one for every HB sent against it. This would require a little tracking, but would (IMO) reflect the reduced industrial capacity that bombing inflicted.

As for the carrier rules, I have kicked this one around in my head and in gameplay and have concluded that:

a) not being able to put existing fighters on new carriers is not devestating to the "build up the German Navy" gambit, but it does seem to push Germany away from that particular strategy. In the meantime, it only slightly inconveniences allied strategy.

b) after putting some thought into the problem, it occured to me that despite the desire to not actually move anything in the mobilization phase, technically any shipping builds are being moved 1 space (from the IC to the sea). I don't see how (if the AC in question is technically being built at the IC) the existing fighters in question cannot be moved with the carrier from the IC to the sea if they finish their turn in the same space as the IC.

Long for my first post on this board, but I had to put in my 2 cents worth.
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:05 pm

05-26-2004, 01:00 PM #211
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallabuck:
I'll start with heavy bombers first because they're easier. It seems as if the big issue with HB are in the SBR, not really in their role in combat. It seems to me that reducing their effectiveness in that role in 2 seperate ways is a bit too harsh.

I think that the double attack value is even more "out of line" than the double sbr-value (if you have a limit). All the other techs give you only a small increase in either defence or offence. (Old) Jets were only improved by 25% in defence and (old) super-subs just 50% in offence. I think that double attack-value is horrible. Immagine how many german infs you have to place in WEU if the USA has HB? HB was definitely too strong in both attack and sbr value. Now, it may be too weak, but I´m totally against bringing HB back to double dice even if there`s a sbr-limit!

[ May 26, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


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

05-26-2004, 01:57 PM #212
Tallabuck
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 5

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

Atlantikwall,

While I see your point, there still has to be some kind of compensation for the huge investment required for a HB strategy to work. The key is finding a middle ground that is acceptable and compromisable for everyone. I see a lot of "that's not acceptable" on here, but not a lot of actual compromise.

People want HB's to be worth the investment, but have less of an impact with SBR's. I attempt to make that compromise in my suggestion by:

a) reducing SBR impact by setting an absolute limit a country can lose per turn by SBR to the IPC value of given countries. (I.E. Germany can lose up to 16 IPC's per turn barring purchase of additional IC's...Russia 12...UK 8...etc.)

b) balancing that loss of effectiveness by reducing by 1 the maximum number of units an IC can produce on the next turn for each HB (only) that hits it that turn.

c) to further preserve the "bang for the buck" value of pursuing a HB strategy, I purposely left the double attack factor alone. Considering the time and IPC investment an allied player must make for this strategy to work, why completely hamstring their usefullness?

If anyone has better suggestions for actual COMPROMISE, I haven't seen it.


Tallabuck
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Tallabuck

05-26-2004, 02:15 PM #213
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallabuck:
If anyone has better suggestions for actual COMPROMISE, I haven't seen it.

The defence value of H-bmb is increased by 1 and the attack value by 2 for both sbrs and normal attacks. I.e. bmb defend at 2, have one shure hit in offence and the sbr-demage is one dice plus 2. The total sbr-demage inflicated to one country is limited to its income value. Don`t combine the maximum demage with the rocket attack!

[ May 26, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


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

05-26-2004, 02:19 PM #214
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallabuck:
Atlantikwall,

While I see your point, there still has to be some kind of compensation for the huge investment required for a HB strategy to work. The key is finding a middle ground that is acceptable and compromisable for everyone. I see a lot of "that's not acceptable" on here, but not a lot of actual compromise.


To my knowledge, there was never much of a HB strategy. You bought. You flew to UK. You bombed. End of strategy.

I dont think you can effectively deal with HB without a combo of:

1 - interceptors
2 - reduced damage
3 - not directed tech
4 - SBR limit

While I would have wanted 1 myself, their choice of 2&4 does deal with the problem. Germany can still lose 16 IPC per turn (per country) and so its still deadly.

While I didnt think HB were too strong in combat (30 IPC = 2 HB = 3 planes, and in a fight both sides will be destroyed) I'm happie knowing they are a "lesser" tech than overpowered.
__________________
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

05-26-2004, 02:28 PM #215
Tallabuck
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 5

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

Atlantikwall,

Our difference in opinion here is mainly over semantics.

I prefer a 8/9 chance at at least 1 hit and 4/9 chance at 2 hits while you prefer 1 sure hit per attack. (speaking in HB's regular combat role)

Is there much of a difference?....Is one better than the other? Maybe, maybe not. I just think that HB's "bang for the buck" value is lost without the 2nd attack. I could be wrong and I admit it. The only problem I have is with people that could be wrong and NEVER admit it. What I CAN say is that I would try a game with HB's your way before I totally discount what you have to say.

[ May 26, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Tallabuck ]


Tallabuck
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Tallabuck

05-26-2004, 02:45 PM #216
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallabuck:
I prefer a 8/9 chance at at least 1 hit and 2/3 chance at 2 hits while you prefer 1 sure hit per attack. (speaking in HB's regular combat role)


... I would also prefer to have 1 1/3 hits and not just one, but I think it`s too stong if you attack e.g. a decent stock of infs in WEU. I know that a shure hit might not be popular in a dice game, that`s why some people are for a 2/5 H-bmb, but that`s worse in attack than best dice and only marginally better in defence. Best dice on a sbr is pretty much the same as roll one dice plus 1. Double dice is obviously dice plus 3,5. So my proposal is between the Avalon and the "Larry-bmb" and most of the times "the trouth is in the middle" !

[ May 26, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


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

05-26-2004, 02:56 PM #217
Tallabuck
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 5

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

Squirecam,

The point is not how the "strategy" (or lack thereof as you rightfully pointed out that HB's aren't much of a "strategy") works, but how they can be effectively contained in effectiveness without going too far.

Everyone agrees that as-is they are too powerful.

Most seem to agree that the rule changes suggested seem to make them too weak.

The answer is obviously somewhere in between. I like the idea of interceptors as well, but would add a needlessly complicating mechanic into the game. Limiting the impact of SBR's is an obvious choice, and seems to be agreed upon by nearly everyone as a neccessary change.

What hasn't been agreed upon is how to make HB's a worthwhile investment as limiting SBR damage almost eliminates the purpose for which HB's were designed to have.

The rule change suggested by the panel was for HB's to have an 8/9 chance to hit in regular combat situations. This only served to make them near worthless in most people's eyes...(and I happen to agree). Therefore I suggest keeping the double attack for HB's in normal combat situations (repeating from my last post an 8/9 chance for at least 1 hit and 4/9 chance for 2 hits). This would beef HB's up enough to make them ALMOST seem worthwhile to me, but by adding my suggestion of capacity lost per turn per HB attack (to me) makes them balanced to the point of viability.


Tallabuck
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Tallabuck

05-26-2004, 03:35 PM #218
Drax Kramer
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 616

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

Fifteen pages of heated debate to read in one day! My head almost exploded.

Since A&A:R hasn't arrived in Croatia yet, picking one set of rules over the other is still an academic problem for me.

I'll address why I do support ban on movement of the existing fighters aboard newly built carriers:

1.) It abolishes the mechanic of moving units in the mobilise phase.

I mean, in the game with two movement phases there's hardly a need for special case of moving anything outside these two phases. Good set of rules should always try to avoid any kind of exceptions unless absolutely necessary.

2.) It abolishes a "free lunch" for Germany.

If Germany wants to become a major naval power in the Atlantic it comes with the cost. You can pay either 24 IPCs for battleship or 26 IPCs for carrier&fighter combination. As most of you said, you want options. Fine! If you picked an Atlantic option than you have to pay for this and settle with being defensive elsewhere. You should not demand have your cake (powerful Atlantic fleet) and eat it (maintain pressure in Russia). What some of you would want is not to have options, but to do everything at once.

3.) It makes game more historical

I didn't want to introduce history, but since some of you used it to attack the new rule let me point out that no power ever took a fighter wing from the air force and commissioned it in the Navy. If you build a carrier fleet, you better build and train a naval air component as well. Purchase of the new fighter nicely represents the cost of raising, training and equipping a specialised naval air component.

Now, I always disagreed with the rule that allows American fighters aboard British carrier. For some time I oppose the existance of separate air component aboard carriers since air component was an integral part of the carrier fleet. Nagumo did not leave his carriers in Sea of Japan when he sent his aircraft to attack Midway and rules should prevent players from separating carriers and fighters during combat movement.

Another issue is aimed to players who want for every power to have all the options (Except Soviets, of course. I am yet to see anyone arguing for lack of Soviet navy or bomber fleet). If you want to play the game where every player has the option to put an emphasis on the land or the sea, play "Attack". You get a free setup too.

But Axis&Allies is game loosely based on WW2 not some hypothetical conflict on the planet Crypton. If you like naval battles play Japan, USA or even Britain. Don't pick Germany and then complain that game does not offer you an option of dominating Atlantic Ocean with USSR still active.

Each power in A&A should have some unique features in order to satisfy different preferences that exist in every group. Just as noone demands more options for Soviets in the way of allowing Soviets to concentrate on strategic bombing or invasion of Japan, Germany should be recognised as what was it best in - land warfare. If you get bored fighting land war, don't play Germany. It is that simple.

Drax


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

05-26-2004, 03:36 PM #219
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallabuck:
Squirecam,

The rule change suggested by the panel was for HB's to have an 8/9 chance to hit in regular combat situations. This only served to make them near worthless in most people's eyes...(and I happen to agree). Therefore I suggest keeping the double attack for HB's in normal combat situations (repeating from my last post an 8/9 chance for at least 1 hit and 4/9 chance for 2 hits). This would beef HB's up enough to make them ALMOST seem worthwhile to me, but by adding my suggestion of capacity lost per turn per HB attack (to me) makes them balanced to the point of viability.

So If Japan has 4 HB and each of them hit Moscow, then moscow could only produce 4 units there next turn?

I commend you on a unique idea, but that doesnt seem fair. If the US or Germany were hit with the same HB, they could produce 6 units (due to the territory increase). Also, I'm not sure I like the prospect of again losing production, after already losing IPC to the bombing raid.

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

05-26-2004, 03:57 PM #220
Larry Harris



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

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

Der Panzinator – Thanks for your observations… I find it funny that your group does not want to use SBR’s but every now and then someone lets out the genie out and the game degenerates into a post-apocalyptic waste land. I probably don’t have to tell you but the bombing of German and British cities was entirely based on an accidental bombing of London by Germany. This in fact lost the Germans the Battle of Britain as a consequence. All Germany’s airpower was directed to the bombing of the cities instead of the British fighters, that were pretty much expended.

Enigma – Personally I think it’s not a good idea for Germany to spend resources on a large navy. They’d better to capture Moscow.

Graaf6 – and salutations to you Sir.
Right… These fighters that will be placed on the CV(s) can only have moved during the NCM phase and ended up on the mobilization zone on the game board.

I have often consider eliminating the ability to carry allied units on your carriers and transports. Let’s face it however, this would be a hard habit to break (20+ years old) and it would undermine allied cooporation.

Yeah tech must be delayed a turn. No question about it.

Bombers, bombers, bombers, not sure where this will end up.

Tallabuck – read with interest your bomber proposal… I found it creative but I don’t like it. Too much bookkeeping . As for CV/fighter issues - I don’t consider the placement of new units on the board as a movement.

Your comment: “What hasn't been agreed upon is how to make HB's a worthwhile investment as limiting SBR damage almost eliminates the purpose for which HB's were designed to have.” This of course is the issue.

thanks for your comments or as you put it 2 cents.

Atlantikwall – I agree with you that Rocket attacks and SBR’s should not be combined.

Drazen Kramaric – My Croatian friend.
First of all it may be… “absolutely necessary” This CV/fighter idea got a lot of support and push. WHERE WERE YOU YESTEDAY WHEN I NEED YOU..

Excellent antiCV/fighter argument on your part… I think it’s too late.

[ May 26, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Larry Harris ]
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:06 pm

05-26-2004, 04:08 PM #221
Tallabuck
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 5

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

Squirecam,

If the Japanese have invested the time and IPC's to create a 4 HB airforce and are still a power on the board, then the Axis deserve to win IMO. The point is not individual situations that might come up, but an overall game mechanic that balances the need for HB's to be effective without them becoming an all-powerful piece that rules the game.

Consider that 4 Japanese HB's cost 60 IPC's in addition to the IPC's spent to obtain the tech, and the situation posed doesn't seem too likely.

The HB problem centers around the US/allied use of them in bombing Germany into submission. The fixes suggested have been geared towards fixing THAT problem while making them a viable option for both sides.

I'm not guaranteeing my suggestion will work or is even the best solution, but it IS a simple compromise somewhere in between the 2 extremes that doesn't add a lot of unneccessary mechanics into the game. Simplicity and improved gameplay is what we're all looking for and all I attempted to suggest.


Tallabuck
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Tallabuck

05-26-2004, 05:23 PM #222
bunday
Junior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 13

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Rich:
With regards to ftrs and CVs:

I did not care for the ftr/CV placement rules in the manual as first published. There did not appear to be any rationale for what you could and couldn't do, and the "extra" move to place existing ftrs on new CVs was different than any other game in the system.

The rule as written in the current release of the Larry Harris ruleset feels more correct to me.

However, I appreciate that people might want existing ftrs on new CVs. In Axis & Allies: Pacific, we accomplish that by establishing a CAP in that SZ using the ftr (the ftr cannot have moved at all during the turn). CAP might be a bit of a stretch to add to this ruleset, however... and would not satify those who also want to use said ftrs G1.

I do hope this can be resolved, as I see great potential for a single ruleset (for 2nd Edition, it seems like every club has slightly different interpretations of the rules when dealing with fringe areas, and I would love to see that avoided this time around.

I agree. I posted this a few days ago under another thread:
http://boards.avalonhill.com/cgi-bin...0;t=001119;p=3 web page

CAP really would fix issue #2.


bunday
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by bunday

05-26-2004, 09:03 PM #223
Airship_Armada
Junior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 12

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

I may be riding a dead horse here. . .

Do not fear SBR from 2 die HBs.

Using the proposed rule which limits economic damage.
If 2 die HB do SBR against an IC in a 10 IPC territory then the
average damage per attack is about $6.89 (a little less than 7
because rolled 11s and 12s only do $10 damage).

In an "average" set of 6 strategic bombing runs:
5 runs will succeed and inflict a total of $34.46 damage.
1 run will fail costing the attacker an HB or $15 *
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total gain = $19.46
Total gain per bombing run (6 runs) = $3.24

* this isn't even figuring in the cost of Tech research.

So. . . even with 2 die HB, strategic bombing only helps the attacker
by a fraction more than the price of an INF per run. Nothing to be
too afraid of.

p.s. Strategic bombing an IC in a 3pt territory with 2 die HBs
actually ends up costing the attacker more than the defender.


Airship_Armada
View Public Profile
Visit Airship_Armada's homepage!
Find More Posts by Airship_Armada

05-26-2004, 11:44 PM #224
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Actually your figures are wrong (too high) since you forgot to incorporate the chance that the bomber would be shot down and hence do 0 IPCs damage 1/6 of the time. I calculate this to be (per bomber) 5.65 IPCs in Germany (max damge cap at 10 IPC in this territory)

[ May 27, 2004, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: DY ]


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

05-27-2004, 01:21 AM #225
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

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

Quote:
Well thank you Mr. Einstein. You are indeed a genius. Your coming back to this latest edition is nothing short of brilliant.

Is it just me, or is Mr. Harris suffering some kind of burn-out?

I did not think my comments warranted a sarcastic comeback such as this.

Of course, the sarcasm would have been easier to accept if it had been accompanied by ANY substantive remarks in response to my rule change suggestions.

I thought that was what this thread was all about.

So its back to 2nd edition for me, you guys have fun, maybe I'll check in again in a few more months when everything has already been decided.

Einstein


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43

05-27-2004, 02:47 AM #226
Autarch
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Flagship of the Combined Fleet
Posts: 2,220


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

Hi all!

First, after reading LHTR, I'd like to commend those that put in the work on the clarifications of retreats, transports and firewalling the different phases of combat movement, conducting combat and noncombat movement. Mucho thanks!

The only exception I have to the above is that: the only exception: planes participating in combat to fly during noncombat movement. I think someone addressed this earlier, but I don't recall the justification for it (other than the obvious of not having to endure AA gun fire on the return route).

I think though, that planes should still move to the territory/sea zone they are going to land in at the end of combat movement and still get shot at by any AA guns they fly over. Moreover, no planes should be allowed to fly over enemy AA guns during noncombat movement, because that would obviously provoke combat.

Now to Larry's short list of disputed changes:

1. Supersubs:
I like the immune to air w/o DD. It gives individual subs some longevity and increases their effectiveness as a picket and forces a commitment of surface forces to defeat them. How about defending at 2 but against aircraft as well (but still can't attack aircraft, just defend against).

2. Existing fighters landing on new CVs:
Mr. H said

Quote:
I still cannot bring myself to allow aircraft to be moved during the mobilize units phase.

Fighters ending their move in an empty sz should be allowed to land on newly built CVs.

Picking a unit up and putting it back down (on top of another unit) in the same territory doesn't constitute a move.
Yay, Larry's happy! [img]smile.gif[/img]

I really don't like rules designed to keep players from committing to "ahistoric" or "suboptimal" or even suicidal strategies. It's their life, let them wreck it however they like. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

3.Techs being delayed by a round
Not good. I take it this is to prevent G1 sealion with LRA tech? See above. If this is really a game breaker, add more infantry to UK (ie the Home Guard).

I thought the whole point of tech was to GAMBLE on getting an immediate advantage. Surprise was an unintended benefit. Delaying tech implementation until the end of the turn means (except for the defensive elements of jetfighters and supersubs) that even though you win, you still lose. This gives the opponents a free turn in order to prepare. For example, Japan builds a defense fleet for sea of Japan trannies against US LRA and Germany moves infantry into France or build a sub in Baltic to defeat US/UK CB. Not to mention the obvious: one more turn your investment rides without producing results.
Since this isn't a game mechanic, I think it appropriate to point out that historically, technological developments were kept secret in order to increase effectiveness on the battlefield and not allow the enemy time to prepare countermeasures for them. But since you can't really do that in this game (unless your lucky enough to have a ref for tournament play) gaining the tech upon rolling it is the next best thing.

4. HB’s too weak:
No doubt someone else has suggested this, but why not let HB's attack at 5 and defend at two? Only allow HB to sbr (with or w/o limit).
If its still too strong, allow each fighter present in targeted territory a free shot at 1.

Keep up this great discussion!

A.
__________________
"No Set II for a year! With only a few new units! Time to mod and repaint minis!"

Trading List

"World at war! No time to paint minis!"


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

05-27-2004, 03:20 AM #227
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Airship_Armada:
Do not fear SBR from 2 die HBs.


Actually, I don`t fear the double sbr-value if there`s limit, your exemple is correct Airship A. But I do fear the double attack value and still think that the advantage on a sbr may be a little too high, but I can certainly live with it if there`s a limit. Therefore I might have another "golden compromise": if you have HB roll two dices. For normal attacks and defence choose best, for a sbrs take both. The sbr-demage inficted to a country is limited to its income value. What do you think about this proposal?


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

05-27-2004, 05:30 AM #228
DY
Senior Member


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

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

I fear 5 infantry much more than I fear 1 heavy bomber in terms of combat (this doesn't even factor in the cost of getting the tech so really you can't equate these two 15 IPC investments because the cost of a HB depends on how many dice you threw and how many bombers you have)


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

05-27-2004, 05:37 AM #229
axis_roll
Team AR Germany / *****




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
I fear 5 infantry much more than I fear 1 heavy bomber in terms of combat

sure, alone
combine those 5 inf or HB with other units and then decide.

Which do you fear more now?

5 inf, 1 HB
or
10 inf?

I guess it would depend on how many rounds of battle would be involved...

Also, 5 inf can't take away cash from an opponents wallet or sink a ship at sea (maybe in the next LHTR ...?)


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

05-27-2004, 06:42 AM #230
Larry Harris



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

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

Einstein43
I was not being sarcastic (I would not do that). I was playing off your screen name…and commenting in an attempted humorous way that its nice of you to let go of 2nd edition and get interested in the new revised edition.
Allow me to comment on your posting:
You wanted existing ftrs to land on AC – Pretty sure that is our intention now

You asked if we were Tech-o-phobes ? - How about tech-0-nuts…This game should not be about techs. Techs should be the exception and not the norm. The humble infantry at 1/2 and the fighter at 3/4 etc is what this game is about.

You suggest that Destroyers be at 2/2 and costing 15 or 16 and at the same time Supersubs be at 3/3 costing 8. – I’m not comfortable with this.

Transports carry only ONE unit at a time? - I think would slow down the game too much. I'm starting to think that you like to see lots and lots of pieces on the board. Yeah, I sometimes go there.

Autarch - Thanks for the comments
I think supersubs at 3/3 and immune to aircraft are too strong. They are more powerful than Destroyers that cost much more.

Don’t forget that the New CV’s are not yet on the board when you land. The game must have structure. In any case I think we’ve solved this issue. You will be able to place fighter that are already on an IC territory in with the newly purchased units on the mobilization box on the board. This dedicated effort removes the said fighters from play until the end of the turn whereupon they will be placed on the new or even old CV in an adjacent sea zone. Etc etc….

Sorry I like the delay in tech. This issue is really subjective.

HB’s - This is a fine line to walk. I like “ roll two keep one” Do this when attacking or SBRing. I liked your suggested simplified fighter interceptor rule… each fighter present in a targeted territory get a free shot at 1. I found this to be wonderfully simple and yet powerful.

Atlantikwall - I think bombers will very quickly reach the Max damage numbers as it is. Having bombers get credit for two dice instead of one will undermine the purchase of bombers and there is already an existing threat in the direction.

DY – Infantry and bombers are two different types of animals. One flies great distances, can sink ships and the other is slow and really only good in mass.
Axis-roll – you bring up a good point.,. 5 inf & 1 HB is much better than 10 inf.

Thanks (I hope I have not offended any one this moring)
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:07 pm

05-27-2004, 06:46 AM #231
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
I fear 5 infantry much more than I fear 1 heavy bomber in terms of combat

Well, first of all a WEU-invasion is limited by the number of trn you have and usually you don`t buy more than you can regulary use to ship units. So may be a maximum of 8 US-trn. Immagine WEU is well fortified with 30 inf in the later game. How many inf, arm (and trn) would you have to use to make an succesful attack (I don`t have a simulator nearby)? Immagine you had 6 normal bmb. How many infs, arm less would you need if these were all H-bmb. That`s an additional attack value of 20 (one bmb is shot down) every round. And furthermore: in case you would win this battle, you don`t like to leave lots of units in WEU as they are propably destroyed in the next german turn. So just having an average number of inf, arm and having an impressive airforce is realistic. And don`t forget: bmb are "flexible", i.e. you can either engage in normal comabts or conduct sbrs. If you want to sbr Germany you need double number of bmb to get the same demage (with the AvH-rules), and you have double losses (i.e. higher "replacement costs"). If I had double-dice HB as the USA I would buy certainly more than the 3 needed to bomb GER & SEU (with the income cap). Some more H-bmb would be used in regular land or naval attacks. It always will take some time untill an investment is paid off, but if you keep double-dice-HB that would be the case too quickly. Assuming that you spent 30 IPC for the tech, that would already be the case with the first bmb you buy. You have one and two H-bmb would have the same combat value than 4 regular bmb and are less likely to be hit by an aa (as they are less units). If you spent 45 IPC for the tech, buy another 2 bmb and 3 H-bmb equalize the attack value of 6 normal bmb.


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

05-27-2004, 07:43 AM #232
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

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

Quote:
Einstein43
I was not being sarcastic (I would not do that). I was playing off your screen name…and commenting in an attempted humorous way that its nice of you to let go of 2nd edition and get interested in the new revised edition.

Allow me to comment on your posting:

You wanted existing ftrs to land on AC – Pretty sure that is our intention now

You asked if we were Tech-o-phobes ? - How about tech-0-nuts…This game should not be about techs. Techs should be the exception and not the norm. The humble infantry at 1/2 and the fighter at 3/4 etc is what this game is about.


Larry:

Okay, I guess maybe I was the burnt-out one. Sorry for being oversensitive. I apologize.

I agree that the game should not be about TECH however after years of playing no-tech games I have recently spent years working tech into my 2nd edition game play.

But now in the new game it seems tech is more important than ever since players may roll for the tech of their choosing. Delaying tech and damping down HB certainly makes it less useful, altho as someone else commented ROCKETS may now rank as more effective than HB on the technology scale---and that doesn't seem right.

To truly reduce the influence of tech on the game. going back to 2nd edition rules for obtaining tech would achieve that goal. The tactic of rolling 1 die for tech every round is quite effective in 2nd edition when combined with a conservative approach to purchases and combat designed to lengthen the game until your tech comes in. In the new game this should work even better since you can choose the tech you want. However most players haven't tried this approach, or prefer to go with no-tech strats.

I admit I have not played much of the new game yet, only a dozen games, even though I bought 2 copies immediately. Compare that with 30 copies of the 2nd edition (not to mention 2 copies of the NOVA games version) but only 1 copy each of A&AEur and A&APac. I have all the 2nd edition copies so I can keep a couple dozen PBEM games going at all times. I have over 400 gamefinishes at IAAPA, plus hundreds of games played before I joined the PBEM universe. I mention this not to brag but just to prove my intense interest in the game going back over 15 years. Oh yeah, I also wrote and published a book of alternate rules for 2nd edition which has sold over 1,000 copies.

Einstein

P.S.: Before people pile on about how I should use a map utility instead of real boards, they don't make them for Macintosh as far as I know. Certainly there weren't any around for Macs when I started PBEM 5 years ago.

[ May 27, 2004, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Einstein43 ]


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43

05-27-2004, 07:48 AM #233
Bismarck
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 403

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

Einstein, no offense, but wouldn't it have paid off to simply buy a PC, instead of purchasing 30 copies of A&A (and a house big enough to fit 20+ active game boards)?


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

05-27-2004, 07:54 AM #234
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
I think bombers will very quickly reach the Max damage numbers as it is. Having bombers get credit for two dice instead of one will undermine the purchase of bombers and there is already an existing threat in the direction.

I don`t really understand what you mean by that? Obviously with the income cap you can (almost) only take fully advantage of double-dice HB with one H-bmb on GER. Even with the first H-bmb on SEU and the second on GER you risk to "loose" something of this advantage. But that would even be an argument FOR letting "double dice" on sbr when you have a cap (as this would not be too much of an advantage). The stonger HB is, better it is obviously for the one who has it. It`s your decision then, if you want to send a second (maybe "supotimal") bmb over GER or not! So having a bigger "advantage" would certainly not "undermine" the purchase of H-bmb.

Btw, which treat do you mean?


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

05-27-2004, 08:37 AM #235
DY
Senior Member


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

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

While you dilly dally around buying bombers and going for tech (that will be delayed 1 turn) I'm going to be waltzing into Moscow.

Delayed tech and SBR turn limits are enough of a deterrent to all out HB strategies. The roll 2 keep 1 is the final nail in the coffin of this tech. I mean honestly will you try for HB now?

OK maybe roll 2 keep 2 is still too strong in battles (it's not broken in SBR terms anymore), then we need to look at HB = roll 1 D6 + 2 SBR ( and 1 D6 -2 combat ie guaranteed hit)


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

05-27-2004, 08:39 AM #236
Airship_Armada
Junior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 12

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

Quote:
Actually your figures are wrong (too high) since you forgot to incorporate the chance that the bomber would be shot down and hence do 0 IPCs damage 1/6 of the time.

from DY

I think my numbers are correct because in 6 runs I assume 1 HB loss and 5 success.

More on why 2 die HBs arn't all that powerfull in SBR if the economic limit rule is used.

USA researches HB (cost$30) and decides to send 2 HB per turn against Germany.
In 4 of the 6 turns both HBs get through and inflict $10 damage (subtotal 4 * 10 = 40).
In 2 of the 6 turns 1 bmb is shot down and the other gets through and does $7 damage (subtotal 2*7=14 but cost 2 HB = $30 ... assums lost HB is instantly replaced)

Grand totals
Damage inflicted: $54
Cost of attack: $60 ($30 + 40 + 30)

SBR with 2 die HBs cost the US attacker $6 more than the German defender.

Other posters are correct that the HB power lies in conventional attacks. This power is mitigated a little bit by the fact that in 4th edition bombers are subject to AA atack and can not be "shielded" by sending fighters in with them.


Airship_Armada
View Public Profile
Visit Airship_Armada's homepage!
Find More Posts by Airship_Armada

05-27-2004, 09:02 AM #237
Krieghund
A&A Boardgame Answer Guy




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,218

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
Don’t forget that the New CV’s are not yet on the board when you land. The game must have structure. In any case I think we’ve solved this issue. You will be able to place fighter that are already on an IC territory in with the newly purchased units on the mobilization box on the board. This dedicated effort removes the said fighters from play until the end of the turn whereupon they will be placed on the new or even old CV in an adjacent sea zone. Etc etc….

Larry,

Not trying to be a pain in the butt here, but how is this less of an "exception" than my proposal. If I understand this correctly, you are proposing "moving" a fighter from the IC territory to the Mobilization Box during the Purchase Units phase (not a movement phase). I don't see how this is less of a "movement" than letting fighters "hang in the air" over the sea zone the new cv is going to be placed in from the end of non-combat movement until they land at the end of the Mobilization phase.

What am I missing?
__________________
"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."


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

05-27-2004, 09:02 AM #238
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Quote:
Which do you fear more now?

5 inf, 1 HB
or
10 inf?

Actually, since HB cost 30 IPC on average to get, the comparison should be 5INF,1HB vs. 20 INF.

Furthermore, you can save the 30IPC on Tech and just get 3ARM instead which is superior to 1HB. True, HB can SBR, but they cannot take territory. Also, the counter to HB vs. Naval is Aircraft Carriers.
__________________
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

05-27-2004, 09:12 AM #239
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Quote:
Larry,

Not trying to be a pain in the butt here, but how is this less of an "exception" than my proposal. If I understand this correctly, you are proposing "moving" a fighter from the IC territory to the Mobilization Box during the Purchase Units phase (not a movement phase). I don't see how this is less of a "movement" than letting fighters "hang in the air" over the sea zone the new cv is going to be placed in from the end of non-combat movement until they land at the end of the Mobilization phase.

What am I missing?

Kreighund,

See Page 13 of this thread for further details. This movement occurs during NCM. If the FTR lands on a territory with an IC in NCM and still has one MP left, it may move 'into the box' (along with the units to be placed during the Mobilize New Units Phase). This last movement represents the FTR being carried out to port and loaded onto the 'yet to be completed' AC.
__________________
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

05-27-2004, 09:17 AM #240
Krieghund
A&A Boardgame Answer Guy




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,218

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

cousin_joe,

I have read that post, but the phrase "This dedicated effort removes the said fighters from play until the end of the turn whereupon..." in Larry's post led me to believe that the fighters in question would not be able to participate in "normal" functions for the turn. That was the basis of my assumption that it was to be done in the Purchase Units phase.

If the movement is actually to be done in non-combat movement with the cost of one movement point, there is little practical difference between this and what I proposed earlier (though there is a significant procedural difference).

If it is to be done in the Purchase Units phase, there is a great deal of difference between the two proposals, since one would limit the fighters' action on the turn and the other would not.

[ May 27, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Krieghund ]
__________________
"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."
-The evil Bert & friend

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest