'Larry Harris' Tournament Rules ' :Initial concepts

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

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

05-27-2004, 09:31 AM #241
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Quote:
Larry Harris wrote:
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.

It seems well agreed that the combination of Damage Cap/Territory/Turn + Roll 2 Die Keep 1 makes Heavy Bombers not worth getting and we're looking at removing one or the other.

Of the two, I prefer the Damage Cap as this sets firm limits on how much a Nation can be bombed for (eg. Germany - 16IPC/turn). It also limits Rockets to some degree as well and has no effect on HB in Combat which I feel is fine.

If removing the Roll 2 Die Keep 1 feels like HB are too strong again (esp. if 2 opposing nations get HB), might I suggest then that Jet Fighters be changed to Jets Defend at 5 and may also intercept SBR at 1 if they are in the same territory. I haven't played with the AA-immune Jets yet, but I worry they may be a bit overpowered. I'm surprised not too many people have complained yet, especially considering the uproar over AA-immune Superfortresses. A lot of players I've seen use AAs as a deterrent to prevent their opponent from using aircraft in a particular attack (eg. Allied landings in Africa or Norway, AAGuns in Karelia to prevent Ger FTRs in EEur from attacking Navy in SZ 4, AAGuns with your main stack on the Eastern Front). Anyways, something to consider... [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?


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

05-27-2004, 09:37 AM #242
Enigma
Daimyo


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

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

Quote:
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.

I totally agree but there seem to be too many people that think that Germany needs a huge navy and liked the way they could get it at minimal cost in the original revised rules. I totally agree with Drax's post and like the way that the new rules change the AC/Fighter relationship. I was just trying to show that the rule change does not eliminate the possibility of a strong German navy, it just changes the way to go about getting it. The new rules do not "eliminate choices", they prevent Germany from magically creating a navy at the beginning of the game. As for the rule change hurting only Germany, I think that the HB rule kills the HB strategy for US and doesn't really affect any other country and no one is complaining that US is crippled by this change. Please don't up and change things back just because a few people (relative to the number of people who enjoy this game)have a serious knee-jerk reaction to the death of their current favorite German strategy. Let things play out for a little bit and then see how people like playing the new rules. I haven't seen a single post yet where someone says, "I tried the new rules and Germany died because they couldn't get a fully loaded AC on G1." or anything similar. How many people have tried multiple games with the new rules? Does it degenerate into IPM games like the 2nd Edition? I personally have played 2 games with the new rules and haven't noticed any major problems, but I realize that 2 games does not an accurate sample make. I support the rule changes and hope that any further revisions will wait until people play out the new rules and find serious problems, like what happened with G1 Sea Lion and the US's HB strategy.


Enigma
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Enigma

05-27-2004, 09:38 AM #243
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Airship_Armada:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr> 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.</font>[/quote](1/6)*0 + (5/6)*[ (1/36)*2 + (2/36)*3 + (3/36)*4 + (4/36)*5 + (5/36)*6 + (6/36)*7 + (5/36)*8 + (4/36)*9 + (3/36)*10 + (2/36)*10 + (1/36)*10 ]

=

0 + (5/6)*[244/36] = 1220/216

:= 5.65 IPCs/bomber against Berlin (10 IPC damge cap)

Notice that with my figures I discuss the damage limit per bomber, since with damge caps now at 10 IPC per turn not per bomber only a fool would send 6 bombers to raid Berlin.

Note that with my calculations 6 bombers do 33.88 IPCs damage (using the old rule), where as you had them doing 34.46 IPCs, both of which "round" to 34 IPCs anyway

[ May 27, 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: DY ]


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

05-27-2004, 09:41 AM #244
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Kreighund,


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

Quote:
Larry Harris responded:
Don’t forget that the New CV’s are not yet on the board when you land.

Note Larry's phrase 'when you land.' This implies the FTR moves in CM or NCM. The whole issue was not having units move on the Mobilise Units Phase, so what was proposed is that the FTR moves on the NCM Phase instead - 'into the box' [img]smile.gif[/img] This is probably the 'dedicated movement' he is talking about.
__________________
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, 09:45 AM #245
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Enigma said:


Quote:
As for the rule change hurting only Germany, I think that the HB rule kills the HB strategy for US and doesn't really affect any other country and no one is complaining that US is crippled by this change.

Why possibly lie so horribly dude?

There are plenty of posts by myself and others on this very page, let alone on the 16 other pages in this thread saying that the new SBR limits + delayed techs + weakened HBs is chopping off the head to cure a head-ache.

[ May 27, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: DY ]


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

05-27-2004, 10:27 AM #246
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Enigma,

No offense dude, but you are seriously out to lunch. [img]smile.gif[/img] The reason no one is complaining about limiting HB is that everyone knew it was overpowered.

A German Navy is not overpowered. It is simply an alternate strategy which focuses on buying Germany time and territory for it's assault on Russia. Making this strategy less viable means people are more likely to try the alternate strategy of IPM. You don't have to play a ton of games to prove that, simple high school math should suffice.

I should also point out that DY has stated multiple times he feels IPM is the way to go for Germany, but he acknowledges the German Navy as an alternate strategy and doesn't think it should be made less viable by this rule change as it would really kill 'choice' in the game.

(P.S. Enigma, please try using paragraphs to make your posts easier to read. Thanks. [img]smile.gif[/img] )

[ May 27, 2004, 12:43 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

05-27-2004, 10:58 AM #247
TrimChris
Hail Caesar!




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

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

If the German navy is buying time for the assualt on Russia, then it is not a replacement to the IPM mechanic, just a delay of it.

And the German navy isn't dead by any means with these rule changes. It's just more expensive. Which means you either really committ to it or ignore. The choice is still there.
__________________
Are you not entertained?

Wizards of the Coast, let my Avalon Hill go!


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

05-27-2004, 11:07 AM #248
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Here's an idea for the LHTR (previously mentioned) that I think would really increase the number of viable strategies and game playouts:

Variable Cost Industrial Complexes

An IC on a 3+ IPC territory costs 15IPC
An IC on a 2 IPC territory costs 10IPC
An IC on a 1 IPC territory costs 5IPC

The reduced costs would really make IC's in key 2IPC territories viable and much more likely to be produced (eg. Karelia, Egypt, S.Africa, Australia, Sinkiang, China, Novosibirsk, Alaska). The game becomes a lot more global instead of the Germany-centric, Russia-centric situation we have now. I could expand on this a lot more, but if you think about it, it would really add a ton of strategy to the game. Thoughts? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ May 27, 2004, 01:07 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

05-27-2004, 11:10 AM #249
TrimChris
Hail Caesar!




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

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

Then wouldn't everyone complain about a shortage of IC pieces?
__________________
Are you not entertained?

Wizards of the Coast, let my Avalon Hill go!


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

05-27-2004, 11:19 AM #250
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Trimchris,

This is not an issue as the game allows for unlimited IC's to be put down. There's 4 extra to start the game. You can always use the original IC's as well as most people know those IC's are there and don't actually need to see them (unless you're playing Mobile Factories for Russia)

Any other thoughts (focusing more on the strategic implications please)?

[ May 27, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: cousin_joe ]
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?
-The evil Bert & friend

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

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:08 pm

05-27-2004, 12:00 PM #251
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Variable cost IC's sound interesting. Not sure if they should ever reach "official" status though.


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

05-27-2004, 12:07 PM #252
Krieghund
A&A Boardgame Answer Guy




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

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

Yes, it is interesting, and it probably would result in more varied playouts. My only concern would be that it might benefit the Allies too much, as they can afford them more.
__________________
"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."


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

05-27-2004, 12:14 PM #253
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Krieghund,

I thought someone might say that. Here are a few situations where I think it would benefit the Axis (Note: although purchasing IC's might be questionable for Germany, Japan can certainly afford them):

-IC in Egypt for Germany, at 10 IPC, it's about the same cost as a transport
-IC in Karelia for Germany, gives 2 ARM in immediate striking distance of Russia. Again, an alternate to the TRN in the Baltic
-IC in Sinkiang, China, Novo for Japan which puts troops closer to the front
-IC in Alaska for Japan, at 10IPC, can be a real nuisance for the US
-IC in Egypt, S.Africa for Japan, really cuts their supply lines to Africa
__________________
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, 12:52 PM #254
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

The other thing I've noticed is that a lot of Allied players tend to ignore Japan, focusing primarily on Germany (much like in 2nd edition). The problem with this is, is that Japan gets insanely powerful, which strategically and historically is undesirable.

Making IC's in places like Egypt, Australia, and Sinkiang a little cheaper, makes strategies to slow Japan a lot more viable.

For 10IPC's (rather than 15) I'd be much more willing to put an IC in Sinkiang as the US player (and subsequently an IC in India in the first place).

For UK, double IC builds become much more viable. Also, placing IC's in Egypt and Australia, rather than India (which will eventually fall anyway) becomes much more viable as well (with the cheaper price), as Japan has a harder time taking these due to the lengthened supply lines.

In summary, variable cost IC's would do a lot for the game, specifically with regards to historical accuracy and strategic variability. Any thoughts from the panel? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ May 27, 2004, 02:53 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

05-27-2004, 01:07 PM #255
TrimChris
Hail Caesar!




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

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

Cousin Joe - that was a joke. Lighten up a little!

From a stratgic standpoint I think the reduced costs would benefit the Allies much sooner in a game (when it makes the most difference) than it would benefit the Axis. Most early IC placements for the Axis (Japan) will be in 3 IPC territories. Stretching out for suitable 2 IPC territories may leave Japan too weak in its core empire (depending on how the Allies play naturally).
__________________
Are you not entertained?

Wizards of the Coast, let my Avalon Hill go!


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

05-27-2004, 01:29 PM #256
DY
Senior Member


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

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

I'm afraid that TrimChris is right on the money there.

The Allies will indeed get the early game benefit from such a rule since the Allies are cash rich anyway early and have many viable turn one 2 IPC territories. This will further consolidate their economic advantage as they can more cheaply defend some of their vulnerable income generating provinces.

The Axis has no good early game 2 IPC territories and will be cash rich by the time they can think about an IC in China, IC Egypt etc.

Like I said, it'd be interesting to try as a house rule, but I can't see it being adopted officially.


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

05-27-2004, 01:36 PM #257
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

TrimChris - sorry about that, inflection doesn't really come out well on these boards. That's why I always use the smilies when joking [img]smile.gif[/img]

The question is, is it really beneficial? Is it beneficial for the Allies to divert some attention in slowing Japan, but at the same time, loosening the reins a bit on Germany? Or is the chance of success about equal, and really, these just represent 2 different choices in how you go about trying to get the victory? [img]smile.gif[/img]

IMHO, I think focusing the large majority of your effort on Germany is currently the more successful of these 2 philosophies. That is why the German Triple Team is so popular.

This would imply that shifting attention to Japan is currently an inferior strategy. So what if we were to make factories a little cheaper? Then focusing attention on Japan becomes a bit more viable strategy to the Allies, perhaps approaching the success of the German Triple Team, and thus an equally viable choice.

Great strategy games are about giving players choices. Variable cost ICs is something that would do that.
__________________
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, 01:49 PM #258
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

DY,

From the games I've played, the Allied German Triple Team is much more successful than games where Allies try to build factories in India +/- Sinkiang.

While Variable Cost ICs would help the Allies hold territory against Japan early, it would mean less focus on Germany (ie. the Allies would be getting away from the current optimal strategy - is that really in their benefit?).

Also, with the stronger Axis military might early, these territories can fall, giving the Axis a free factory.

Although I agree that Variable Cost IC's would help the Allies early, it helps the inferior strategy of Slowing Japan, and gets away from the superior strategy of the German Triple Team. If it equalizes the success of these 2 strategies, then the game is much better for it, as players have a true choice in which strategy to go for (rather than just defaulting to the superior one). [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?


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

05-27-2004, 02:13 PM #259
playa1
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 64

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

Hello everyone, I have read all the documents on Larry's new rules twice now. Both times very throughly. I have read most of the messages on this board. I personally believe this is the best set of rules we will get. If there are any changes to these rules, they will be very, very, very slight. I personally don't believe there needs to be any.

In defense of Larry, I have made these observations, using the MAIN FEATURES AND RATIONALE document:

GAME PROCESS CHANGES

I. Air units

1. Makes perfect sense-***STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE TURN SEQUENCE. (combat move, combat and noncombat move) Otherwise, what's the purpose of creating any structure at all?

2. ditto

3. ditto- I know there are a few that are really fighting this. But how can you place existing fighters on new carriers, when technically they haven't been ported yet? (Mobilization Phase). NO EXCEPTIONS HERE- One exception in the turn sequence will lead to 10 more that people will be whining about more exception (only the suspended air units rule understandable here)- STICK TO THE TURN SEQUENCE (THE STRUCTURE) and things won't become so complicated.

II Transports
Case sets 1-4: ditto, stay within the structure of the turn sequence.

GAME BALANCE CHANGES

1.) Tech rolls- A MUST, makes sense (How long did it takes to process the V-2 rocket and the A-bomb once they had the technology?-weeks and months sometimes.)

2.)HB- A formally suggested roll of a 5 instead gives you an 83% chance for a hit.
The 2 dice (current rule) option was too strong-easy for Allies with an 88% chance of hitting 1 out of the 2 dice and a strong 44% of hitting both of them.
Larry's way gives the same 88% chance for one hit(thus better than the roll of 5= 83% chance), w/o the 44% chance because there isn't 2 hits.
You're not going to get closer than this, unless you go with the formally proposed 1.3 or 1.5 idea I heard of earlier which is ridiculous- too much calculating. Larry's way is still better. Remember "Tech should not be the norm anyway." That's not the focus of the game.
Besides, from 66% (w/o HB) to 88% (with HB, Larry's way), the U.S. will still benefit plenty from HB.
The other techs are fine as well, both sides benefit from Jet Fighters and Super Subs (my earlier post- pg. 7

3.) A must- makes perfect sense

Lastly, the 9VC is great and the Optional Rules are fantastically improved.
I could expand greatly on these arguments, but I have already taken too much space here.

Keep it going Larry. [img]smile.gif[/img]


playa1
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by playa1

05-27-2004, 02:22 PM #260
Drax Kramer
Senior Member


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

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

I like the idea of reduced cost of ICs. At one point my group had a house rule where IC cost 5 IPCs per unit of capacity. You could buy a factory in India for 5, 10 or 15 IPCs depending upon the capacity you wanted. We used the markers to depict the current capacity.

Strategic bombers did not take IPCs but rather reduced the capacity so at some point a German player had to spend IPCs to raise the capacity of his factory in Germany in order to produce necessary units.

Drax
-The evil Bert & friend

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

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:09 pm

05-27-2004, 03:20 PM #261
TrimChris
Hail Caesar!




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

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

Drazen - I've played a different game (one modified off A&A) that used similar factory build-ups. But the SBR's reduced the potential of the factories in all kinds of different ways. The game is actually being published later this year, but I won't name it since this is an AH message board.

Cousin Joe - While the reduced costs for factories can cheapen the KJF strategy, doesn't it equally cheapen KGF? Can't a factory in Sinkiang help with KGF just as well? And I could see a factory in S Africa help with KGF. Or even in some of the Middle East territories. Or even for the US in Algeria. So if the objective is to make KJF more attractive, these mentioned locations may also make KGF even more attractive than it is currently.

Finally, I haven't played enough games yet to agree or disagree, but there are some strong advocates for the power of KJF with the current game design. I don't think KGF is fully proven yet as a superior strategy.

[ May 27, 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: TrimChris ]
__________________
Are you not entertained?

Wizards of the Coast, let my Avalon Hill go!


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

05-27-2004, 05:40 PM #262
kwijebo
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 14

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

questioneer wrote:

"In defense of Larry, I have made these observations, using the MAIN FEATURES AND RATIONALE document:

GAME PROCESS CHANGES

I. Air units

1. Makes perfect sense-***STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE TURN SEQUENCE. (combat move, combat and noncombat move) Otherwise, what's the purpose of creating any structure at all?

2. ditto

3. ditto- I know there are a few that are really fighting this. But how can you place existing fighters on new carriers, when technically they haven't been ported yet? (Mobilization Phase). NO EXCEPTIONS HERE- One exception in the turn sequence will lead to 10 more that people will be whining about more exception (only the suspended air units rule understandable here)- STICK TO THE TURN SEQUENCE (THE STRUCTURE) and things won't become so complicated."

[end of quote]

Well since no exceptions are to be allowed, the rules are clearly going to have to be modified. Those darned fighters on a defending carrier that gets sunk will just have to go down with the ship - after all they clearly can't be retreating when it's not their turn...

Kwijebo

[ May 27, 2004, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: kwijebo ]


kwijebo
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by kwijebo

05-27-2004, 08:13 PM #263
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

TrimChris,

If you're going to be sending troops from the Sink IC to help in KGF, don't expect the factory to be in US hands for very long. The Sink IC is primarily for a Japan Stall strategy.

A S.Africa IC is helpful if Germany goes heavy into Africa, but if not, you're better off with a TRN off UK and shuttling ground troops to Karelia. The other territories you mention are only worth 1 IPC, and production is minimal to have too much effect on KGF.

KJF can work against inexperienced players, but against wily veterans, you're going to need some lucky dice. The reason why I'm suggesting the Variable Cost ICs though is not for KJF, but merely to make slowing them down more viable (as opposed to ignoring them completely). KGF should always be your focus.
__________________
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, 08:35 PM #264
playa1
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 64

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

To kwijebo,
I'm not quite understanding what you are saying. How are your existing fighters destroyed when you build a new carrier? You might need to read the document again, though I could be mistaken. Please clarify. [img]smile.gif[/img]


playa1
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by playa1

05-27-2004, 08:41 PM #265
playa1
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 64

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

To kwijebo,
You must be talking about guest fighters right?
If this is true, then yes, I understand, but that's what National Advantage Joint Strike is for. Besides guest fighters on a carrier is rare.


playa1
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by playa1

05-27-2004, 11:30 PM #266
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Sorry Cousin_Joe, I am not a firm believer that KGF is the way to go. A few lucky hits on the Eastern front and Germany loses a few IPCs (relative to a large army this isn't of great consequence). A few lucky hits in the Pacific and Japan loses irreplacable 16 IPC CVs and 24 IPC BBs.

Take our current PBEM game for instance, there was that horrible turn (G2) when I went 3 Inf + 2 Ftr vs 1 Inf + 1 Rtl in Karelia and you did 3 hits to my 2 hits.

I also went 2 Inf + 1 Rtl + 2 Ftr into Ukraine vs 2 Inf + 1 Rtl and did 2 hits to your 3 (to add insult to injury your suriviving Rtl then captured Balkans and scored a further hit in defense on my next turn).

Also note that on that next turn (G3) your AA shot down my bomber in my first attempt at SBR for the game.

Now, had those same few lucky hits occured on the Asian continent where the number of troops is smaller, then the impact of such rolls would be greatly magnified. Had those rolls occured at sea it would have been even worse for Japan (just ask AxisRoll and axis_roll who are strong advocates of KJF nd have some pretty solid Allied openings to this end).

Now, we've just had J3 and Japan has 51 production and Germany 39. That's a total of 90 IPCs per turn, with the break even point being 83. so after only 3 turns we have shifted the economic balance in our favour.

Now it is my belief that my judicious purchasing of nothing but infantry for Germany will probably allow me to surivive long enough for Japan to win the war, especially with Japanese forces in Alaska, Novosisbirsk and Kazak now demanding some US and Soviet attention.


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

05-28-2004, 12:11 AM #267
joe ward nyc
Member


Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 50

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

what if...what if...what if...?!?!?!?
You must play good stratige not good dice!
Go for GER. 1ST!
__________________
Lone Wolf


joe ward nyc
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by joe ward nyc

05-28-2004, 08:17 AM #268
Enigma
Daimyo


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

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

Quote by DY

Quote:
Enigma said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------
As for the rule change hurting only Germany, I think that the HB rule kills the HB strategy for US and doesn't really affect any other country and no one is complaining that US is crippled by this change.
-----------------------------------------------
Why possibly lie so horribly dude?

There are plenty of posts by myself and others on this very page, let alone on the 16 other pages in this thread saying that the new SBR limits + delayed techs + weakened HBs is chopping off the head to cure a head-ache.

Umm, I realize that everyone is complaining that HBs have been weakened beyond recognition, but I agree with that and that's not what I'm talking about. What I am saying is that the weakened HB affects the US that most by crippling their HB strategy, NO OTHER COUNTRY IS HURT NEARLY AS BAD.

There have been many posts where people claim that the AC rule must be changed because Germany is the only one that is hurt. What I am proposing is that there is a double standard between saying that the new HB rule is bad because of the extreme weakening of the tech and the new AC rule is bad because is cripples a German strategy.

No one complains that the new HB rule cripples the US strategy, they complain that the rule makes the tech too weak. While there have been some arguements where the merits of the AC rule have been talked about, the majority of opponents to the new AC rule claim it's bad because of the limitations of the G1 purchase option. This is fundamentally a different reason to object that with the HB.

Quote by cousin_joe:

Quote:
A German Navy is not overpowered. It is simply an alternate strategy which focuses on buying Germany time and territory for it's assault on Russia. Making this strategy less viable means people are more likely to try the alternate strategy of IPM. You don't have to play a ton of games to prove that, simple high school math should suffice.

The German Navy is not dead with the new rules, it is just different. People are resistent to change and get comfortable with their set strategies. There are many ways to develop a German Navy still, they are just more expensive, making for a more difficult choice. No choices were killed through this rule except the free linch for Germany.

Btw, thanks for the heads up abt. paragraphs.


Enigma
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Enigma

05-28-2004, 08:48 AM #269
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Lone Wolf:
what if...what if...what if...?!?!?!?
You must play good stratige not good dice!
Go for GER. 1ST!

I challenge you to a 9 VC no tech PBEM game with me as the Axis. Try your brilliant KGF on me and see just how optimal it is. PM me if you accept my challenge.


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

05-28-2004, 09:08 AM #270
Krieghund
A&A Boardgame Answer Guy




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

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

Go get him, DY!
__________________
"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."
-The evil Bert & friend

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

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:10 pm

05-28-2004, 12:23 PM #271
Yoper
WBC A&A Tournament GM


Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Saint Clair, MI
Posts: 1,411

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

Finally, a game manual that is clear, concise, and to the point! Thanks to all involved. Much of the confusion and questions rise out of rulebooks that try too hard. All that extraneous information that you have to wade through is just BS. At times, I think that the people who write those things get caught up in trying to make it into a novel instead of a reference piece.

While I do not PBEM, I do play in tournaments. Any rule set that helps to clarify and minimize rules problems is a step in the right direction.

1) Supersubs- Same as LHTR except allow them to submerge after any round of combat, even if a DD is present. Allows planes to get after a supersub (as long as a DD is present), but also allows the supersub a chance to survive.
2) Fighters/CV- Only new fighters on a new carrier. A harsh choice, but better than 2nd edition.
3) Delayed Tech- No real opinion. I will get used to it whatever way it comes out.
4) Heavy Bombers- Normal Combat- Attack at a 5 or less on 1d6. SBR- Roll 1d6 + 1 IPC for damage. I do not like 2d6. Too powerful. What is the point of leaving 2d6 for HB if then you are going to just put a cap on things? Reduce the power of the HB to a point that it is better than the normal bomber but not overpowering. Then if a country (USA/UK) can manage to build enough units to cause the enemy (Germany) to lose all its money, so be it. It makes it a possible strategy, not a probable strategy.

I like directed technology, I just don’t like it meaning you will get a tech that then is going to drive the direction of the game. Technology should be an extra that will make it a bit easier for you and a bit harder for your opponent. Ultimately, the core game play should determine who wins the game.

[ May 30, 2004, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Craig A. Yope ]


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

05-28-2004, 01:07 PM #272
kwijebo
Junior Member


Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 14

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

Tech will be non-existent at FTF tourneys, at least with the format that'll be used at Origins. With games limited to 3:45, how many rounds can be completed, 5 or 6 max? And if tech is delayed a round, its return on investment is reduced enough so that no one would bother to try for it.

But it seems this is what the writers of the new rules wanted, anyway.

[ May 28, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: kwijebo ]


kwijebo
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by kwijebo

05-28-2004, 05:11 PM #273
sumthinelse
Member




Join Date: May 2004
Location: Austin,TX
Posts: 61

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

Larry: Thanks for coming here to debate the points with us. I appreciate your dedication and unique talent. How does it feel to be the "mother" of this great game (who gets plenty of advice about what to do with her "child")?

On the subject of existing fighters mobilizing on new carriers: In "classic" A&A, I thought it was unfortunate that so many sea units disappeared during the first turn (especially since there aren't that many, compared to land units, to begin with). I thought the provision allowing existing fighters to "land" on a new carrier in the "new" A&A was an improvement, for that reason.

I am glad to see that you are likely to reach a compromise with people like me who disagreed with your proposed change.

Best wishes.
__________________
Doctor: Madam, your son has an Oedipus Complex. Boy's mother: Oedipus, schmedipus! What do I care as long as he loves his mother!


sumthinelse
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sumthinelse

05-29-2004, 09:04 AM #274
Autarch
Senior Member




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


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

I realize that these rules are for the PBEM groups, with the focus on balancing the techs and clearing up some of the rules so everyone's on the same page. But with Larry's Seal of Approval, it's likely that the LHTR will be adopted for FTF tourney play on the convention circuit.

Are the LHTR going to include time limits, additional victory points to determine bracketing and a standardized ranking system that can be used from tourney to tourney? Frontline was probably supposed to cover all this, but I think it's been round filed.

I just thought it would be nice if the tourney rules also had "official" guidelines not only for playing the game, but how FTF tournaments would be ran and ranked.

I think it certainly would make tourneys more enjoyable and eliminate the 'annoying fistful-of-ones-rolling newbie knocking you out because the tournament director can't bracket for a darn so the semifinals games are cut an hour short not giving you a chance to recover' nightmare scenario...

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

06-01-2004, 08:14 PM #275
Larry Harris



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

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

The final fixes to Larry Harris’ Tournament Rules are:

1) Supersubs at 3/3. No other special abilities.

2) Ftrs can land in a seazone adjacent to an IC if a cv has been purchased and is placed there.

3) Tech take effect next turn (no changes to LHTR)

4) HB's roll 2, pick the best. For SBR's add "1" to best to determine damage done.

Items 1, 3 and 4 are self evident corrections that need no explanation.

Item 2. Allowing fighters to end their move in a seazone adjacent to an IC when you will place a newly purchased carrier there is the best solution to the concerns raised about reinforcing new carriers for the following reason.

If you attack with a carrier, but only plan to move its fighters in non-combat, you are permitted to have fighters "hanging" over an open sea zone for two phases (combat move phase and conduct combat phase).

So, since fighters are permitted to "hang in space" for an entire combat sequence, then it also made sense to allow them to hang in space long enough after the noncombat move phase to place a carrier under them. This way, they do NOT get any additional movement points, which I opposed.

(comments by BlackWatch)


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

06-01-2004, 09:26 PM #276
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Heavy bombers are still way too weak. Combined bombardment is still useless. Normal bombers and destroyers are still too weak as well.

But at least we're moving in the right direction.

[ June 01, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Zombie ]


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

06-02-2004, 12:04 AM #277
RobMP40


Posts: n/a

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

I'm just an amature, most definately, but how about requiring destroyers to be present for fighters to attack subs. Only bombers could attack subs without a destroyer present?


RobMP40

06-02-2004, 02:54 AM #278
Clausewitz
Member




Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yoshiwara's House of Ill Repute
Posts: 625

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

Oh Great Lord Larry, creator of all things, why in Houserule Hell do my fighters still have to sit and watch while my capital is bombed to dust?
Defence against bombing raids was the principle use for fighters for much of the war, and it's absence from the new version makes no sense to me.
With fighter interception and escort rules HBs could roll three dice and the game would not be unbalanced.
Pray tell us the reason for leaving out this most flavorful aspect of air to air combat.


Clausewitz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Clausewitz

06-02-2004, 04:13 AM #279
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Hello,

as far as ALL my opinions (recomendations) are fully met, I have to thank all participants of the taskforce for their willingness to accept the proposals of the AA-community. Super-subs at 3/3 are easy and good. The HB-sbr was a little too weak, but double dice would overpower this tech. Putting old fgt on ac was absolutely necessary for the game(balance), making the german navy a reasonable option. And last but not least, techs had to "delayed" to reduce the luck (and "surprise") factor and making Revised a stategic (and not a tactical) game. I "love" the new rules, they are perfectly balanced and we certainly have the "best possible AA-rules" now.


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

06-02-2004, 06:35 AM #280
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Look, I'm still not over-joyed about the new HB's and the delayed tech, but I think SSX and Ftrs mobilising on CVs have been adequately addressed.

There is still no chance I'll roll tech dice for LRA, CB or HB, but they've changed enough so that I, for one, am going to play with the new ruleset.
-The evil Bert & friend

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

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:11 pm

06-02-2004, 08:06 AM #281
AllWeNeedIsLove.
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 491

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

Thanks Larry for listening to everyones opinions and creating the best A&A ruleset. This should provide the best gaming experience for everyone.

P.S. by no means do I think that the rules are perfect (I would like several changes) but I have not seen a better set of rules.
__________________
Do we really need soo much anger?


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

06-02-2004, 08:39 AM #282
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
Look, I'm still not over-joyed about the new HB's and the delayed tech...There is still no chance I'll roll tech dice for LRA, CB or HB...

Techs should be so strong, that they are a reasonable option, but they should never be so strong, that they are a "must" (like the old US-HB). Playing without tech is the norm, playing with techs should be the "exception". Now you may have a reason to buy (most of the) techs (depending on the circumstances). There will always be some techs that are considered to be stronger (may be rockets) than others (Comb.Bomb.). You can`t totally balance everything. I think this is the "best-possible balanced ruleset" now. May be after some months of playing, new ideas to "improve" the rules will emerge. But for the moment, it`s perfect!


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

06-02-2004, 08:40 AM #283
Krieghund
A&A Boardgame Answer Guy




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

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

Larry, thanks for listening and giving some weight to our opinions and comments. It is greatly appreciated!
__________________
"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."


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

06-02-2004, 09:55 AM #284
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

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

A complete set of the rules (as re-revised) has been posted at:

http://dicey.net/revised/index.php
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

06-02-2004, 10:08 AM #285
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

To answer a lot of your concerns I mention this:

On the box, it reads ages 12 and older. It was our intention, while trying to make the game playable w/options available (as many here so wanted), to try in other ways to make it thus (12 and older) and clarify any text confusions.

In regards to gameplay 'adjustments', it is not easy to determine where that fine line is before you've gone too far (with requests and perspectives) and made things too 'unsimplified', until perhaps you've passed over it, which time will tell from here on out. I think we are confident we stayed to the correct side of that line. First objective's was to fix game-break troubles as they were perceived, and secondly fix other components that seemed "out of whack" (not the perfect wording, but you know what I intend to mean). So we, like any of you, hope we have extended it properly; making the game both highly strategical, and easy enough for all to learn and play quickly. Perfect, no... but the "imperfections" vary depending on who you ask, as it should be. In a variable world we (FIDA, LH, and all involved) have tried our best to reach an acceptable middle ground, hopefully successful in this regard.

This ruleset was intended for more than just PBEM play, though that was what initiated the reason of the project, and instead took the direction of being created for use in any setting or form of gameplay (Tournament, PBEM, F-to-F, and [fingers crossed by me at least] CD-Rom should Wizards ever feel the project worthwhile). Enjoy... and game on!
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

06-02-2004, 10:52 AM #286
Yoper
WBC A&A Tournament GM


Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Saint Clair, MI
Posts: 1,411

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

4) HB- You are still working with the roll 2 take the best(higher) one, but you are now adding a +1 IPC to the best? That seems like a weird combo. A combo of what you were going with in the LHTR and the 1d6 + 1 IPC idea. By doing what your are proposing you are not choosing one or the other, instead you are choosing a combo that is more powerful than either.

I put out there the 1d6 + 1 IPC because it was in line with the rolling of one die for a unit. That is why I also put out there raising the normal combat value of the HB to a roll of 5 or less. One die so that it was the same as the rest of the units for consistency sake.


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

06-02-2004, 11:01 AM #287
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Well, I guess I need to address this latest ruleset sooner or later, so I might as well get started:

In short, I have no issues. I thought your super sub/destroyer rule was unique, and too bad you couldn't save it somehow.

I'm glad the carrier rule was resolved. Delayed tech I can live with.

HB (were) the A&A WW barbs. Glad their gone.

Squirecam

P.S. The only remaining issue in my mind is the 8 VC w/bid - 9 VC debate. After the tournament this weekend, it seems that the bid system will have alot of problems. This only affects tournaments, and not PBEM anyways.

[ June 02, 2004, 02:26 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

06-02-2004, 11:07 AM #288
smo63
Touranment GM




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 978

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

squirecam,

What tournament and in what way will it be affected? I am curious...?

GS [img]smile.gif[/img]


smo63
View Public Profile
Send a private message to smo63
Visit smo63's homepage!
Find More Posts by smo63

06-02-2004, 03:52 PM #289
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Now, forgetting balance for a while, i have another complaint to make.

Regarding heavy bombers, some thought that 2D6KB (2D6 keep best) was too complicated. Others thought that 1D6+1 was too complicated. You made it 2D6KB+1, which is definitely complicated and convoluted. Why not make it 1D6+2, which amounts to the same thing statistically, and is much simpler?

Even then, this doesn't solve the problem of HB being too weak, but that's another story...


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

06-02-2004, 04:02 PM #290
TrimChris
Hail Caesar!




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

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

Zombie

2D6KB+1 for SBRs is more like the combat roll of 2D6KB than 1D6+2 is.

Whew!

Combined bombardment rules too. You just need a longer game to maximize it.
__________________
Are you not entertained?

Wizards of the Coast, let my Avalon Hill go!
-The evil Bert & friend

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

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:11 pm

06-02-2004, 04:25 PM #291
axis_roll
Team AR Germany / *****




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:
A complete set of the rules (as re-revised) has been posted at:

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

Question:

At the end of the errata section is:
=======================================
024. Super Submarines

Location: Weapons Development Chart
Original Text: "Your submarines' attack increases to 3."
Changed Text: "Your submarines' attack increases to 3, and they cannot be hit by enemy air units without an enemy destroyer."
=======================================

I thought the final fixes listed something different for subs:


Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
The final fixes to Larry Harris’ Tournament Rules are:

1) Supersubs at 3/3. No other special abilities.

2) Ftrs can land in a seazone adjacent to an IC if a cv has been purchased and is placed there.

3) Tech take effect next turn (no changes to LHTR)

4) HB's roll 2, pick the best. For SBR's add "1" to best to determine damage done.



Isn't requiring destroyers to destroy them a special ability?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
just trying to clear things up... THANKS!


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

06-02-2004, 04:39 PM #292
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by GSmorey63:
squirecam,

What tournament and in what way will it be affected? I am curious...?

GS [img]smile.gif[/img]

There were a few things I learned playing during the Gamex tournament.

1 - There MUST be a time limit. I'm sorry, but sitting idle while people waste 20 minutes to determine purchases and moves just plain sucks.

One of the best things about the CD was the time limit option. A tournament needs this. I say 5 minutes. Maybe 10 max. But no more. Especially when games are limited to 3:45. Look at the board, make a decision, then execute it.

2 - Bids are going to be all over the board and unfair. People gave the axis 15 IPC. Thats suicide. Same for allies +15. I dont care how many VC you are playing with.

3 - 9 VC (with HI) seems balanced. If not, then at least let the 8 VC games go 3:45 before calling them. (I.E. You cant have a 1 round 8 VC, to win w/o an adjudication, you must have 8VC after 3:45. Not on one turn.)

4 - I can't be beaten by any of you. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Squirecam
Gamex 2004 A&A Revised Champion
Future Gencon Indy A&A Revised Champion

[ June 02, 2004, 06:40 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

06-02-2004, 04:54 PM #293
TrimChris
Hail Caesar!




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

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

Lol Squire.

To keep the games at a good pace, maybe try chess clocks (would need digital if timing each phase) or stopwatches? Miss the buzzer, lose 1 IPC. Every extra 30 seconds used is another IPC down the tubes.
__________________
Are you not entertained?

Wizards of the Coast, let my Avalon Hill go!


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

06-02-2004, 05:20 PM #294
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Kitchen timers are perfect for the job. They work just like a stopwatch, but the numbers are big and easy to see for both players, and they're dirt cheap.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

06-02-2004, 05:25 PM #295
smo63
Touranment GM




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 978

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

TrimChris,

Yes there are official timers at Origins and GCI. But there is only one and that is mine. I continual update everyone every hour or so...

Also, all games start at the same time as well as end. If you finish early, you have some free time until the rest finish...dealer hall time!

squirecam,

Thanks for the insights...very great info. and congrats on your win! So, you will be at GCI. I am sure there are many others gunning for the same...see you there and good luck!

GS [img]smile.gif[/img]


smo63
View Public Profile
Send a private message to smo63
Visit smo63's homepage!
Find More Posts by smo63

06-02-2004, 06:01 PM #296
DY
Senior Member


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

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

BlackWatch or Carico67:


Quote:
4. Most Powerful Battleships
The largest and most powerful battleships in history sailed under the Japanese flag. The Yamato and Musashi were never equalled by any other battleship.

Your battleships attack and defend on a 5.

Err is a shore bombardment considered an attack? Or do Japanese BB's still bombard at "4" even with this NA?


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

06-02-2004, 08:38 PM #297
playa1
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 64

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

Yo squirecam, your right on!
I suggested to GSmorey (if he got the message earlier) that everyone needs to bring a chess clock to these tournaments. That way, players will use their time wisely, otherwise they could lose on time- as in chess. What do you think Smorey? They can be found as cheap as $20 on the web. [img]smile.gif[/img]


playa1
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by playa1

06-02-2004, 09:24 PM #298
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

DY,
Waiting for confirmation from the others and LH, but I believe at a "4" still for Bombards. I should have confirmed intention from Larry ASAP... Excellent question and catch....
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

06-02-2004, 11:56 PM #299
sumthinelse
Member




Join Date: May 2004
Location: Austin,TX
Posts: 61

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

Not everyone agrees that the Yamato was the best BB in WW2. According to the "Who's the Baddest of Them All" webpage, the Iowa beats the Yamato, because of such factors as Fire Control (Iowa 10, Yamato 5). See

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

However, in Larry's defense, Yamato was commissioned in 1941, so at the start of the war Japan had a major advantage in battleships. Also, Japan's BBs were clearly superior to powers other than the US.

[ June 03, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: sumthinelse ]
__________________
Doctor: Madam, your son has an Oedipus Complex. Boy's mother: Oedipus, schmedipus! What do I care as long as he loves his mother!


sumthinelse
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sumthinelse

06-03-2004, 01:13 AM #300
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
With this NA the Japanese BBs attack and defend with 5. This number also includes shore bombardment.

This should be spelled out in the errata page or simply include all the revisions in the original document posted.
-The evil Bert & friend

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

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

06-03-2004, 05:06 AM #301
smo63
Touranment GM




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 978

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

DY,

It has been updated in the rules in our HTML format.

http://www.geocities.com/headlesshor...ifications.htm

Questioneer,

As far as the timers goes. Yes, it would be nice to have every game have a chess timer but that is not realistic. I don't believe requiring everyone to go out and bring their own timer is justifiable in this situation. I surely am not going to provide one for each table. At GCI, that could be up to 32 timers!

Yes, these are tournaments, yes some players play slower than others, and yes, at times, opponents do get frustrated, but in my ten years of running the tournaments, only once did I come close to disqualifing a team due to slow play. Make that twice. The second time, last year, they still got in, I believe 7 rounds due to the persistance of the other team.

In short, I believe it would be more of a distration than a helpful tool. Many, including myself would not be accostum to using one and would merely be a distraction to me. And I do play fast...

I have the official time with me and I constantly make sure everyone knows the time. If there is a problem, I ask that players notify me of the problem and I monitor the game from that point on...

That is my stance on it.

Thanks for the input though...
GS [img]smile.gif[/img]


smo63
View Public Profile
Send a private message to smo63
Visit smo63's homepage!
Find More Posts by smo63

06-03-2004, 07:34 AM #302
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

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

The offshore bombardment has also been added to the rules at:

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

And the "Errata" notes for supersubs were also corrected to show supersubs at 3/3.

Thanks!
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

06-03-2004, 07:54 AM #303
DY
Senior Member


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

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

GSM I like the finished product lot. Will there ever be a word document or something like that to download?

PS that FAQ at the end looks a little familiar! You might want to remove the parts of the FAQ referring to NAs and other rules altered in the LHTR (eg Lightning Assault NA was scrapped for the Yamato NA)


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

06-03-2004, 09:25 AM #304
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

Good Spots DY, thanks. Anyone else who see's something like that please speak up. We've tried to be as exact on edits as we could, but I've yet to ever seea perfect doctrine, though we're trying!
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

06-03-2004, 09:41 AM #305
axis_roll
Team AR Germany / *****




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by axis_roll:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by BlackWatch222:
A complete set of the rules (as re-revised) has been posted at:

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

Question:

At the end of the errata section is:
=======================================
024. Super Submarines

Location: Weapons Development Chart
Original Text: "Your submarines' attack increases to 3."
Changed Text: "Your submarines' attack increases to 3, and they cannot be hit by enemy air units without an enemy destroyer."
=======================================

I thought the final fixes listed something different for subs:


Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
The final fixes to Larry Harris’ Tournament Rules are:

1) Supersubs at 3/3. No other special abilities.

2) Ftrs can land in a seazone adjacent to an IC if a cv has been purchased and is placed there.

3) Tech take effect next turn (no changes to LHTR)

4) HB's roll 2, pick the best. For SBR's add "1" to best to determine damage done.



Isn't requiring destroyers to sink a super sub eith air power a "special ability"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
just trying to clear things up... THANKS!</font>[/quote]to the top... never got an answer


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

06-03-2004, 10:02 AM #306
axis_roll
Team AR Germany / *****




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
The final fixes to Larry Harris’ Tournament Rules are:
.
.
.
2) Ftrs can land in a seazone adjacent to an IC if a cv has been purchased and is placed there.
.
.
.
Items 1, 3 and 4 are self evident corrections that need no explanation.

Item 2. Allowing fighters to end their move in a seazone adjacent to an IC when you will place a newly purchased carrier there is the best solution to the concerns raised about reinforcing new carriers for the following reason.

If you attack with a carrier, but only plan to move its fighters in non-combat, you are permitted to have fighters "hanging" over an open sea zone for two phases (combat move phase and conduct combat phase).

So, since fighters are permitted to "hang in space" for an entire combat sequence, then it also made sense to allow them to hang in space long enough after the noncombat move phase to place a carrier under them. This way, they do NOT get any additional movement points, which I opposed.

(comments by BlackWatch)

PLEASE don't change the rule because of what I posted below, I think the ability to place existing fighters on new carriers is a huge new key component of A&A revised.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you think about it, requiring a ftr to hover over a sea zone actually MIGHT add a movement point to a ftrs range. Example: A Japanese fighter is located in Australia. On non-combat, he moves to sea zone 60 to land on a new carrier being built this turn. It takes him 4 moves to get to sea zone 60, and then in essence gets him to Japan when he normally would not have that range...is my thinking convoluted?

Comments?


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

06-03-2004, 10:03 AM #307
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

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

Axis Roll - please check the post about 5 or 6 above this. You concern (edit - about the errata page and subs) has been taken care of a couple of hours ago...

Thanks,

[ June 03, 2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: BlackWatch222 ]
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

06-03-2004, 10:20 AM #308
axis_roll
Team AR Germany / *****




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:
Axis Roll - please check the post about 5 or 6 above this. You concern (edit - about the errata page and subs) has been taken care of a couple of hours ago...

Thanks,

I'm sorry I missed that.

My sincerest apologies.


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

06-03-2004, 10:36 AM #309
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

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

Axis Roll<

No problem - there's a LOT to wade through in this discussion! [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

06-03-2004, 10:37 AM #310
Larry Harris



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

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

With this NA the Japanese BBs attack and defend with 5. This number also includes shore bombardment.
-The evil Bert & friend

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

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:13 pm

06-03-2004, 08:10 PM #311
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

Just a heads up. In the next 48 hours we wil be posting about, and accepting, sign-ups for the LHTR FIDA Kick-Off Tournament (may be renamed... I know, that's lame...), a single-elimination event open to all played via RichyJ's diceroller utility (players choose Mapview or Atti's BattleMap as far as mapping goes). RichyJ is the current Director General at Days-Of-Infamy for those not familiar with him, and has been ever keeping pace with changes as they've developed.

I personally want to thank Rich for volunteering to assist me and the FIDA crew in running this event, it's likely to be a time-consuming task.

In regards to turn proceedure policy and such, info will come with the post I mentioned... hold tight, but keep an eye open. Prizes will be signed and shipped by LH himself

If interest goes through the roof we might have to set a limit. I would guess capacity for the event is 64 reasonably, and need to discuss timeframe and such with other PBEM heads to finalize that particular detail. Be ready to bring your A-Game, there is a ton of talent frequently on these boards!

[ June 03, 2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Carico67 ]
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

06-04-2004, 04:49 AM #312
Drax Kramer
Senior Member


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

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

A brief look onto the update National Advantages leaves me with the same opinion as I had the first moment I skimmed over them.

Useless.

Some of them look like real advantages, something unique to an individual power, but majority of them look like Pokemon special powers, invented to look "cool" and give each individual pok... uups unit something "special" to brag about.

Japanese "superbattleships"? Yes, there were two of them (less than each battleship unit stands for), they never sunk anything with their huge guns and spent most of the war as floating hotels for current C-in-C Imperial Japanese Navy.

With "Lightning Assault" we had something that Japanese actually did (although before the game starts).

Radar is still exclusively British feature, even if the AA gun is Belgian Congo with its huge air defense network, American carriers are somehow faster than others despite the KNOWN and available fact that they weren't and so on and so on.

Guys, I just got the game as my birthday present from my wife and am very happy.

I am certainly going to play this game with my friends with rules as written, no matter what I think of some of them. But why should I pick the set of anyone's house rules over the ones I could come up with? Why should anyone?

It's been only three months since the game was published following the closed design process. I believe that manual reflects Mike's views just as I suspect this new set of rules reflects Larry's take on some of the issues.

And this new set got itself changed within a week or so.

There are games on the market whose design process was more or less open (Totaler Krieg, World at War, Europe Engulfed) and whose designers maintain the so called "live rules" that are available on the Internet and that are constantly updated with errata and occassionally with the rules change.

But this "live rules" are OFFICIALLY endorsed and players can print them and use them in games as official rules.

With chief designer out of the company I don't know whose responsibility the maintainance of the rules will be, but in the absence of AH stamp, we essentially talk about house rules, big house, but still a house.

Drax


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

06-04-2004, 10:02 AM #313
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Drazen Kramaric:
It's been only three months since the game was published following the closed design process. I believe that manual reflects Mike's views just as I suspect this new set of rules reflects Larry's take on some of the issues.

And this new set got itself changed within a week or so.



I don't think its fair to bash those guys for listening. I'd be more apt to take issue with them if they changed nothing and said "play with our rules or dont".

And this new set did not "get itself changed". Every rule which was modified again was for a good reason.

Subs - so that super subs could still take air hits

carriers - self evident why change made

HB - a bit more damage

This ruleset will never be perfect. No ruleset will be. What I want is a "fair" and "balanced" ruleset for tournament play, so I dont have to see double digit bids. The worst thing in the world is bidding 23 IPC to make a game balanced.

For the most part, this set accomplished that goal.

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

06-04-2004, 10:05 AM #314
sumthinelse
Member




Join Date: May 2004
Location: Austin,TX
Posts: 61

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Drazen Kramaric:

Japanese "superbattleships"? Yes, there were two of them (less than each battleship unit stands for), they never sunk anything with their huge guns and spent most of the war as floating hotels for current C-in-C Imperial Japanese Navy.


And they used up a huge amount of fuel, which became more precious to Japan as the war went on. I suppose the BBs could become Kamikaze ships, as the Yamato tried unsuccessfully at Okinawa.

But I don't think the old NAs were better, and I would never imagine that historical accuracy was the #1 priority.

Overall, I think the changes are good and want to thank Larry and everyone who collaborated.
__________________
Doctor: Madam, your son has an Oedipus Complex. Boy's mother: Oedipus, schmedipus! What do I care as long as he loves his mother!


sumthinelse
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sumthinelse

06-08-2004, 03:18 AM #315
pagan
MOONINITE




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


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

deleted by ME

[ June 08, 2004, 05:22 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

06-09-2004, 01:23 AM #316
pagan
MOONINITE




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


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

Heavy Bombers: <CURRENT>
a) Roll 2 dice and Keep the Best one / SBR:1d6+1
b) damage limit per TERRITORY

IF you wanted to lower the HBs power, then you only had to do ONE of those things above.

By doing them both, you should have come to the conclusion of a THIRD/FOURTH OPTION: remove/replace the tech.

ROCKETS should not be combined with the SBRs. They should be separate, or you devalue the Rockets tech.

[ June 09, 2004, 03:30 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

06-09-2004, 04:56 AM #317
smo63
Touranment GM




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 978

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

squirecam,


Quote:
I don't think its fair to bash those guys for listening. I'd be more apt to take issue with them if they changed nothing and said "play with our rules or dont".

And this new set did not "get itself changed". Every rule which was modified again was for a good reason.

Thanks for the support...I am sure the rest of the team feel the same.

Also, I replied to your question on bidding at Origins. I hope this helps.

GS

[ June 09, 2004, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: GSmorey63 ]


smo63
View Public Profile
Send a private message to smo63
Visit smo63's homepage!
Find More Posts by smo63

06-11-2004, 11:56 AM #318
Carico67
Senior Member




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

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

Bump.... for those who have been away....
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

06-12-2004, 11:06 PM #319
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Those Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers seem incredibly tasty. I've never played with NAs, but it seems every side has at least two good NAs and several mediocre/bad ones. I don't think I'd like to "roll" for NAs, even with the LHTR, but you guys definitely improved them compared with the originial ruleset.


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

06-12-2004, 11:55 PM #320
Carico67
Senior Member




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

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

We tried to give everyone some decent ones for possible use, without making them all level. There was some concern that the allies were favored far more greatly from the out of the box NA's options than the axis were....

I think in time (and even up to this point in the games history already) many interesting and fun 'house-rules' NA's will be posted on these boards, which is great (I've seen sa bunch of neat ideas here in the past few months....). In time, maybe the club officials could reconvene and, with help from the posters on the MB's, work on an expanded list or something for more optional playout scenario's or special tourneys and such... but we still need to give the base game more time to run through growing pains first.

Again thanks for response. As you try some of the other NA's please update us what you think of them, and what interesting ways you find to use them strategically. This goes to all posters on the MB's... Larry, as you all know, is reading these threads regularly, and loves to have feebback to work from!
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com
-The evil Bert & friend

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest