'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: 1313
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:40 am

05-23-2004, 12:06 AM #81
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

AR,

If there's a strategy problem allowance here, point it out and explain it, but don't join the others saying "this is wrong" or such... AR, you're too experienced to lay out something that shallow on me... We're not inflexible, and we ARE listening, but shallow statements without follow through on perspective doesn't account for much guys.... tell us what major things change with an AC build on G1 if you were playing with this ruleset (and keep in mind the axis, though most of you feel them shunned by this rule some, are protected by many others, most notably SBR damage capability).
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-23-2004, 12:23 AM #82
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

In reference to Cousin Joe's list:

I did read it AR, and commend him on a structural post, and those types of posts are what we need from people rather than the boo-hoo's, hisses. I could say "not 1 of you has tried the new ruleset yet" and such, but that would be as shallow as some of the types of responses I'd be intending to reply to...

For an FYI, the group is still VERY active addressing things as reactions and feedback comes out. I'm not about to let anything negative happen to this game if I can help in any way... post ideas, constructively, with solutions as you see them best. Explain WHY a problem is a problem in your eyes. Somewhere in between there I advise you give the ruleset a try and you may be surprised by what's not so apparent...

I'm no different than most of you guys: The first thing I did as Mike brought out his articles was to try to see "what was screweed up" and then, maybe, consider what might have ben upgraded. Thoise that have played this game from its release have likely undergone a transformation of "worry or doubt" to enjoyment, or I should guess you would not be actively hitting this board area as much as some of you do. I expected a lot of dings and gripes, but expect Larry's rules will undergo the same transformation of opinion process as the current box ones did. We ARE adaptive and likely willing to change if necessary, and we have created the clearest ruleset in A&A to date IMO. Gameplay finalizations and bidding and such... let's here it.... keep pounding us with great ideas and perspective! Not one of us that were involved would say "everything is perfect as is"...
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-23-2004, 12:24 AM #83
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Carico67:
Historical Message:

DY, don't go too fast past the words in my post, let me repeat them: I am not saying whether I sided with you or not on the issue as you want it...

It's not just "as I want it" it's as 100% of forum members (other than the writers of these rules) want it. I will never build a CV on G1 since I believe it is clearly worse than building 13 inf. However, I think it removes a valid strategy from the game and makes the game less varied and hence more boring.


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

05-23-2004, 04:05 AM #84
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Carico67:
If a German player felt it vital to use an Atlantic threat then an AC/Tran build G1 eliminates any UK counter by a player of any skill level (a very dumb attack for the UK, beyond a doubt at that point), and the game as it is presented plays out fine in this regard. For 16 IPC's should Germany become the monster of the Atlantic in A&A, or should it be more of an investment to do so, or to do so at risk for 16....? Please think it through before responding to that...

Well, I rethought it and came to the conclusion that you`re (partially) right on b) and the new rule is better for competitive play under the conditon that an ac (and trn) is not allowed to load allied units. With loading allied fgt, the UK can "pump up" its defensive value by 11 in one turn with only 16 IPC, but Germany (practically) can`t. That`s too much of an allies advantage!

But you´re not right that nobody would attack ac, des, 2 trn, 2 sub with 2 fgt, bmb. In case you could not use these units for anything else (than sbr GER) you can change units in a 1-1 ration with Germany in LL-play (both loose 13 1/3 IPC in the first round of combat) and in ADS this attack is only marginally negative. Weakening Germany by a 1-1 ratio is often a very good strategy for the western allies! So retrating after one round of combat is a reasonnable option, especially if you want to land in NOR and destroy the german offensive power (2 subs) for a possible counter-attack. For the defence of your just bought ac you can land one US and/or the sowjet fgt on it! So you have a british fleet with bb, 2 trn, ac and 2 guest-fgt supported by the russian sub. You don`t have to "sacrifice" the russian sub to block sz6 as there is no chance of a german attack! The next turn you may even think of strafing the german navy (using your "free bb-hit")! Anyway, there is a high risk, that the Baltic fleet is out by UK3 if it is not reinforced in Ger2 with at least a second ac to put fgt on it in Ger3!

[ May 23, 2004, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


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

05-23-2004, 09:12 AM #85
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Strategic Assessment of the G1 AC build

First off, an AC + TRN is out of the question for Germany. That's 3 less INF vs. Russia which gets very dangerous.

Second, under the current AH rules, you have 2FTR,1BMR vs. 2SS,1TRN,1DD,+/-1AC. Without the AC that's 10 vs 4, and a lot of players would take that expecting to kill 2SS (or possibly DD+TRN) for 1FTR. Now, with the AC, that's 10 vs 7, so still, a bit riskier, but on average, you still lose 1 FTR. On the same turn, you can take Norway and build a fleet of 1BB,3TRN,1AC,+US FTR,+/-Rus FTR and block SZ 6 with the Rus SUB. This fleet holds vs. 5FTR,1BMBR. Having an AC with FTRs means no attack on the Baltic, meaning you keep your SUBs, meaning you still threaten SZ 3, meaning no UK in Norway.

The reason above (1.), making SZ 3 a dead zone by keeping my subs, and therefore delaying a UK foothold in Norway is the primary reason I like the G1 AC build. It's a defensive build, not an offensive build. Here are a few other reasons why I like the G1 AC build.

2. Without being able to get ground troops into Norway, it really forces the UK to think about an IC in India. This means less pressure on Germany from the UK. It also might mean a German Africa.

3. A CV threatens a G2 Sealion more (all your FTRs can more easily access Germany no matter where they are). UK must spend a few IPC on home defense instead of a TRN. Alternately, US might think about reinforcing UK instead of Africa, meaning an easier time for Germany in Africa.

4. A Baltic fleet prevents access to Germany, meaning one less coastline the Germans have to defend. If the Allies are looking to reinforce Karelia, they must do so through SZ 4. An Allied fleet in SZ 4 cannot get to the Baltic in one turn, which again means you can leave Germany lightly defended.

5. The US response is to build a Navy to overcome Germany's should they ever venture out of the Baltic. For me, the Baltic Navy is much better used defensively (as described above). I wouldn't consider it a monster in the Atlantic as a smart US player will position their Navy to vaporize the Germans the second they leave the Baltic. What you're doing though, is forcing US to spend IPC's on Naval and thus less resources for Africa and Europe and delaying shuck-shuck (or shuck-shuck shuck-shuck if going through Norway [img]smile.gif[/img] )

6. Under ideal conditions, with less than competent players, it might be possible to link up your Baltic and Med fleets in SZ 12 to protect Africa. Not very likely though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

In summary, the purpose of the G1 AC build is to get Allied pressure off of Germany by multiple means (Preventing ground troop reinforcement via Norway, UK India Factory, distracting them from Africa early, having to protect less coastlines, forcing them to spend on Navy). Essentially, you buy Germany time and territory so that they can execute an attack on Russia. Having an AC without FTRs means you open up yourself to a UK Baltic attack on UK1 with a possible Allied fleet in SZ3 getting a foothold in Norway early, with ground troops to help Russia. This was your primary reason for getting the AC in the first place and so now you've wasted 16IPC. Bottom line: The AC must be able to have FTRs on it for a G1 AC build to work .

[ May 23, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: cousin_joe ]
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?


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

05-23-2004, 10:26 AM #86
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by cousin_joe:
Strategic Assessment of the G1 AC build

First off, an AC + TRN is out of the question for Germany. That's 3 less INF vs. Russia which gets very dangerous.

Nothing is out of question. This rule (heavyly) favours the axis, I agree. But online games are always balanced as you create the balance through the bid. So axis bids just will go up and with the more money you get, the more units you can buy. It`s that simple and therefore you are not "under threat". If buying an ac, trn is a good strategy, that´s another point!


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

05-23-2004, 10:33 AM #87
DY
Senior Member


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

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

The rule only heavily favours the Axis if it turns out that a G1 CV is an optimal purchase and 40 IPCs on ground forces is sub-optimal.


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

05-23-2004, 10:47 AM #88
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
The rule only heavily favours the Axis if it turns out that a G1 CV is an optimal purchase and 40 IPCs on ground forces is sub-optimal.

Well, what is "optimal"? Some like to buy may be 13 inf and save 1, others buy 12 inf, rtl for it and others 10 inf, 2 arm and lots of people prefer 8 inf, ac. So just reducing the "strength" of the ac buy (or making an additional trn necessary) lowers the "choice" between "serious alternatives". There are no "optimal" stategies anymore and after two full rounds and may be some (un)lucky dice rolls all games will look a little different!

[ May 23, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


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

05-23-2004, 10:50 AM #89
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Carico67:
In reference to Cousin Joe's list:

I did read it AR, and commend him on a structural post, and those types of posts are what we need from people rather than the boo-hoo's, hisses. I could say "not 1 of you has tried the new ruleset yet" and such, but that would be as shallow as some of the types of responses I'd be intending to reply to...

For an FYI, the group is still VERY active addressing things as reactions and feedback comes out. I'm not about to let anything negative happen to this game if I can help in any way... post ideas, constructively, with solutions as you see them best. Explain WHY a problem is a problem in your eyes. Somewhere in between there I advise you give the ruleset a try and you may be surprised by what's not so apparent...


Let me refer first to Joe's post (and my others) above.

Second, I HAVE tried this approach, as it was the situation facing me G1 in 2nd ed. UK1 they built a carrier. US 1 they flew planes onto it. A germant fleet strategy was SOL.

Here are some things I think is important in tournament (or any really) gaming:

1) Overall balance - is the rule/unit disproportionatly powerful or disproportionatly weak overall? (Note, this is probably where many would say HB was)

2) Specific balance - Is the unit/rule too powerful in the hands of one country or affects negatively only against one country. (Note, I would add that HB was here, as it was the uSA which could only take full advantage of HB, use it as a strategy, and win)

3) Choice - does the unit/rule add player choices to gameplay.

4) Common sense - Does the unit/rule pass the duh test

5) Historical accuracy

6) Simplicity

First, An AC (with fighters) build passes this test.

1 - This rule is NOT overpowering. It provides immediate defensive power, but is not akin to a "HB" rule. It does NOT help germany offensively (or no more than a UK/USA/JAPAN carrier would).

2 - It negatively affects ONE country. Germany. USSR will never build one. USA cannot be touched before it builds one. Japan neither.

The UK can have allied fighters. So it can build one and still be safe.

But Germany, no IT suffers under the rule. A rule specifically hurting one country is bad and should be well thought out before execution.

3- - Choice. Is there really an argument here? Of course it adds choice.

4 - Common sense. Please tell me ONE world leader which would allow a carrier put to sea, in range of enemy fighters, without fighters aboard:

________________________________________________
German admiral: Hitler, our new carrier is ready.

Hitler: Fantastic, I amaze myself with my own brilliance for building one. Now put it to sea, and send out to Russia the 8 new troops we equipped.

Admiral: But Hitler, first we must place fighters onto our new carrier. There is a base a few miles down the road, right next to our industrial complex.

Hitler: I told you. Instead of manufacturing new planes I had to equip 8 new units for the russian front. There are no planes available to roll to the carrier from our IC.

Admiral: Nonsense. The planes flew in last night. In fact, there is an airstrip right by our IC. We initially built it so that our planes could take off and defend against these bombing raids, but of course that has not happened. We still dont know why.

Hitler: Dont question my methods.

Admiral: But the existing planes can easily be transferred to the carrier with no greater logistics problems than building new planes. And we already have 6 squads, and why should we..

Hitler: Enough. You are relieved. Guards, escort this man out of my sight....
__________________________________________________

Common sense supports having planes placed aboard carriers.

5 - Historical accuracy - Again, I suggest that placing existing planes onto a new carrier IS historically accurate. You cannot honestly tell me that every time a carrier was built, that carrier either went to sea with only new planes, or none at all. Thats just stupid.

Also, as to the "game" being historically accurate, of course its not. The least of all the USSR/allies interaction and Japan-Russia.

What matters most is a game play decision, not some adherence to a rule which adds no accuracy in the first place.

6 - Simplicity. I have heard of no confusion in allowing fighters to mobilize. And people love it.

One other thing Joe didnt mention explictly.

Germany starts with 40 IPC. Russia 24.

Germany can place one carrier and still equal the output of troops on the Russian front (24). Any less than that allows Russia to have a stronger build advantage. Some dont like this. While I might disagree, its about choices here.

Also, you say that attacking a carrier is a bad play. I KNOW that attacking a carrier plus fighters is suicide. I am a defensive player. I like the fact that an AC+fighters will not be attacked.

And what happens if my AC + DD + tran + subs (attack value 7 but hit value 11) is attacked by the UK planes (attack value 10).

Lets say 2 subs are lost round 1. one plane. Round 2, the transport and another plane. Final round the DD and the bomber.

Now Germany is left with a lone carrier. Dont you think the smart allied move is for USSR to sacrifice one plane to kill the lone AC? Killing it ends any Atlantic threat. Forever.

Now Germany has lost its whole fleet. And this is with reasonable expected losses.

Adding 1 transport (which attacks on a 1) is not the end-all safety net. Sure you have the advantage, but luck goes against you all the time. Now lets say that the DD and carrier live.

The USSR still could attack the DD and carrier with 2 planes, and even if lost by the USSR, cause alot more damage by sinking the carrier and DD on an even basis.

Squirecam

[ May 23, 2004, 12:55 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

05-23-2004, 11:21 AM #90
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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



Much better quality of posts guys. Now there is something concrete I can use to point out "what the perceived problem is", "why", and "solutions might be" to the group and whether they agree or disagree I can't tell you.

Do I agree with you or the stance I took to ignite these posts? Lets just say I'm the type of player who happily picks up a ruleset like World at War and says "let's rock!". Complex ussually equates to options, and perhaps too many steps were taken to make all simple and clear (then again, maybe not! ). I gave you perspective defense from a group you'll likely not see post on these boards, and to some degree you've seen their validity, and then intelligently explained why it's still not best. Understand, I have to be neutral on things, but I will try to find ways to prod the best posts out of you guys on this that I can, because our games future rides on these matters. I take the games future quite seriously, as do you who have posted here the past few threads...

C2
__________________
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

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:41 am

05-23-2004, 12:16 PM #91
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Carico67:
I will try to find ways to prod the best posts out of you guys on this that I can, because our games future rides on these matters. I take the games future quite seriously, as do you who have posted here the past few threads...

C2

I think we all have such passion because we love this game and want it to be the best it can be. We can always agree on that.
__________________
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

05-23-2004, 01:22 PM #92
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Atlantikwall:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DY:
The rule only heavily favours the Axis if it turns out that a G1 CV is an optimal purchase and 40 IPCs on ground forces is sub-optimal.

Well, what is "optimal"? Some like to buy may be 13 inf and save 1, others buy 12 inf, rtl for it and others 10 inf, 2 arm and lots of people prefer 8 inf, ac. So just reducing the "strength" of the ac buy (or making an additional trn necessary) lowers the "choice" between "serious alternatives". There are no "optimal" stategies anymore and after two full rounds and may be some (un)lucky dice rolls all games will look a little different!</font>[/quote]What a ridiculous statement. Ofcourse there are optimal strategies! Just because they haven't yet been discovered, doesn't mean that they don't exist.


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

05-23-2004, 01:42 PM #93
Airship_Armada
Junior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 12

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

HB are worthless in this rule set.

HB have been toned down by three rule changes:
1. Limit to economic damage (good rule)
2. New tech takes effect at the end of the turn (probably a good rule)
3. HB roll 2 dice and take the best one (bad rule).

I, for one, am not going to buy any of these HBs.

It takes an average of $30 to get a tech. So for $60 you can get 2 HB (30
for the tech, 30 for the hardware), or you can get 4 regular bombers. 4
regular bombers are better than 2 HB - They both get 4 dice but 4 regulars
can get 4 hits.

The numbers work out like this :
2 HB average 1.8 hits per run (or about $9 per economic attack).
4 bmb average 2.7 hits per run (or $14 per economic attack).

Regular bombers maintain their advantage up to the point where a fictional
player spends $120.
$120 = 6 HBs >>> 5.34 hits
$120 = 8 bmb >>> 5.34 hits
but even here regular bmb have slight advantages of numbers vs. AA, greater potential economic punch, and more flexibility.

Unless you are going to buy seven or more HB you are better off sticking with regular bombers.

Keep rule change 1 and 2 above. Drop number 3.


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

05-23-2004, 02:08 PM #94
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
What a ridiculous statement. Of course there are optimal strategies! Just because they haven't yet been discovered, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

First: I wouldn`t be that offensive!

Second: There is not ONE "optimal" stategy. If this would be true, AA would be a very boring game!

Third: "Optimal" depends on the circumsentences and still then is not an "objective" decission. All decissions have to be adjusted to the events that happend before and are still subject to "personal preferences". So, first its the bid. Then its the placment of the bid. Btw: What would you consider to be the "optimal" bid in the old game? And for for what IPC-value? It`s even possible after over 20 years of playing the old AA, that a no.1 of a ranking-list places his bid to to a different place than no.2 and no.3. So do the other players have a "supotimal" startegy? And then its the russian buy, the russian attacks, the luck with the dice, the ncm and you want to tell me there is just one "optimal" german stategy? The later in the game you start (USA), your strategy even becomes more influenced by the past results (how lucky was EPO?)!

Obviously there a some good "concepts" in AA, e.g. that buying lots of infs generally is a good decision. But at some point, it may be not!


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

05-23-2004, 02:09 PM #95
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Excellent post Airship,

I couldn't agree more. The roll 2 dice and pick 1 is going overboard. Capping Damage/Territory/Turn is sufficient. Combat damage is fine as players spend $30 up front to get the HB Tech (2BMBRS) and still need fodder to make them of any use and so their numbers are limited (unlike in the SBR strategy)

[ May 23, 2004, 04:11 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

05-23-2004, 02:14 PM #96
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Airship_Armada:
It takes an average of $30 to get a tech.

Well, not quite true. In average techs cost at least 30 IPC. They cost 30 IPC in average, if you just roll one dice per turn. The more dices you roll per turn, the more expensive techs are in average. And that`s good, because you have to pay more, if you quickly want to get it!


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

05-23-2004, 02:27 PM #97
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

... and the calculation forgets that the more bmb you have, the more can be hit by a aa-gun. So at a sbr you also have to calculate the more losses with the more bmb! The "net profit" of a sbr is only 1/3 IPC with normal bmb. With the LH-HB it goes up to 1,2 IPC and with AvH-HB it`s an incredible 3,66 (on Germany) per H-bmb!


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

05-23-2004, 02:41 PM #98
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Airship_Armada:
Keep rule change 1 and 2 above. Drop number 3.

... but the conclusion is (kind of) "right"! Sbr-attack value should have been lowered to dice plus 2 and not best dice which is pretty much the same as dice plus 1!


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

05-23-2004, 02:45 PM #99
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Atlantikwall:
... and the calculation forgets that the more bmb you have, the more can be hit by a aa-gun. So at a sbr you also have to calculate the more losses with the more bmb! The "net profit" of a sbr is only 1/3 IPC with normal bmb. With the LH-HB it goes up to 1,2 IPC and with AvH-HB it`s an incredible 3,66 (on Germany) per H-bmb!

No, this has no net effect at all. Normal bombers are more likely to get hit since you have more of them, but losing a single one is less crippling. The two effects cancel each other out perfectly so the net effect is zero.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-23-2004, 02:58 PM #100
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Zombie:
Normal bombers are more likely to get hit since you have more of them

That`s what I´m talking about! Double number of bmb means double losses of bmb at sbr!


Quote:
losing a single one is less crippling

Every bmb, even a H-bmb costs 15 IPC! The more bmb you loose the more you have to "rebuy"!


Quote:
The two effects cancel each other out perfectly so the net effect is zero.

No, see above!

Nevertheless, bombing down Germany is always good. But the calculation just is a little bit more complex than the one above!

[ May 23, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:44 am

05-23-2004, 03:32 PM #101
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Normal bombers and heavy bombers don't cost the same. You need to factor the cost of tech into the cost of your heavy bombers, spread out over however many heavy bombers you bought.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-23-2004, 05:56 PM #102
playa1
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 64

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

I have finally read, all the documents concerning the new rule set. I personally think that they are quite impressive and relieve many of my questions and complaints. I did believe that HBombers reduction was a little harsh, AT FIRST, but I remembered that only the Allies in most games would be able buy and make good use of this tech. The Axis are fortunate to even buy tech if they have the money for it- its risky. That's why I liked the increase in Super Subs which can benefit Axis AND Allies. The Axis can economically make more use out of Super subs than Heavy Bombers. Same with the improved Jet Fighters. Only the Allies benefit from HBombers more. Why? because the Axis, who always have to be shrewed with money can invest easier with 8 IPC subs and 10 IPC fighters than 15 IPC bombers. With this thinking, I enjoy the new HBombers- IT MAKES SENSE. I believe the game is much more balanced and competitive to play. I FULLY support the new rules!!!
BlackWatch and Carico- Great Job!! And thank you Larry Harris for endorsing these rules- I hope they become official by AH.
You guys really cleared up the wording on the rules. I love the new techs (even HBombers)- I know some whiners will always complain.
Game balance is much more even and the National Advantages are much more balanced also. Thanks, you guys did an incredible job!!!
Yo GSMOREY,
With these new tournament rules, have you considered:

1. players/teams bidding with money and/or National Advantages.

2. players/teams using a chess clock so that teams wouldn't take all day. Chess clocks can be found as low as $20 on the web. Every team could bring one. That might help judge games (although position also matters).

Thanks
P.S. It will be interesting to hear how the new rules shake down the tourney (GenCon and Origins)


playa1
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by playa1

05-23-2004, 07:07 PM #103
Larry Harris



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

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

Well thank you questioneer… That certainly was an interesting prospective.

I’m delighted with you response to this additional set of rules. First of all you recognized the big picture and the importance of the entire undertaking and did not get caught up in easily corrected details. This is truly a fine piece of work and needs the support of players like you. I wish more people would express their appreciation for this new document and how it cleared up so many questions and concerns.

I am admittedly giving more thought to the who’s and when’s of loading fighters onto newly constructed CV’s. I think this issue is more subjective than right or wrong. The best argument I have heard for keeping it the way it was, is that it gave the German player more choices. (I like giving players more choices – even if it’s a wrong choice). What I don’t like is doing the right things in the wrong phases.

As for the HB’s… You are exactly right, this is an Allies issue.

With the many changes and “clear-ups” we did, there are very few negative comments and the ones that are expressed are easily corrected if deemed necessary.

[ May 23, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Larry Harris ]


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-23-2004, 08:35 PM #104
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

Agreed Larry, thanks Questioneer!

There were a lot of us who have done little for the past 2 months other than break down the rules line by line.... much less topic by topic. Larry is right on when he says he's receptive to change and opinion. A good deal of what we have in the rules are his original intentions and beliefs in how things should be, yet a great deal of what is presented is not. He simply asks for explanations and not 'vagueness' if you are offering him what you perceive as a bettter idea. Receptive, adaptive, and a pleasure to work with. Those unlike Questioneer who have concerns, do not. Larry will get his, and our, game to acceptable near-perfection on this, just keep bringing detailed accounts of possible problems, and no vague statements (we just spent 2 months trying to remove 'vague' from A&A).

[ May 23, 2004, 10:36 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

05-24-2004, 12:07 AM #105
Larry Harris



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

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

Bonjour Zombie
Thanks for once again repeating what you have already said several times.
If you have something new to contribute we'd like to hear from you.

Je dois vous dire que je vraiment n'aime pas votre drapeau noir.


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-24-2004, 12:15 AM #106
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Mr. Harris, Carico67, et al.

Agreed, the new rules have cleared a lot of things up and I think that it's a very good ruleset from that perspective. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Something I was really hoping the new ruleset would address though, was the incorporation of National Advantages into the base game, to improve things on a Historical Accuracy Perspective, and a Strategic Variability Perspective.

First off, these are the Historical Inaccuracies that have always bugged me a bit about A&A [img]smile.gif[/img] :

1. General lack of a Pacific Theater
2. No D-Day, one of the most important battles of WW2. Instead the Western Allies come in through Karelia (very unlikely historically)
3. Total Japanese domination of Russia, China, India, Australia, and sometimes Africa. A logistic impossibility.

There was an attempt to correct these with less value for Russian territories, an AAGun in India, and more value for some Pacific Islands. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough, as the optimal strategy still remains for the Allies to triple team Germany, while Japan tries to get to Moscow. In other words, Strategic Options are limited and games essentially come down to dice. There are few strategic choices the player really has to make. To really increase Strategic Variability, this is what is needed:

1. Japan and US Pacific campaigns must be more viable
2. UK must remain a global power (other than just at game start)
3. Axis should be able to equalize IPC through economic damage rather than just taking territory.

These can be accomplished by NAs, but the NAs must meet certain criteria:

1. Each NA should enhance strategic options, particularly ones not commonly used
2. Each NA should try to encourage a more historically accurate game
3. Each NA should be reasonably balanced, both between nations and within nations, such that they have an equal chance of being picked
4. No game-breaking NAs!
5. During Gameplay, each nation selects one NA on their first turn, the Axis also selects a 2nd NA for either Ger/*** on Turn 2.

So with that, here are the NAs I'd like to see in the game for Competitive Play (note: all do a great job in making for a more historically accurate game so I will elaborate on strategy only)

RUSSIA
Lend-Lease - as in LHTR. Useful for creating a stronger Russia to pressure Germany from the East (good with Joint Strike)
Nonagression Treaty - as in LHTR. Allows for an agressive Russia early on
Russian Winter - as in LHTR. Russia can manage a bit longer without any Allied support

GERMANY
U-Boat Interdiction - modified. For each Ger Sub within 1SZ (ie. directly adjacent) of an IC (UK,WUS,Cau) during it's owner's Collect Income Phase, the owner loses 2IPC. If within 2SZ, the owner loses 1IPC. Damage is capped at territory values. This allows a strategy of evening up income via subs rather than territory.
Panzerblitz - as in LHTR. Gets away from IPM and promotes a tank heavy strategy.
Atlantic Wall - as in LHTR. Allows more focus on the Eastern Front

UNITED KINGDOM
Colonial Garrison - modified. Overpowered so should be placed on Turn 1 rather than game start. Useful strategically for opening up a 2nd front in Africa, India or Australia.
The Commonwealth - new. Place 1 free INF/turn in either ECan, Egy, SAfr, Ind, Aus if you own it. Slows Axis expansion and makes new UK ICs more viable.
Joint Strike - modified. Similar to LHTR but as it is still overpowered, should include a turn restriction (Round 4, for 1944) and the requirement that both UK and US select this as an NA. This opens up a whole new strategy as the allies buildup for D-day.

JAPAN
Convoy Raids - new. Exactly similar to U-boat Interdiction. Very useful strategically as Japan has a reason to stay in the Pacific (can knock off 10IPC/turn from WUS). The US is more likely to try and stop this.
Banzai Attacks - as in LHTR. Useful for both land and amphibious campaigns.
Kamikazes - as in LHTR. Strategically useful for naval dominance.

UNITED STATES
Pacific Divisions - modified. Place 1 free INF/turn in either Sink, Chi, Kwa, Phi, Haw, Alsk if you own it. Makes Sink Factory and Pacific strategies (closer INF supply) more viable.
Joint Strike - modified. See UK.
Industrial Technology - new. Units 6-15IPC cost 1IPC less. Units 16IPC+ cost 2IPC less. Makes Pacific strategies more viable.

Players make key strategic choices at game start, meaning the variety of playouts increases exponentially. Strategies become more individualized from player to player rather than generic. Every game is different, and players must quickly think on their feet to adapt. This is where I'd love to see A&A Revised get to.

If the panel thinks this should wait for an advanced ruleset, that's fine, but I really think with the LHTR out, the time to include it is now. [img]smile.gif[/img] It can always be started as an optional variant and then incorporated once fine-tuned for balance. Anyways, just really wanted to throw this idea out there and get some feedback. Thanks. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ May 24, 2004, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: cousin_joe ]
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?


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

05-24-2004, 06:32 AM #107
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Atlantikwall:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DY:
What a ridiculous statement. Of course there are optimal strategies! Just because they haven't yet been discovered, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

First: I wouldn`t be that offensive!

Second: There is not ONE "optimal" stategy. If this would be true, AA would be a very boring game!

Third: "Optimal" depends on the circumsentences and still then is not an "objective" decission. All decissions have to be adjusted to the events that happend before and are still subject to "personal preferences". So, first its the bid. Then its the placment of the bid. Btw: What would you consider to be the "optimal" bid in the old game? And for for what IPC-value? It`s even possible after over 20 years of playing the old AA, that a no.1 of a ranking-list places his bid to to a different place than no.2 and no.3. So do the other players have a "supotimal" startegy? And then its the russian buy, the russian attacks, the luck with the dice, the ncm and you want to tell me there is just one "optimal" german stategy? The later in the game you start (USA), your strategy even becomes more influenced by the past results (how lucky was EPO?)!

Obviously there a some good "concepts" in AA, e.g. that buying lots of infs generally is a good decision. But at some point, it may be not!</font>[/quote]First: Okay maybe I was overly offensive. Point taken.

Second: If you read my post (you did quote it after all) you'd notice that I said strategies, as in plural, as in more than one.

Third: There is no rule in game theory that says optimal strategies must be fixed from the first turn and never ammended throughout the remainder of the game. You can actually quite legitimately search for (and potentially find) new optimal strategies on every turn.

In terms of a mathematical approach to game theory, it is also possible to find strategies that dominate other strategies and hence player 2's strategy could be considered sub-optimal in the example you gave.

I didn't say that I (or anyone else) was in possesion of (or could hope to calculate) such optimal strategies. A game with as many options available to players on every single turn as Axis and Allies has is far too complex to hope to analyse in terms of finding solutions in either pure or mixed strategies.

I repeat, this does not mean that solutions do not exist, it simply means that it is incredibly difficult to find them.


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

05-24-2004, 07:22 AM #108
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Hello DY,

to come back where we started this sophisticated discussion. I said, just weakening the strenght of an ac-buy hurts the axis. You said this is only true, if an ac-buy is considered to be "optimal". When there are more optimal strategies in Ger 1 (depending on the different circumstances), an ac-buy could be one and obviously lots of people regulary bought a german ac (under the AvH-rules). Are they all wrong and play "sub-optimal"? With the new rules, I think that less people come to their own conclusion, that building an ac is a good decision. That`s the point we do agree on! Propably some people will not invest a single IPC in the german navy anymore. Is this (and the rule change in general) good for the game? That`s another question!

[ May 24, 2004, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


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

05-24-2004, 07:44 AM #109
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
Thanks for once again repeating what you have already said several times.
If you have something new to contribute we'd like to hear from you.

Carico67 said to be constructive in our posts and be less vague. I tried to do just that.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-24-2004, 08:57 AM #110
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER




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

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

it think the PBEM errata is a good thing...for those of competitive nature, a constant ruleset is the only way to assure fair games...

it seems to me that these folks who have spent many hours trying to provide a means to some of the unclear intent of the rules have done a good job in doing so...

i for one dont PBEM, but if i did, id feel better about the clear intent other than foggy interpretation of the rules...id even feel better if the creator of the game took a part in it...and he has...!!

im giving props to those who try to make competition play more fair...

.02 plus a nickel...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

winning isnt everything, its how you play the GAME...im not a huge fan of the black flag as well, maybe a rainbow flag or something less invoking...

[ May 24, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: elbowmaster ]
__________________
the EVIL BERT and FRIEND...
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:47 am

05-24-2004, 09:20 AM #111
amazingmg
Junior Member


Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 28

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

Grabbed from other thread:

I understand that it will be used in PBEM rated play as well as some major F2F tourneys. Larry actually forwarded a copy to AH and I believe, from what I've read, that he is hoping it may be included in the next print run for AAR.


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

05-24-2004, 09:55 AM #112
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

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

I know that a significant number of people have posted to protest the loss of ability to move existing fighters onto new aircraft carriers.

How could we do such a thing? What is the reasoning? etc...

I would pose to you the following. If the rules had been written originally as we now have them, and this committee had proposed adding the ability to take existing fighters and move them to newly placed carriers, we would have been collectively dismissed as lunatics screwing around with the basic turn sequence, adding in effect, an extra phase to the game and adding movement points to fighters which had already possibly exhausted their turn.

We especially would have been triple damned and handed our heads for proposing that we could move someone else's air units on our turn.

I don't know ultimately what kind of bid will be needed to balance the game, nor whether it will be needed by the Axis or the Allies - the game is still too new to make this kind of determination.

If a small bid is required for the Axis, the general thrust of the discussions here would seem to imply that a transport for the Germans might just do the trick, allowing an 8 inf + CV first round build.

Thanks.
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-24-2004, 10:03 AM #113
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

The problems with balance in the game are not just balance between the two sides. This can easily be corrected with bids anyway. More important balance issues are balancing the units and balancing the techs.

The reason why those are more important is that if something is too weak, you'll never see it in games (reducing variability and enjoyment) and if something is too weak, it will break the game and you'll see practially nothing else (again reducing variability).

The only things that have been done regarding balancing units were to make the underpriced carrier less effective and to make the overpriced bomber even less so.

As for tech, the one tech that was clearly too strong is now the weakest tech. There were 3 techs that were clearly too weak. One has been fixed (jet power), one was imo made even weaker (super subs) and the other one was left untouched (combined bombardment).

Finally, techs as a whole were made too weak (by not applying right away) compared to buying units and i'd be surprised to see even a single tech per game anymore.

With regards to balance, which is imo the most important game aspect to consider, there's still a great deal to be done. Actually, there's still just as much work left to do as there was before. Fore every problem that was fixed, another one was created!

[ May 24, 2004, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Zombie ]


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-24-2004, 10:38 AM #114
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:

I would pose to you the following. If the rules had been written originally as we now have them, and this committee had proposed adding the ability to take existing fighters and move them to newly placed carriers, we would have been collectively dismissed as lunatics screwing around with the basic turn sequence, adding in effect, an extra phase to the game and adding movement points to fighters which had already possibly exhausted their turn.

Actually, if this were the case, I would commend you for such a change, although I would still say fighters should have at least one MP left, after they land, in order to board the carrier. This is a change that has been long since due from A&A 2nd Edition. And again, it makes sense both logically, and strategically (as squirecam points out with his amusing Hitler vignette ).

Rules do not all have to be so hard and fast. There is room for the occasional exception, as long as that exception is warranted and makes sense (eg. aircraft flying in CM and NCM). Leaving an empty carrier to protect your navy does not make sense. Buying a NEW FTR to put on your NEW AC when you already have 6 FTRs does not make sense. Landing an EXISTING FTR on a NEW AC does make sense.


Quote:
We especially would have been triple damned and handed our heads for proposing that we could move someone else's air units on our turn.

This was a good change on your part and one that I totally agree with. [img]smile.gif[/img]


Quote:
I don't know ultimately what kind of bid will be needed to balance the game, nor whether it will be needed by the Axis or the Allies - the game is still too new to make this kind of determination.

If a small bid is required for the Axis, the general thrust of the discussions here would seem to imply that a transport for the Germans might just do the trick, allowing an 8 inf + CV first round build.

As you say, who knows if the bids will get that high, or even if it will be for the Axis. I, for one, though, would not let my opponent bid for a transport for Germany, as the danger of a G1 or G2 Sealion becomes quite high (even without LRA)

Furthermore, this is a situation that should not require a bid. A G1 AC is a perfectly valid strategy as I've pointed out earlier, and it's basically killed if there is no FTRs allowed on the AC. The buy nothing but INF push becomes the only real strategy for Germany and games will get boring and repetitive.

[ May 24, 2004, 12:58 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

05-24-2004, 10:44 AM #115
Der Panzinator
Cartographic Reticulator




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

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

Quote:
I know that a significant number of people have posted to protest the loss of ability to move existing fighters onto new aircraft carriers.

How could we do such a thing? What is the reasoning? etc...

I for one think that the modified rule restricting existing fighters from moving onto newly built carriers is not only justified but should be officially adopted.
Who's crazy idea was this anyway???


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

05-24-2004, 10:52 AM #116
Der Panzinator
Cartographic Reticulator




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

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

Quote:
Actually, if this were the case, I would commend you for such a change, although I would still say fighters should have one more MP after they land in order to board the carrier.

If the existing revised rule is to be kept then the fighter that is attempting to land on a newly purchased carrier must not move or attack during the current turn.
Then perhaps it would make a little more sense.

Preparing a fighter wing to assume naval carrier operations isn't an immediate thing right after pulling some combat sorties. Takes some time to get things in order. Although this is a very high level game and the scale of fighter units doesn't even fit with the representation of carrier units, it should still take some time to change operational combat roles.


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

05-24-2004, 11:03 AM #117
Bismarck
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 403

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

I think if the rule book would have said that fighters could end their movement in a sea zone if an AC will be placed there in the mobilization phase, everyone would have been fine with it. That's basically the same principle as when fighters end their combat movement where an AC will pick them up in non-combat.
The fact that you end up with an empty new AC when you have a handful of fighters around is unacceptable though.


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

05-24-2004, 11:14 AM #118
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

Zombie,
Don't try to use my post as a dish-off for your continued whining. Your constant negativity, with no "suggestion for solution" is both annoying and childish, hence the feedback you so often get on these boards.

That said:

Quote:
As for tech, the one tech that was clearly too strong is now the weakest tech.

--Possibly true, it is being evaluated.


Quote:
There were 3 techs that were clearly too weak. One has been fixed (jet power), one was imo made even weaker (super subs) and the other one was left untouched (combined bombardment).

--This shows you are unfamiliar with the way subs affect destroyers in this game. Any increase in sub ability results in more needs for destroyers. More destroyers = the possibilty of combined bombardment tech coming into play. Will it be widely used? Likely not... but it is an option, and an equally cost/reward sufficient one
if the scenario for use is right, when compared to the other techs. As regards super subs, the ability they now possess is very dangerous if played properly...


Quote:
With regards to balance, which is imo the most important game aspect to consider, there's still a great deal to be done. Actually, there's still just as much work left to do as there was before. Fore every problem that was fixed, another one was created!

--Sorry this completely discredits you IMO. It shows you have either not read the document, or are unable to grasp its contents and clarity properly. Is it perfected, no, and we have every aim to make sure it draws closer to that categorization every day, or we wouldn't be this active on this and all other MB's. What we are
looking for is rationalized posts that say problem/solution/scenario example's and you have yet to do that on this thread that I have seen.

I will note that you are capable of good posts though, and use this as an example:


Quote:
Well, obviously few people buy BBs now. The two main reasons i can think of are :

1. They're vastly underestimated. Most people haven't used them yet and aren't aware of their huge potential.

2. Even though they're strong and good for their price, they're still the most expensive unit in the game and not every nation can afford them. Germany, the UK and the USA could definitely use one or two, but a 24 IPC investment in navy is a lot.

As for how many battles a BB can participate in, remember that those don't have to be all out offensive strikes. A BB is a very good deterent to an air raid on your transports, as the opponent knows that the first hit will be lost everytime.

Offensively, if you have 2 BBs and the opponent has none, it's a very good idea to strafe the opponent's fleet for a single round evey turn. You get no losses or very few, while the opponent gets hammered everytime. I've tried this many times under the MB edition using 2-hit BB as a house rule.

Finally, if Germany has 2 BBs and the allies have none, it becomes much more difficult for the Allies to destroy the fleet. The normal move is for the UK to attack with everything they've got and the USA can then finish off whatever remains. However, this means that every BB owned by Germany will get to be hit 3 times before sinking.

All the quote's used are by Zombie in this thread.
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-24-2004, 11:24 AM #119
Der Panzinator
Cartographic Reticulator




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

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

Perhaps even better would be removing fighters from carriers and allow a more "built-in" fighter capability to carriers.
The amount of fighters represented in one unit would represent the amount of fighters that would be based on at least several carrier units.

First, completely do away with allowing fighters to be put on carriers.
Carriers should then have a ranged attack of 2 spaces with an attack of 3 and a defense of 3.
Plus they should also have the same ability as an AA gun on defense.

I think this would have fixed a lot of weird problems with carrier/fighter movements and battles.
Plus it would also make destroyers a bit more valuable since they would fill the gap in unit defense that the fighters are leaving blank.

Additionally a strategic deployment for fighters during non-combat movement of 6 spaces would be useful as well.


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

05-24-2004, 12:30 PM #120
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by elbowmaster:
im not a huge fan of the black flag as well, maybe a rainbow flag or something less invoking...

I would LOVE a rainbow flag. But this black one is the only one i found.

Still, it's funny as it looks like a pirate flag. Kinda ironic that the peace sign should be associated with pirates!
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:54 am

05-24-2004, 12:30 PM #121
Juggernaut
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 25

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

After looking them over, I think I like the new changes and would adopt all of them for play.

Is a carrier fighter ~4 inf purchase viable? The extra plane might be okay over the long haul. Of course, you'd probably have to buy lots of inf turn 2+ to compensate.


Juggernaut
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Juggernaut

05-24-2004, 12:31 PM #122
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackWatch222:
I would pose to you the following. If the rules had been written originally as we now have them, and this committee had proposed adding the ability to take existing fighters and move them to newly placed carriers, we would have been collectively dismissed as lunatics screwing around with the basic turn sequence, adding in effect, an extra phase to the game and adding movement points to fighters which had already possibly exhausted their turn.


I cant speak for anyone else, but I would have said your thought was good. When it first came out here in the revised rules, it was hailed as good.

Secondly, why do you have to integrate another "bid" issue. A 9 VC game is plenty balanced as is with an AC+Fighter rule.

Third, adding a transport simply means that Germany will be left with an empty AC and a DD. Assuming the USSR has 2 fighters, it can eliminate that navy. Sure, it will lose its fighters, but the atlantic threat is dead forever.

I have been "constructive" from the beginning here. Like I said, I dont mind the majority of the changes. HB ruled so long that I dont mind, even assuming the nerf went too far.

The fact is, when Mike posted his articles I pointed out that his stated goal of making tech equal did not work, as HB were still too powerful, or even more so given directed tech.

Obviously, you all had the same opinion. But when I point out that your change is also bad, and 95% of the people agree with me, suddenly we all are "not constructive".

The point is, there was not a historical or logical reason for the change. An AC with fighters was not a "HB" in need of nerfing. In fact, the "new" rule only hurts Germany, no other country.

It was not an imbalanced rule, but what it DID add was choice. Something very important to me.

Squirecam

[ May 24, 2004, 02:33 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

05-24-2004, 12:38 PM #123
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Der Panzinator:
If the existing revised rule is to be kept then the fighter that is attempting to land on a newly purchased carrier must not move or attack during the current turn.
Then perhaps it would make a little more sense.

Preparing a fighter wing to assume naval carrier operations isn't an immediate thing right after pulling some combat sorties. Takes some time to get things in order. Although this is a very high level game and the scale of fighter units doesn't even fit with the representation of carrier units, it should still take some time to change operational combat roles.

Well, if we stop thinking about new carriers for a moment, we notice that fighters do ground attacks and go land on a carrier all the time. If they can do it with old carriers, there's no reason they couldn't do it with new ones.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-24-2004, 12:46 PM #124
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER




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

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

when revised 1st came out, i too found it hard to swallow some of the new rules...even coughed up a few furrballs along the way...

as time went on, it was easier to accept just for the fact of a "new" game...and for being open for change...

i think some of the problem is that a "band of brother's" that included mr harris, went about making the rules "make more sense" (perhaps only to them)...i think many peoples feelings may have been hurt due to being left out of the process, and being dictated by the new "OFFICIAL LARRY HARRIS VERSION", though not official by AH...i would have like to see a vote on the ideas...

i think it was a mistake making the topic include mr harris' name...thus making for a kind of defensive stance on the rule modifiers...

not being a PBEM person i havent commented much, i can relate to the human dynamic of being left out of a decision...perhaps my words are out of place in this thread...kinda makes me sad that our new game has come to this...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

to rule, or not to rule...which rules are the question???
__________________
the EVIL BERT and FRIEND...


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

05-24-2004, 12:59 PM #125
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Carico67, did you read my comment about the new super sub in the thread i created a few days ago? It basically comes down to this. The new super subs are better than the old ones when sitting alone in a sea zone, and worse than even normal subs when moving with a fleet. Not being able to choose your subs as hits when your fleet is attacked by planes is a huge disadvantage. Personally, i find this disadvantage to be such a huge factor that i'd prefer my subs to be normal subs rather than "super" subs, even if i got the tech for free.

So if i were to use your argument regarding how better subs make for more destroyers and a better combined bombardment tech, i'd have to say that since subs are worse now then they were before, we'll see even fewer destroyers and the combined bombardment tech is in fact even worse than it was before!

My comment about corrections made and problems added wasn't thrown in without evidence either. If you read my post again, you'll notice that i said the one important thing was balance and this is what i'm basing my numbers on. Here are according to me the problems solved, those left unsolved, those made even worse and the new ones created :

1. Heavy bombers : solved.
2. Heavy bombers : new problem (too weak).
3. Super subs : worse (actually weaker than they were).
4. Jet fighters : solved.
5. Combined bombardment : unsolved.
6. Carriers (too cheap or too good) : solved.
7. Carriers (new ones have no planes) : new problem.
8. Bombers (too weak or too expensive) : worse.
9. Tech vs units : new problem (techs are now too weak).

So in my count, there were :
3 problems fixed
1 problem not fixed
2 problems made worse
3 new problems added

And stop telling me that i'm not being constructive and not proposing solutions. I've been proposing solutions for months and still am. For example, super subs could be 3/3 instead of gaining a disadvantageous ability. Heavy bombers could have been made 2D6KB and nothing else. Carriers could cost 18. Bombers could cost 12. Techs could still apply at the start of your turn and hence still be worth getting.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-24-2004, 12:59 PM #126
squirecam
Toledo's worst nightmare




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by elbowmaster:
i think some of the problem is that a "band of brother's" that included mr harris, went about making the rules "make more sense" (perhaps only to them)...i think many peoples feelings may have been hurt due to being left out of the process, and being dictated by the new "OFFICIAL LARRY HARRIS VERSION", though not official by AH...i would have like to see a vote on the ideas...

Not for me. I was "left out" when Mike made the HB rule, yet spoke up not because I was left out of the process, but because I thought they were too imbalancing.

I spoke up about the carrier rule, not because "no one asked me to help", but because the change was not made for any logical reason that I could see.

Look back at my post on pg 1. I said that I liked the majority of the rules, but I did not understand why this change was made, as it seemed to be a step back to A&A classic and limited choices, which was bad. Every other post I've had has had constructive points, and some attempt at humor even.

I want the tournament rules, in which I intend on playing in and using, to be the best they can be. In this area, I felt they weren't.

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

05-24-2004, 01:05 PM #127
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER




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

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

squire, i dont see your posts as being offensive...my comments are not directed to specific, only in general...

-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

05-24-2004, 01:07 PM #128
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

In the poll I read a suggestion, that only fgt that had not been moved in either cm or ncm phase should be allowed to board new ac. So in Ger1 you could load your fgt from Germany (but not use them for an attack). If you want to buy another new ac later on, you just have to fly the fgt to GER the turn before.

Wouldn`t that be a good compromise that is in order with the ruleswrites` (theoretical) approach and the other side that says, that they either love the rule and/or find it necessary for the game(balance)?

[ May 24, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]


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

05-24-2004, 01:45 PM #129
BlackWatch222
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142

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

Zombie wrote:


Quote:
Carico67, did you read my comment about the new super sub in the thread i created a few days ago? It basically comes down to this. The new super subs are better than the old ones when sitting alone in a sea zone, and worse than even normal subs when moving with a fleet. Not being able to choose your subs as hits when your fleet is attacked by planes is a huge disadvantage.

Carico and I are both monitoring a number of boards - he may not have responded to your question here yet, but he is aware of this one, and it is an issue that must be addressed. You have rightfully pointed out a serious unintended consequence of a rule that we revised.

I cannot speak for the group as to which, if any, of the new rules might be "re-revised", but this is a definite contender.
__________________
BlackWatch, Vice JAG AAMC


BlackWatch222
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BlackWatch222

05-24-2004, 02:32 PM #130
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

AtlantikWall,

Germany needs to use all of their FTRs on G1 and can't afford to have one sit idle.

My proposed compromise is that the FTR must have at least one movement point left if it wants to board the carrier on the Mobilize Units phase. This way, it doesn't move more than 4 spaces a turn.

Again, since you have already made the exception of aircraft moving on CM AND NCM, I see no big deal to extending this to include the Mobilization phase as well for this special case.
__________________
AAR: Enhanced - Do you have what it takes?
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:53 am

05-24-2004, 04:31 PM #131
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Hello cousin_joe,

actually I read this idea I in The Panzinator`s vote. I know your proposal for a compromise with 1 MP left. Actually, I just want a solution that most of the people could live with. The old rule makes the ac too strong imho, but the new rule is almost the end to a german navy. This is not only a turn1 problem, Germany would have to same problem reinforcing their navy in later rounds. Obviously, not allowing any movement is a more severe restriction than "having one MP left". Of course, it`s better for Germany to use one more fgt, but Panzinator`s idea is a least a little better than the actual rule. In Ger1 it`s just gives you one more option (to keep the navy) and later on it shouldn`t be too much of a problem, landing fgt in GER the turn before!


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

05-24-2004, 05:33 PM #132
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

Quote:
The new super subs are better than the old ones when sitting alone in a sea zone, and worse than even normal subs when moving with a fleet. Not being able to choose your subs as hits when your fleet is attacked by planes is a huge disadvantage.

Zombie

Zombie, I am not disagreeing that, as worded in the rules, this is not an oversight. In fact, I've already brought notice about it to the others involved some time quite prior to now when I saw this topic in another thread (of which you might have been the starter, I don't specifically remember). However, to say they are inferior in this ruleset is absurd. With an air force in WEU and the option to bring a Supersub or two out of the Baltic SZ or MED SZ the potential is enormous. The allies cannot easily just send capital fleets out "subhunting" as it leaves trans exposed. However, if they do not, you have 3 attack fodder pieces that can cause a massive danger of a dual sub/air attack... This is only an Atlantic example, in the Pacific the effects can be even greater.
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-24-2004, 08:48 PM #133
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Carico67:
Zombie, I am not disagreeing that, as worded in the rules, this is not an oversight. In fact, I've already brought notice about it to the others involved some time quite prior to now when I saw this topic in another thread (of which you might have been the starter, I don't specifically remember). However, to say they are inferior in this ruleset is absurd. With an air force in WEU and the option to bring a Supersub or two out of the Baltic SZ or MED SZ the potential is enormous. The allies cannot easily just send capital fleets out "subhunting" as it leaves trans exposed. However, if they do not, you have 3 attack fodder pieces that can cause a massive danger of a dual sub/air attack... This is only an Atlantic example, in the Pacific the effects can be even greater.

Where would your subs attack that they couldn't from the main fleet? Also, if you send those transports out there by themselves, it leaves the rest of your fleet more vulnerable. It has always been my experience in this game that a concentration of force is what works best. This means all Allies concentrating on a single Axis opponent. It means keeping a huge stack of infantry well centered so your units are protected but you can attack from there. It also means keeping all your ships together for maximum protection and attack capability.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-24-2004, 09:02 PM #134
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

Quote:
It also means keeping all your ships together for maximum protection and attack capability.

If this is the only naval strategy your used to then I'm guessing you've never played AAE or AAP, or have done so on a limited basis, and understand how you don't see the sense in it. Subspreads, when air cannot strike alone, create major MAJOR problems in a veterans hands... Not only can they dive from anything other than a destroyer, they also get to defend still BESIDES causing a fleet spread that allows fore air hits on 'newly weakened' tran stacks. This tech, as currently written, opens up some possibilities that perhaps AAE and AAP guys are, at first, going to be more familiar with than straight A&A players (2nd edition or CDers). In regards to not being able to select if with a fleet... hold tight on that, it is noted.
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-24-2004, 09:12 PM #135
Carico67
Senior Member




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


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

Quote:
Where would your subs attack that they couldn't from the main fleet?

Zombie

Think outside the box; if you don't have a main fleet, yet wish to disrupt action in an ocean theatre, be it Atlantic or Pacific. Rather than having to suddenly drop down capital ships you can tech for an ability far more effective to your goal... at 8 IPC's a supersub can cause a lot of damage or fleet disruption coming out of the Baltic or CMED for example, and for an 8 IPC drop it can be done in the longterm when deemed necessary without further breaking the bank... Is it a great strategy,? Depends on the game round and the player using it, but it creates a whole new possible scenario of naval options.
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67

05-24-2004, 09:39 PM #136
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

The tech costs you on average 30 IPCs. So it IS a big investment, regardless of the price of individual subs.

One thing that's very different in this game compared to the MB edition is that Germany does have a fleet, and a pretty big one at that. It would make sense to build on that rather than spend 30 IPCs on super subs, which can only become useful once your fleet is gone. I'd much rather spend those IPCs on 2 carriers, and never have to worry about the ennemy even having transports at all!

You're right, i've never played Pacific or Europe. I've never been interested in those games.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-24-2004, 11:13 PM #137
axis_roll
Team AR Germany / *****




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by randell:
Carico67,
I could go on and on about why the fighter/ac rule hurts the Axis more than the Allies, but plenty of people have already done that for me, and many of their arguments seem very sound(and reflect my own).
Any rule that severly affects one nation(Germany, and very drastically; if I may add)only, is a rule that should not even make it past the suggestion box. Why does it affect Germany so much? IMO, any rule that takes away possible choices for any opponent(be it Axis or Allies), should not be a rule. Why can't you see that? And dear God, please don't use historical accuracy, if I wanted that; I could always go to a library. I play Axis and Allies not only for the fun but for the choices I can make(I'm not limited to the mistakes of past Generals or dictators). If one choice is so negatively effected, then it's not a realistic choice, therfore one less choice, therefore less fun. Don't help make this game predictable.

Can I get an AMEN to That Brother!!

If we wanted predictability and the same old/same old... there's still the second edition out there.

Also, I agree with using historical accuracy argument... I mean if we did that, then the allies would always win, so why even play?

The main premise of this game is the "WHAT IF..." Please don't eliminate some of the out-of-the-box-thinking "what if's" that the new carrier/ftr rule offers.

If you must, restrict the existing planes from getting on a carrier some other way, like movement (at least 1 mp left.. etc)


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

05-25-2004, 01:26 AM #138
DY
Senior Member


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

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

I would have to challenge Carico67 on his statements regarding subs in AAE and AAP.

Look at the map dude, the Atlantic in AAR is tiny compared to the Atlantic in AAE. In fact there are only really a few SZ that are used, since the South Atlantic is pretty useless in AAR (the convoy boxes scattered throughout the Atlantic in AAE meant there were reasons for fighting for all SZs in that game). The same goes for the Pacific theatre.

Less sea zones that matter strategicly means more emphasis on large stacks of naval units occupying key SZs and creating naval dead zones. Lack of convoy boxes means less need to split subs up as individual raiders.

Believe it or not, your constant bashing of Zombie is actually creating some sympathy for the dude and not winning you any popularity contests (and before you ask, yes I was part of the "Dedications" thread and no I didn't much care for Zombie's stance there either).


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

05-25-2004, 02:08 AM #139
pagan
MOONINITE




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


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

Heavy Bombers:

How could you guys think that by reducing the power of the Heavy Bombers TWICE was a good thing?

a) Roll 2 dice and Keep the Best one
b) damage limit per TURN

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

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

SBRs were fine. The only problem was double-die HB DAMAGE . I will write that again. The problem with HB was their SBR DAMAGE . So the EASY fix is to lower their DAMAGE.

I personally feel that by lowering the IC terr-ipc-damage per turn adversly affects REGULAR bombers. This is mainly felt in Asia, where multiple ICs on low IPC values will exist.

BTW: Your ideas on Super Subs are insulting. You've taken a 'bad idea' and made it a 'bad idea'.
__________________
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

05-25-2004, 08:48 AM #140
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

Hello,

lots of things have been said to the old and new HB. It was obvious, that the AvH-H-bmb are much overpowered, but the new one`s are just too weak. After thinking about the rule change once again I have to admit that one part is enevitable: a cap. Even if you weaken HB like now, the USA would still be able to bomb away every IPC from Germany (even with normal bmb) and that`s not good for the game. You should always be able to buy some units!

But the cap is too severe and the advantage of going for HB is just to small. Normal bmb destroy 2,92 IPC and LH-H-bmb 3,73 IPC (on an country of at least 6 IPC with aa). The "net gain" goes up from 0,42 IPC to 1,23 IPC, but you can only take full advantage of it with (not even) 3 bmb (2 GER, 1 SEU). If you just want to bomb away the 16 IPC, you`re far better off with US-rockets and 3 normal bmb (2 on GER, 1 on SEU). You just have to ship the 2 aa from the staring setup to Europe/North Africa and don`t have any further investment. If Japan is buing an IC on the asian mailand, you could "rock" him too (spending just another 5 IPC), but sbrs on a 3 IPC-country with aa are not worth it.

The increase in attack value of LH-HB is only 2/9 hits. So with the investment of 30-45 IPC on the tech you could buy 2 (3) normal bmb. You need 6 (9) H-bmb to have the same attack value and not to forget, you would have more units.

So I suggest the following:

- The income cap is per sbr only (not combined with tech). You can´t effectively comine rockets and HB. There should be no "dominat" tech making another useless. You can also combine LRA and HB.

- Furthermore I think that the advantage of HB on sbrs with only 0,81 IPC per round that can only be used an two countries is too low if you consider the investment of 30-45 IPC. I think dice plus 2 would be ok, but you could even keep the the double sbr-value with the cap!

[ May 25, 2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Atlantikwall ]
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:53 am

05-25-2004, 08:54 AM #141
Enigma
Daimyo


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

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

I feel that the biggest reason that people feel that the change in AC/Ftrs majorly affects only one country is because so many people had German strategies centered around that concept already. If someone had discovered an awesome strategy to use this concept with another country, the change would "severely affect" that country too. For that matter, the emasculation of HBs only really affects the US because, as was discussed on numerous other topics, generally only the US can afford to buy HB. While many people have been against the precise change, the fact that HBs was changed has not been opposed even though it only seriously affects ONE COUNTRY. Hypocritical? Is the German navy concept dead with the rule change or are people's pet strategies dead? Are there ways to grow a German navy w/o the G1 AC w/ 2 ftrs?


Enigma
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Enigma

05-25-2004, 09:34 AM #142
DY
Senior Member


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

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

I totally disagree Enigma. Nearly all of the regular forum members have said nerfing HB was going too far considering their affect was already greatly reduced by

(1) SBR damage caps per turn not per bomber

(2) Tech implemented at the end of your turn not the beginning

Pretty much everyone loves (1) and we seem to be divided on (2), but if you read through the 100 or so posts on this thread you'll see many challenging the new HB rule as overkill.


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

05-25-2004, 09:45 AM #143
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Rather than double post, for those who are interested I did some analysis of how the new LHTR affects the G1 AC + Trn purchase. A lot of it may seem to be intuitive anyway, but it may be worth investing one minute of your time to read it anyway.

Is the G1 Navy still viabile?

Let me reiterate that 95% of the changes in the revision to the base game are excellent work and not at all controversial. It's the 5% that we'd like you guys to think about before going ahead with LHTR.

BTW love those Luftwaffe dive bombers and the Japanese BB's. Did you consdider upping the Kamikaze attack strength to "4"? They still seem slightly weak at "3" (compared to other J NA's), but I suspect they'd be just a little too powerful in terms of the game at "4".


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

05-25-2004, 10:28 AM #144
tactical
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 284

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

Carico67,
I could go on and on about why the fighter/ac rule hurts the Axis more than the Allies, but plenty of people have already done that for me, and many of their arguments seem very sound(and reflect my own).
Any rule that severly affects one nation(Germany, and very drastically; if I may add)only, is a rule that should not even make it past the suggestion box. Why does it affect Germany so much? IMO, any rule that takes away possible choices for any opponent(be it Axis or Allies), should not be a rule. Why can't you see that? And dear God, please don't use historical accuracy, if I wanted that; I could always go to a library. I play Axis and Allies not only for the fun but for the choices I can make(I'm not limited to the mistakes of past Generals or dictators). If one choice is so negatively effected, then it's not a realistic choice, therfore one less choice, therefore less fun. Don't help make this game predictable.
__________________
" 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, 10:49 AM #145
AxisRoll
Team AR Japan *****




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


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

I've dispatched the fleet. I'll take care of this. lol
__________________
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, 11:02 AM #146
Larry Harris



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

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

I sense a lot of passion and serious concern coming from many of you. I at first thought this rejection of several rule changes was based on the – NOT INVENTED HERE – syndrome. I’m beginning to see that this is not the case but rather a vigorous effort to step forward and say – “No, this is not the way.” I should have known better.

A list of unpopular changes is beginning to emerge. At the moment they are:
1. Supersubs
2. Fighters not being able to “jump” onto a new aircraft carrier in the mobilize units phase.
3.Techs being delayed by a round
4. HB’s too weak.

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

Talk to me…


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 11:15 AM #147
Krieghund
A&A Boardgame Answer Guy




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

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

Larry,

IMHO, the carrier/fighter issue can be simply resolved by having fighters "hang in the air" until the end of the turn rather than until the end of non-combat movement. This would allow them to defend new carriers without rules exceptions, while also keeping friendly fighters from "moving out of turn" to do so.

A possible solution to the tech problem might be to keep the tech secret until it is deployed on the next turn. This would delay it without compromising the element of surprise.
__________________
"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."


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

05-25-2004, 11:21 AM #148
Larry Harris



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

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

1. thank you...no thank you
2. thank you...no thank you


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 11:29 AM #149
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:

1.Supersubs - I like the idea of simply making them 3/3.
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.
3. Techs being delayed is just good game dynamics. This turn you get the tech – next turn you get the weapon.
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.

Talk to me

1. simple / i like it

2. it took me a long time to accept this rule...and as i finally have, we are going to possibly change it... ACK!! i can see it helping germany t1 and even uk1 if carrier is purchased...im split on this one...

3. im not a techie, but i dont like the wait thing...if anything as someone here put in a tread, an excellent idea...t1 tech one avail...t2 tech 2 avail...etc...i like that...

4. HB's / i dont mind them, but i dont like it with the usa superfortress...i dont think any unit should be immune to a die roll...id say keep the 2 dice roll...germany has more ipc this version...so im not sure how "trying" to bomb to zero actually works, buying all bombers for usa must have some repercussions somewhere...

0.02 plus some change...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ May 25, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: 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, 11:43 AM #150
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Hi Larry, good to hear from you again on this issue.

(1) I'd have to agree that 3/3 Super Subs sound like a much improved version of either the standard official AH or LHTR SS.

(2) Would I be right in thinking it was never your intention for existing Ftr(s) to mobilise onto newly built CVs in the "official" off the press AH edition?

If so, then would you consider one of the other two approaches suggested on these boards, namely that the Ftr(s) in question have to satisfy either:

(a) At least 1 MP remains at end of NCM, or

(b) The Ftr(s) must start their turn in the appropriate IC and not move at all during either CM or NCM phases

(3) Look, as for techs being delayed, the only problem I see is that it makes a bad tech slightly worse (CB) and a tacticly important tech much, much, much weaker (LRA). Like I honestly can't see a reason to go for LRA unless it provides you with a "surprise" attack the turn you acquire it.

(4) Yeah, I'm not sure what the best solution to this problem is, but considering the delay in tech and the turn based cap on SBR will stay, I think this definitely needs a revisit.

I personally think the fact that bombers are really bad value for money (compared with improved subs, ftrs, tanks, CVs etc from MB 2nd ed) means we could almost keep the old "roll 2 dice keep both" rule for HB and they'd no longer be a "broken" tech.

I hope this constructive enough to please "you know who"

[ May 25, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: DY ]
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:55 am

05-25-2004, 11:48 AM #151
DY
Senior Member


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

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

Err...Elbowmaster, Superfortresses aren't immune to AA fire in LHTR, they are now half as likely to be shot down as regulare bombers:

Roll 2 D6 (pairwise) per SF, if total of both dice sums to 3 or less, the SF is shot down.

That's a 3/36 = 8.33 chance of taking a hit
compared with 1/6 = 16.67 for regular bombers


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

05-25-2004, 11:57 AM #152
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER




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

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

sorry about that, i was more commenting in general...im not a PBEM, so perhaps my comments are not needed here...

keep up the good work everyone...!!

-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, 11:58 AM #153
Larry Harris



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

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

For the record –
Krieghund – Two proposals presented – both rejected
1.Leave aircraft hanging in the air until the end of the turn.
2.Keep tech secret until it is deployed on the next turn.

Elbowmaster – (my good ole pal)
1.Likes Supersubs being 3/3
2.Resisting change but open to it.
3.Not a “techie” but does not like the wait (TOO BAD – wait!)
4.Superfortress are no longer immune (sounds like someone did not read the LHTR’s). Suggest we keep the 2 dice roll. Not too concerned about bombing to zero stuff, thinks there would be negative repercussions following this strategy.


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 12:03 PM #154
elbowmaster
ELBOW{M}E{M}BER




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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
(sounds like someone did not read the LHTR’s).

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

so much data being processed with 2 new games, new rules, new maps...I LOVE IT !!! though it is distracting my day job [img]smile.gif[/img]

my head is gonna esplode!!!

-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, 12:07 PM #155
Zombie
Senior Member


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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Harris:
1. Supersubs
2. Fighters not being able to “jump” onto a new aircraft carrier in the mobilize units phase.
3.Techs being delayed by a round
4. HB’s too weak.

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

Talk to me…

1. Exactly what i want. I think (from other threads we've had in the past) that this has always been the most popular choice, though i could be wrong.

2. This is already part of your rules, and people have been saying that it wasn't enough. Existing fighters need to be able to board also. Make it so they need to have 1 movement left, or make them go to the sea zones waiting for the carrier, or make it so they're not allowed to be in a combat that turn, but allow them to land on the carrier on way or the other!

3. This makes techs too weak. People will just never (or very rarely) buy tech anymore. Also, losing the surprise element means losing the tactical element.

4. One of the two changes was enough. Some people (including me) would prefer the two dice keep best approach, and others prefer the IPC limit approach. One thing's for sure, both at the same time is too much. Another nice thing would be to make bombers cost 12 IPCs.


Zombie
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zombie

05-25-2004, 01:10 PM #156
Larry Harris



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

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

For the record –
Krieghund – Two proposals presented – both rejected
1.Leave aircraft hanging in the air until the end of the turn.
2.Keep tech secret until it is deployed on the next turn.

Elbowmaster – (my good ole pal)
1.Likes Supersubs being 3/3
2.Resisting change but open to it.
3.Not a “techie” but does not like the wait (TOO BAD – wait!)
4.Superfortress are no longer immune (sounds like someone did not read the LHTR’s). Suggest we keep the 2 dice roll. Not too concerned about bombing to zero stuff, thinks there would be negative repercussions following this strategy.

DY – always good to hear from you too.
1. Likes Supersubs being 3/3
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
3. delayed techs only make bad techs slightly worse. Finds them undervalued. I disagree and in no way associate “surprise” with Weapons development.
4. Thinks HB’s needs work . Me too.

Zombie – Never good to hear from you.
1. Likes supersubs being 3/3
2. Reminds me that this is already part of my rules and people saying this is not enough. Stresses that existing fighters be able to board but only if they have at least 1 MP left. Just make it happen… No.
3. this makes techs too weak. People will just never buy tech anymore. OK, don’t. Its your option. I disagree and in no way associate “surprise” with Weapons development.
4.Both “two dice” and “IPC limit” too much. I agree, but which one to get rid of? I don’t want to change unit cost.


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris

05-25-2004, 01:25 PM #157
cousin_joe
Barbarian




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

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

Quote:
1.Supersubs - I like the idea of simply making them 3/3.
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.
3. Techs being delayed is just good game dynamics. This turn you get the tech – next turn you get the weapon.
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.

1. Making them 3/3 does nothing to help their vulnerability to air. Keep as you had in the LHTR but let subs CHOOSE if they want to immediately SUBMERGE if there is no DD in the attacking force. This should address Zombie's concern.

2. Is this because you only want NEW units moving during this phase. I would think of it this way. Say you're in charge of ship production, and you're planning on building a NEW Aircraft Carrier. Certainly you would not build an AC without a squadron of fighters to accompany it. Well, say you have a squadron of FTRs in the same territory you are building the AC in. So what's to stop you from 'Mobilizing' this squadron of FTRs to go on your new AC? I think this would qualify as a special case certainly warranting a rules exception. (AC is a special unit, as it can - and should - be paired with a FTR unit to be operational) Of course, the FTR must have one MP remaining to allow this to happen. (Not letting the FTR move at all is too strategically harmful to Germany).

3. Totally agree

4. I'd say keep the Damage Cap/Territory/Turn. This limits the effect of rockets as well. Get rid of the roll 2 and keep 1 and this should be fine.

5. One last thing to consider if you are planning on keeping Combined Bombardment the same. There are obviously 3 stronger Techs now (JF,HB - if fixed,RO) and 3 weaker Techs (SS,CB,LRA). What about having Major (5IPC/roll) and Minor (3IPC/roll) Techs. This would make pursuing the weaker Techs much more viable.
__________________
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, 01:30 PM #158
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

1) 3/3 super-sub: easy and good!

2) ac, fgt: no place for theorectical approaches (sorry, Larry). For the game(balance) a "compromise" is absolutely necessary! Larry, just give you a kick!

3) I like to play a strategic game and not a tactical one. The exemeple of a LRA-sealion has shown that this will totally overvalue the factor of luck and that´s not good for competitive play. The most important change. Approve 100% on this one.

4) Limits are necessary. But only on sbr (not combined with rockets making them "superior tech"). Old double dice too strong in attack value. 4+4 is horrible. Would suggest 2/6 H-bmb with sbr d6+2 and territory´s income limit. Know that 2/6 H-bmb may not be poular in a dice game, but keep best is may be too low and double dice is horrible!


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

05-25-2004, 01:49 PM #159
Atlantikwall
Imp. Grand Admiral, FoE




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

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

5) des-bomb is still too weak and des are overprized. Give them a free costal-bomb (at 2 only) and look for another tech. E.g. Heavy tanks (4 on attack/3 on defence).


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

05-25-2004, 01:56 PM #160
Airship_Armada
Junior Member


Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 12

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

My votes:

1: 3/3 super sub AND defenders choice to take SSubs as casualty.
2: I’m ambivalent here. Sorry.
3. Slow techs are good.
4. Bring back the 2 die HBs!
-The evil Bert & friend

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest