LHTR Step 7 - Final Revisions??

Here are the Tournment Rules for Revised Axis & Allies
trihero
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:16 am

Post by trihero » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:27 pm

Ok thanks for listening Larry.

Can you explain why you changed the Heavy Bomber's tech to the better of 2 rolls? I think this change was unnecessary in light of the fact that there is now a total bombing limit enforced. Even if bombers could roll 2 dice like they can in the box rules they'd head into the bombing limit very quickly. The nerf to heavy bombers make this tech very undesirable.

Mathematically the better of two rolls thing+ 1 for bombing raids changes the average IPC damage from 3.5 > 5.5 (used to go up to 7 with 2 dice rolls). The dice power against normal units goes from 4 to 5.3333 (8/9 chances of making 1 casualty now, used to be on average making 1.333 casualties with 2 x rolls). This is pretty sad; this tech raises the attack power of a 15 IPC unit by 1.333, whereas you have techs like super subs raising the attack and defense of an 8 IPC unit both by 1, and jet fighters raising the defense by 1 on a 10 IPC unit and making it immune to aircraft fire.

I know the game isn't meant to be all about massing bombers; that's not the point I'm trying to make. All the techs are supposed to be roughly equally desirable, yet I think heavy bombers is not. The increase in bombing power is not worth the 30 IPCs spent because you already run into the bombing limit very quickly with 3 bombers (the tech just means you can bomb the max with 2 bombers instead of 3, but it cost you about 2 bombers just to research the tech).

I think heavy bombers tech should just be reverted to the box rules where you roll 2 dice. The LHTR ruling about total bombing limits already fixes the imbalance of mass bombers.

User avatar
PAGAN
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:23 am
Contact:

Post by PAGAN » Tue May 09, 2006 9:25 am

Heavy Bombers needed a 'fix'

there were two basic options:

1. limit the die damage
2. limit the territory damage

1 + 2 were implemented

#1. die damage limit fixed the HB problem
#2. territory limit was no longer per bomber fixed the problem

----The result was an Over-Kill of the HeavyBomber. It is now not worth the amount which is spent.
----There is no why
.

SihrTogg
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:45 am
Location: Nijmegen, Holland

Post by SihrTogg » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:20 pm

I recently noticed a flaw in the step7 wording:
Step 7: Press Attack or
Retreat
Combat continues unless one of the following
conditions occurs (in this order of sequence):
a) Attacker retreats all attacking units;
b) Defender retreats all subs by submerging,
leaving no other defending units in play;
c) Attacker loses all units;
d) Defender loses all units; or
e) Both sides lose all units.
The rule speficly describes the 'order of sequence'. I believe that wording was added to describe the ruling that the attacker declares to press attack before the defending subs get the option to sumberge. Unfortunately, the order is incorrect based on logic and a contradicting rule:
The attacker may retreat only if enemy units remain on the battle board.

This is contradicting, becasue this rule shows that d) has a higher priority than a), although a) is listed before d).

Logic:
e) has a higher priority than both c) and d), or is useless in nature, as the condition 'both sides lose all units' would already qualify for c).

So the correct order is:
a) Both sides lose all units;
b) Attacker loses all units;
c) Defender loses all units;
d) Attacker retreats all attacking units, or
e) Defender retreats all subs by submerging leaving no other defending units in play.

Note: b) and c) can be swapped, but this order strenghtens the 'attacker before defender' analogy.

Note2: The only reason the current order could be used is that the defender needs the option to sumberge, while the attacker has lost all units. The current rules do not exclude this useless, but possible, action. Another reason to change the order.

BlackWatch
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:51 am

Post by BlackWatch » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:51 pm

SihrTogg wrote:I recently noticed a flaw in the step7 wording:
Step 7: Press Attack or
Retreat
Combat continues unless one of the following
conditions occurs (in this order of sequence):
a) Attacker retreats all attacking units;
b) Defender retreats all subs by submerging,
leaving no other defending units in play;
c) Attacker loses all units;
d) Defender loses all units; or
e) Both sides lose all units.
The rule speficly describes the 'order of sequence'. I believe that wording was added to describe the ruling that the attacker declares to press attack before the defending subs get the option to sumberge. Unfortunately, the order is incorrect based on logic and a contradicting rule:
The attacker may retreat only if enemy units remain on the battle board.

This is contradicting, becasue this rule shows that d) has a higher priority than a), although a) is listed before d).

Logic:
e) has a higher priority than both c) and d), or is useless in nature, as the condition 'both sides lose all units' would already qualify for c).

So the correct order is:
a) Both sides lose all units;
b) Attacker loses all units;
c) Defender loses all units;
d) Attacker retreats all attacking units, or
e) Defender retreats all subs by submerging leaving no other defending units in play.

Note: b) and c) can be swapped, but this order strenghtens the 'attacker before defender' analogy.

Note2: The only reason the current order could be used is that the defender needs the option to sumberge, while the attacker has lost all units. The current rules do not exclude this useless, but possible, action. Another reason to change the order.
The order shown above is correct.

The rules have been clarified to show that the attacker has the option to retreat BEFORE defending subs can submerge (we had considerable discussion on this).

Hence:

1) Did the attacker retreat? (he can only do this if there are still enemy pieces on the battle board)
2) Did the defender submerge all defending units?
(ditto the above- the defender can only do this if there are still enemy pieces on the battle board)
3) Were all attacking units lost in the previous round?
4) Were all defending units lost in the previous round?
5) Were both sides wiped out in the previous round?

If the answer to all of the above is "no", then roll the next round.

3,4 and 5 are probably interchangable, but 1 and 2 are correct as shown.

BW
BlackWatch

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:13 am

Thanks BlackWatch - and, Happy Hollidays

BlackWatch
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:51 am

Post by BlackWatch » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:21 pm

Happy Holidays to you too Larry, and all the best for New Year's too.

BW
BlackWatch

SihrTogg
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:45 am
Location: Nijmegen, Holland

Post by SihrTogg » Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:20 am

Blackwatch, thanks for your reply.

I'd like to clarify my post by explaining my understanding of 'in this order' (step7 sequence)

If a list of conditions is placed in a set order and this is even empasised by adding the words 'in this order' in the previous text I think it's logic to read it like this:

a)
If the current situation applies to condition a) -> combat stops
if not -> continue
b)
if applies to b) -> combat stops
if not -> continue
c)
if applies to c) -> combat stops
if not -> continue

etc.

Hope that helps you see my point.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest