Enhanced 2.0: Other assorted changes...

[cousin_joe]

I'd like to hear some thoughts on the following proposals, particularly re: Na balancing...

1A. Radar "Increases" AA Defense by 1 (for AAGuns on Tan territories - same thing but worded differently). It also increases AA Defense by 1 for UK BB with the Combined Arms NA (thus UK BBs with Combined Arms and Radar NA fire 2 shots at 2)

1B. Jet Fighters "Decrease" AA Defense by 1 (ie. rather than completely immune). Thus Radar NA serves as an effective counter, particularly in India and Australia.

2. Kamikazes can potentially be shot down by AA. This gives the US something they can do to protect their ACs. They would need US BBs and the Combined Bombardment Tech (16-24IPC) to do so though. Remember, if Japan gets JF, Kamikazes defend at 5. Also, with Japan getting Kami + LRA, US Navy is particularly vulnerable.

3. Special Forces INF can be matched with BBs and DDs (with Combined Arms), in addition to RTL, for a +1 attack benefit - just a little bit of extra beef to this NA. Marines matched with RTL, BB, and Combined Arms DDs now attack at 3 for the first round of combat only.

4. Nonagression Treaty raised to 6INF instead of 4 - the Naval Advantage NA and changes to Tokyo Express have made taking Bury much easier. It's more of a no-brainer now for Russia to either take Man and give up it's 4 INF, or to just abandon Siberia altogether. 6INF gives the Bury stack strategy a little more viability.

Most of these seem like good changes to me, though I would appreciate your thoughts before these go into effect. Any other suggestions for 2.0 final would also be appreciated.

[Defiance]

Hey Cousin Joe, could you (maybe?) post the whole "2.0 final beta" rules with these changes included in the full enhanced rules... All those discussion with 2.0 on the board get's me a bit confused. I then can see/read all the changes in full perspective & even try out a game (I'm really curious about those NA's now & the new naval rules)

:confused:

[DocD]

I like all those CJ. :D I'm hoping my next weekend isn't so busy and I can get in a game or two of these new changes.

[axis_roll]

I know you are trying to counter NA's with other NA's.... but #3 is getting a little too detailed/rule picky for us drunks when we play.

Too many exceptions can be a BAD thing.. IMHO

[cousin_joe]

3's probably the most sketchy of the bunch.

I'm on the fence with Spec Forces. I think it's a good NA choice over the long term, particularly for your eventual D-Day assault.

Here's a little trick not many people realize with D-Day... try the following... get about 8 US TRNs going and buy nothing but INF. Then, prior to your expected D-Day, buy 4-5RTL for UK (depending on their TRN). You maximize your US Special Forces and get 16 additional pips on offence, not to mention the extra RTL support shots.

D-Day sort of becomes like your Russian Winter in a way, but renewable, and used on the offensive. Also, remember it's usefulness in the Pacific as well. I think you're right a_r, I'll probably leave Spec Forces as is.

[cousin_joe]

On the lines of "too many exceptions/changes", I am leaning against not including #4 either.

[pagan]

What about____ Russia/Japanese Non-Agression Pact.

What do youguys think about making this change to it:

When Russia attacks ANY territory OWNED by Japan, then they forfeit the INF, rather than just the japanese yellow territories.

This still means that Russia can have defenders in the southern asian areas, but they just can't go on the offensive against Japanese territories.

Let me speak my mind openly about 6INF..... i say NO! 4INF is a pretty hot deal as is. Russia getting attacked and swamped...well, them let them put their INF on the bordering territory (to the one getting attacked) if they want to __ this could allow russia to plan on a counter attack to bury or far east...such as place all 4 in territory that is being attacked or place a total of 2 inf in a bordering owned territory...or some such thing

[axis_roll]

When Russia attacks ANY territory OWNED by Japan, then they forfeit the INF, rather than just the japanese yellow territories.

According to the FAQ (and I don't think Enhanced changed this), what you say is 100% true. I recently checked this very rule. It's clarified in the Revised FAQ:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

[Stephen]

Enhanced did change this:

6. Nonagression Treaty as Standard

-The first time in the game that the Japanese forces attack any red territory, you may place four of your infantry for free in that territory before resolving combat. If Japan attacks more than one red territory in that turn, you may decide which such territory receives the infantry. If you attack an orange territory before Japan attacks you, you lose this national advantage.

[axis_roll]

When is the Soviet Union considered to have broken the treaty -- when they attack an orange territory under Japanese control, any territory controlled by Japan, or any Japanese unit?
Any of the above. The only exception is an attack against Japanese naval units. The combat must take place in a land territory to qualify.

Copied right out of the FAQ.

I will send you the memo......

[Stephen]

I agree with you that the AAR FAQ specifies any land attack by Russia against Japan.

However, what I quoted was from the AARe 2.0 Beta rules. I think it's safe to assume that in cases where the rules conflict, for AARe the rules specified by CJ apply.

[axis_roll]

I agree with you that the AAR FAQ specifies any land attack by Russia against Japan.

However, what I quoted was from the AARe 2.0 Beta rules. I think it's safe to assume that in cases where the rules conflict, for AARe the rules specified by CJ apply.

I don't understand your confusion, Stephen. The AARe rules are the same as the AH rules... no?

I think you might be confused by just what is an orange territory. See, a red territory will always be originally Russia (unless USSR has conquered that territory, like say, West Russia on R1). This is mainly because of the alliance of the big three. If I take back India, for example, with USSR, it reverts back to UK control, hence a tan territory, not a red one.

When Japan conquers China, that becomes a orange territory. So if USSR were to retake it for USA, then you have indeed attacked an orange territory, and broken the non-agression pact.

Does that help clarify things?

[Stephen]

When Japan conquers China, that becomes a orange territory. So if USSR were to retake it for USA, then you have indeed attacked an orange territory, and broken the non-agression pact.

Does that help clarify things?
It depends on whether CJ considers occupied China an "orange" territory. I suspect he doesn't (and I don't, referring to all countries by their original colour).

Simplest approach is to wait until he wakes up (all the way over there near the West Coast) :) and see what his ruling is!

[DocD]

I don't understand your confusion, Stephen. The AARe rules are the same as the AH rules... no?

I think you might be confused by just what is an orange territory. See, a red territory will always be originally Russia (unless USSR has conquered that territory, like say, West Russia on R1). This is mainly because of the alliance of the big three. If I take back India, for example, with USSR, it reverts back to UK control, hence a tan territory, not a red one.

When Japan conquers China, that becomes a orange territory. So if USSR were to retake it for USA, then you have indeed attacked an orange territory, and broken the non-agression pact.

Does that help clarify things?
I don't agree here roll.

In AARe, I've always taken it as Russian units can fight Japanese units as long as the Soviets don't attack orginally orange territories.

It would be in the spirit to accept that if USSR is defending or attacking in China, they haven't broken any treaty. (Soviet backed-Communist forces are assumed to be fighting.) At least that is my take on it.

Otherwise this severely weakens the non-aggression pact to the point who needs it. CJ we need clarification here.

[axis_roll]

It says orange territory.

Not ORIGINAL orange territory.

The FAQ even specifies that ANY attack by USSR on any *** unit (other than Naval units, like that happens alot....) constitutes a breaking of the non-agression pact.

I guess it comes down to:

"How would you define an ORANGE territory?"

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

It says orange territory.

Not ORIGINAL orange territory.

The FAQ even specifies that ANY attack by USSR on any *** unit (other than Naval units, like that happens alot....) constitutes a breaking of the non-agression pact.

I guess it comes down to:

"How would you define an ORANGE territory?"



if japan captures china it is not orange territory. if this was the case the rules would just say japanese controlled territory.

i think the reason for the terminology of "orange territory" is because it is easier than saying an originally japanese held territory at the beginning of the board game.

so for the interpretation of the non-agression treaty, russia can attack japanese forces in china without breaking the treaty.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

this also has implications on russias lend lease and most powerful tanks, germanys atlantic wall, and uks radar.

again i believe that when the rules state a coloured territory it means the colour on the board and that never changes.

[axis_roll]

I am merely going by what the FAQ says regarding the AH standard non-Agression treaty NA that (I am fairly certain) Enhanced does not change.

All Enhanced does is make this Standard.

Personally, I think it's better the way you gents are arguing for (except Pagan, that is). I was surprised when I read the FAQ and found out otherwise. That's not to say Enhanced can not have a different interpretation of this NA.

LHTR does not alter this NA either, I believe.

Does anyone have a link to the original out of the box AH rules? I have the LHTR rules and Enhanced rules, but do not have my AH rules handy for comparison.

[Zero Pilot]

Here's the link for all the various rulebooks in PDF format:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/downloads

Or, for just the revised edition PDF:

http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axis2004.pdf

~ZP

[Stephen]

I'd like to hear some thoughts on the following proposals, particularly re: Na balancing...

1A. Radar "Increases" AA Defense by 1 (for AAGuns on Tan territories - same thing but worded differently). It also increases AA Defense by 1 for UK BB with the Combined Arms NA (thus UK BBs with Combined Arms and Radar NA fire 2 shots at 2)
I'm not too hot on this (seems very powerful)... then again, if balance is the key, this would go a long way toward balancing UK NAs.

1B. Jet Fighters "Decrease" AA Defense by 1 (ie. rather than completely immune). Thus Radar NA serves as an effective counter, particularly in India and Australia.
I like this change, simple and increases benefit of Radar.

2. Kamikazes can potentially be shot down by AA. This gives the US something they can do to protect their ACs. They would need US BBs and the Combined Bombardment Tech (16-24IPC) to do so though. Remember, if Japan gets JF, Kamikazes defend at 5. Also, with Japan getting Kami + LRA, US Navy is particularly vulnerable.
I don't mind this.

3. Special Forces INF can be matched with BBs and DDs (with Combined Arms), in addition to RTL, for a +1 attack benefit - just a little bit of extra beef to this NA. Marines matched with RTL, BB, and Combined Arms DDs now attack at 3 for the first round of combat only.
This seems complicated and excessive. I think the rule is fine as it stands.

4. Nonagression Treaty raised to 6INF instead of 4 - the Naval Advantage NA and changes to Tokyo Express have made taking Bury much easier. It's more of a no-brainer now for Russia to either take Man and give up it's 4 INF, or to just abandon Siberia altogether. 6INF gives the Bury stack strategy a little more viability.
Not sure I agree with this. Personally I love the concept of the non-aggression treaty but hate the application of it. I don't like Russia being handed free inf.
If they are to get free inf, I'd much rather see them have some incentive to keeping inf in the neighbourhood, with the reward that the more inf you have there, the more inf you'll get; the less inf you have there, the less you get.
But under the current rules, better to stick with 4 inf.

My 2 cents!

[DocD]

As for non-aggression, I'm still leaning toward 6 inf for Russia.

I don't think it really makes that much difference as before. In most games, Japan will have to swipe at the Russian bear at some point, so these extra 2 units is not going to be any real deterrent.

Just would be nice to bleed those Japanese units as much as possible.

[cousin_joe]

It depends on whether CJ considers occupied China an "orange" territory. I suspect he doesn't (and I don't, referring to all countries by their original colour).

Simplest approach is to wait until he wakes up (all the way over there near the West Coast) :) and see what his ruling is!
No change was intended from the AH rules. My understanding is that Orange territory means exactly that, a land territory that is colored orange on the board. :)

[pagan]

but the FAQ, which are the clarificaions for the AH rules say any territory owned by Japan.

Will you stay with the original rules, or do you want to make this specific modification?

In either case, you need to clarify it in the rules.

You know my opinion is for the original rules ; with any japanese owned territory

[DocD]

My opinion is for not the orginal rules. This weakens Non-aggression too much and really is not needed. Any troops the Soviets are sending into China or anywhere east for that matter is less troops they have to defend against a more threatening Germany.
The Soviets need a strong non-aggression treaty, not a weak one.

[pagan]

But DocD.... Soviets are still able to move things through the southern asian countries, but their hands are tied on the Attack only, not the defense.

[DocD]

But DocD.... Soviets are still able to move things through the southern asian countries, but their hands are tied on the Attack only, not the defense.And.....I don't see this as a problem.
The Soviets will always send things eastward "at their own risk". This to me in itself limits greatly anything the Russians can send into the Southern Asian Countries....at least for the first several rounds!

[pagan]

i don't think it limits the types of things russia send east. The gameplay will be to bolster singkiang on defense__stop german push through Jordan on offense___defend india__if needed attack india to remove japan form IC (what round is this? & this is a decison to be made). The game play will not change other than the 'who jumps first' thingy

[cousin_joe]

but the FAQ, which are the clarificaions for the AH rules say any territory owned by Japan.

Will you stay with the original rules, or do you want to make this specific modification?

In either case, you need to clarify it in the rules.

You know my opinion is for the original rules ; with any japanese owned territory
Oops, my mistake all. :o This is a link to the FAQ:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised#advantages

Here's the actual Excerpt:


When is the Soviet Union considered to have broken the treaty -- when they attack an orange territory under Japanese control, any territory controlled by Japan, or any Japanese unit?
Any of the above. The only exception is an attack against Japanese naval units. The combat must take place in a land territory to qualify.


As the FAQ clarifies the original rules, this is the interpration that will apply for Enhanced as well. Sorry for any confusion earlier, as I thought the actual rule was colored territories only. :o

[pagan]

YES !!

HA HA DocD.....I WIN !!

[cousin_joe]

I'm not too hot on this (seems very powerful)... then again, if balance is the key, this would go a long way toward balancing UK NAs. Balance is the key and this one is fair considering what UK needs to do to get it.

A. Only have one BB, too expensive to produce more
B. Get the Radar NA (in place of other, percievably more valuable NAs)
C. Get Combined Bombard for 16-24IPC, a big price for UK, and not effective til round 2 or 3 at the earliest.

Not really worth it just for the 2 AA shots on a single BB, but gives a potential counter for a Japanese Long-Range Kami with Jet Power hurtling towarsd UK ACs in the Atlantic strategy :)

I like this change, simple and increases benefit of Radar. Yes, precisely.

I don't mind this. It's needed to give the US some hope of AC protection, if they're willing to pay extra for it.

This seems complicated and excessive. I think the rule is fine as it stands. Don't worry, it's gone. :)



Not sure I agree with this. Personally I love the concept of the non-aggression treaty but hate the application of it. I don't like Russia being handed free inf.
If they are to get free inf, I'd much rather see them have some incentive to keeping inf in the neighbourhood, with the reward that the more inf you have there, the more inf you'll get; the less inf you have there, the less you get.
But under the current rules, better to stick with 4 inf.
Most prefer to keep as is and I won't argue. Again, the less changes the better.

[DocD]

As the FAQ clarifies the original rules, this is the interpration that will apply for Enhanced as well. Sorry for any confusion earlier, as I thought the actual rule was colored territories only. :o
OK, I don't have a problem with this.

I thought this was limiting defense and attack. It only limits attack...that's fine.

[DocD]

YES !!

HA HA DocD.....I WIN !!
Yeah, you win...my bad. I don't have a problem with this now....I guess I didn't understand what was actually being argured. :D

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

Yeah, you win...my bad. I don't have a problem with this now....I guess I didn't understand what was actually being argured. :D

i still do have a problem with this. i did understand what was actually being argued, and it still makes sense to allow russians to attack japanese occupied china without breaking the treaty.

game play: the more action, in more areas on the map the better. making china and sinkiang hotzones adds depth to games, instead of japan quickly taking china and sinkiang and waiting in sinkiang untill it seems like a good time to break the treaty.

it also is contradictory to the rule that says japan does not break the treaty when it attacks sinkiang with russian forces defending. this is japanese troops attacking russian troops, but treaty stands? when russia does the same attack on sinkiang the treaty is broken? this rule sounds broken.

historical: i am not a history major so if you are knowledgable on this subject please pipe up. russia could have supported communist chinese with weapons and training without breaking the treaty. similar to how the us supplied chinese forces before officially being at war with japan.

it makes sense to have the treaty in effect untill japan attacks a red territory or russia attacks an orange territory. and when i use a colour i am refering to the colour on the board not an imaginary abstract definition of what a colour is.

if anyone disagrees i would like to hear why. however i am not interested in arguments that state that this is what the rules and the faq says, because, and i know this comes as a great suprise, sometimes the out of the box rules are not the best rules.

[axis_roll]

however i am not interested in arguments that state that this is what the rules and the faq says, because, and i know this comes as a great suprise, sometimes the out of the box rules are not the best rules.


OUCH!

Thanks for the backhander AWNIL :(

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

OUCH!

Thanks for the backhander AWNIL :(

sorry axis_roll i was not trying to take a jab at anyone. i really do want to hear if anyone has good reasons why this rule should not be changed for enhanced, without holding up this as an excuse. if not i would hope that joe (or enough people would convince joe) will change it.

[Stephen]

I can go either way on this, but had originally assumed that Joe's rule was as it stated, orange territories.

To be frank, I don't mind Russia doing battle with Japan in China but I intensely dislike Russia being able to fight (attack) Japan in India or Persia, while holding on to the "non-aggression" treaty. Attacking your non-aggression treaty partner... makes...sense... how?

The danger in making it only orange territories is that, IMO, the game is designed to see allies help each other, and to see Russian help in defending China. I have zero problem with Russia defending with US forces in Sinkiang or China, and don't mind too much Russia pushing Japan out of China.

Then again, do I want to see Russia knocking the Japanese out of China while holding a border at Buryat with a non-aggression treaty? It's a tough one.

My vote goes for this: anything goes in China. Russia can attack, be attacked, and there is no penalty for the treaty. But an attack against Japan in orange or brown territories results in the treaty being broken.

I know it's a bit more complicated, but IMHO it's best for gameplay.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

My vote goes for this: anything goes in China. Russia can attack, be attacked, and there is no penalty for the treaty. But an attack against Japan in orange or brown territories results in the treaty being broken.

I know it's a bit more complicated, but IMHO it's best for gameplay.

i could not agree more.

[DocD]

Ok, Stephen and Love...you guys have brought me back in. I thought I was out, but they keep pulling me back in!

Yeah, I like your take on things Stephen. Why can't the Allies help each other? Especially in China! And as I stated earlier, how often is Russia going to be able to send more than a token force to these areas anyway.

I'm for limiting non-aggression to only original orange, etc.

[luke swensen]

durring ww2 Japan was so worried adout breaking the treaty with Russia, that the didn't let Germany fly their plans with military secrets over the northern part of Russia. So I believe that if Russia was to attack anything that Japan occupied or has men on, they would hold that as an act of war.

[cousin_joe]

Okay, now I see the reason for confusion. :o I knew I saw the orange territory thing somewhere and I did, it was in the LHTR, which is what Enhanced is based off of. Here is the excerpt:


2. Nonaggression Treaty
The Japanese refrained from attacking the Soviet Union during most of the war. They already had one bear coming at them from the east.
The first time in the game that the Japanese forces attack any red territory, you may place four of your infantry for free in that territory before resolving combat. If Japan attacks more than one red territory in that turn, you may decide which such territory receives the infantry. If you attack an orange territory before Japan attacks you, you lose this national advantage.


and the link:

http://dicey.net/revised/viewtopic.php?t=2

LHTR cleared up a lot of the ambiguity in the AH rules and thus served as the base ruleset for the Enhanced rules. It looks like Russia can do what they want in China as long as they don't attack an orange territory.

[cousin_joe]

Okay, now I see the reason for confusion. :o I knew I saw the orange territory thing somewhere and I did, it was in the LHTR, which is what Enhanced is based off of. Here is the excerpt:

Quote:

2. Nonaggression Treaty
The Japanese refrained from attacking the Soviet Union during most of the war. They already had one bear coming at them from the east.
The first time in the game that the Japanese forces attack any red territory, you may place four of your infantry for free in that territory before resolving combat. If Japan attacks more than one red territory in that turn, you may decide which such territory receives the infantry. If you attack an orange territory before Japan attacks you, you lose this national advantage.



and the link:

http://dicey.net/revised/viewtopic.php?t=2

LHTR cleared up a lot of the ambiguity in the AH rules and thus served as the base ruleset for the Enhanced rules. It looks like Russia can do what they want in China as long as they don't attack an orange territory.
Sorry I haven't been able to finish the Enhanced 2.0 Ruleset yet, I've been uber-busy with work and all, plus there were still some other rule issues to be resolved. I should be able to produce something either before or during this weekend. :)

[axis_roll]

Okay, now I see the reason for confusion. :o I knew I saw the orange territory thing somewhere and I did, it was in the LHTR, which is what Enhanced is based off of. Here is the excerpt:


and the link:

http://dicey.net/revised/viewtopic.php?t=2

LHTR cleared up a lot of the ambiguity in the AH rules and thus served as the base ruleset for the Enhanced rules. It looks like Russia can do what they want in China as long as they don't attack an orange territory.

So an "Orange Territory" is orange colored on the map, right? Not Japanese controlled....

[cousin_joe]

So an "Orange Territory" is orange colored on the map, right? Not Japanese controlled....
Yes, that is correct. :)

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

So an "Orange Territory" is orange colored on the map, right? Not Japanese controlled....

joe good call, of making orange, orange agian.

please insert your own knock knock joke here.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

joe do you have any information if triplea will get enhanced anytime soon. i can not wait for that to happen. it would become the best gaming experience, besides sitting down with friends.

[pagan]

Bad idea gentlemen.

Keep the rules the way they are in the box edition.

Main arguement is the ability of russia to not be able to attack a japanese territory...
The premise for this is NOT true.

Russia can attack japan at the consequence of breaking the treaty.
Japan can attack russia at the consequence of breaking the treaty.

the treaty is to the benefit of RUSSIA. Japan doesn't win on this one.
so the hinderance here for russia is attacking japanese forces, where defense of allied territories is politically acceptable.

The DECISION to attack on either party is mutual.

Russia wants to hit China becasue it can cause strain on weak japanese land forces, then if it goes on teh offensive it has DECIDED to break the treaty.

Why benefit russia all the way around?

Anyone arguing about choice is only arguing about choice WITHOUT russian consequences.

The best choices are as I have stated.

Who jumps first will become more and more of a strategic decision as the game goes into multiple rounds.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

Russia can attack japan at the consequence of breaking the treaty.
Japan can attack russia at the consequence of breaking the treaty.


but there is a contradiction with this logic. japan can attack russian forces in chinese territories and not break the treaty. while you propose that russians can not attack japanese in chinese territory without breaking the treaty.

[cousin_joe]

Bad idea gentlemen.

Keep the rules the way they are in the box edition.

Main arguement is the ability of russia to not be able to attack a japanese territory...
The premise for this is NOT true.

Russia can attack japan at the consequence of breaking the treaty.
Japan can attack russia at the consequence of breaking the treaty.

the treaty is to the benefit of RUSSIA. Japan doesn't win on this one.
so the hinderance here for russia is attacking japanese forces, where defense of allied territories is politically acceptable.

The DECISION to attack on either party is mutual.

Russia wants to hit China becasue it can cause strain on weak japanese land forces, then if it goes on teh offensive it has DECIDED to break the treaty.

Why benefit russia all the way around?

Anyone arguing about choice is only arguing about choice WITHOUT russian consequences.

The best choices are as I have stated.
The whole issue boils down to this:

Should Russian units be able to attack Japanese troops in China/Sink and Persia/India without loss of their 4 free INF???

If you say NO, then you severely restrict what Russia is able to do. The reason Enhanced is so much superior to the base rules is the ability to make choices. Having Russia lose their 4 free INF for attacking a Japanese controlled territory (non-orange) severely limits that as an option. They basically become limited to Eastern Front or Defend Only.

[pagan]

The Restrictions are the result of the Soviet/Japanese Non-Agression pact. If you consider that the 'orange' territories as the focus of breaking the treaty, and you think it in any way hindering to both russia AND japan, then you are fooling yourself. If russia wants to attack becasue buryatia will fall to japanese pressure + the INf , then attack!

A good change to make would be the placement of the russian INF. Allow russia to place its INF in either the territory being attacked, or a bordering territory it owns, and in any combination.

If we go with the more popular flow of words here, then all it is is a hindrance to japan, which allows russia to run freely against japan without restriction. I think the name should be changed: the SCREW JAPAN IN ASIA game rule! or how about the NO JTDTM VIABLE STRATEGY RULE! our motto: "we don't just make it suck, we make japan pay!"

supposed contradiiction in the treaty (as i view the treaty): nope. Russia can get +4INF [this is 12 IPCs gents], and their only restriction is they cannot be offensive to japanese forces. Here I see a benefit & a hinderance placed BOTH on russia. The benifit for russia is the result of teh japanese hinderance of non-compliance into Russian 'OWNED' territories. In fact, you can even look at it as Japans forces in killing russian defenders is making more likely the Treaty will collapse. Again: Who Jumps First?

[pagan]

Whatever the ruling ends up being there is a more pressing matter to be addressed:

AARe DICE ROLLER !

If someone wants money, then that could be arranged I'm sure.
People should get paid for their codes.

[DocD]

The Restrictions are the result of the Soviet/Japanese Non-Agression pact. If you consider that the 'orange' territories as the focus of breaking the treaty, and you think it in any way hindering to both russia AND japan, then you are fooling yourself. If russia wants to attack becasue buryatia will fall to japanese pressure + the INf , then attack!

A good change to make would be the placement of the russian INF. Allow russia to place its INF in either the territory being attacked, or a bordering territory it owns, and in any combination.

If we go with the more popular flow of words here, then all it is is a hindrance to japan, which allows russia to run freely against japan without restriction. I think the name should be changed: the SCREW JAPAN IN ASIA game rule! or how about the NO JTDTM VIABLE STRATEGY RULE! our motto: "we don't just make it suck, we make japan pay!"

supposed contradiiction in the treaty (as i view the treaty): nope. Russia can get +4INF [this is 12 IPCs gents], and their only restriction is they cannot be offensive to japanese forces. Here I see a benefit & a hinderance placed BOTH on russia. The benifit for russia is the result of teh japanese hinderance of non-compliance into Russian 'OWNED' territories. In fact, you can even look at it as Japans forces in killing russian defenders is making more likely the Treaty will collapse. Again: Who Jumps First?
I really feel that you are overstretching the capabilities of the Russians in Asia, Pagan.

Have I seen Russian forces liberating China and India...yeah, but the war was well on its way to being an Allied victory anyway.

I just don't see massive Russian offensives in Asia until things have been settled on the German front. Am I wrong here guys? And even if the Allies are doing a KJF, will the treaty even matter anyway to the Soviets?


You are making an arguement that maybe the Russians will use this to invade into Manchuria or some other territory to prevent a Japanese attack? I hardly see how that even matters.

Japan is the strongest power on the Asian mainland...period. Limiting their ability will not "screw them" out of anything. How many times have you seen China being little more than a speed bump on the road to moscow?

Come on, I think you are overemphasizing this one.

[Stephen]

It is possible that the strategy of tying Japan up in India using Russian forces is being overstated, but I've seen this strategy used before and it's infuriating as Japan to have to be attacked and attack Russian territories in non-Russian, non-Japanese territories, yet to still face the dilemma of seeing *4 free inf* put down because *Japan* is violating the non-aggression treaty.

That's the part that I don't get. Now I know I'm contradicting myself when I say that I don't mind Russia fighting Japan in China, but China is very, very poorly represented in this game. The only way China can be effectively defended is with Russian help. So I'm not against limiting that.

But Persia, India, I disagree. Russia should not be able to fight Japan in originally UK territories and if Russia does get involved, it should forfeit its free inf. I'm all for forcing Britain to defend India.

[DocD]

I disagree here with you too Stephen. Again, Russian forces in India don't come a dime a dozen, so I don't see a problem with Russian forces attacking here either.

So what if Russia is able to get around the treaty alittle. Doesn't change the fact that Britian will always have to defend India and Japan will always have to defend and attack in asia.

If Russia is doing this well in Asia, then Germany just isn't doing its job and the Axis should suffer for being just dumb.

I don't see a problem with Russia doing what it can in India or China or any non-orange terrritory.

[pagan]

I understand DocD. But I am not overemphasizing the power of an attacking Russia.

Alone, they dont have the power, but with a Delay-Japan strategy + Non-Agression pact where they can attack through the asia territories (excluding orange) then Japan is 'hard-pressed' to even be able to stay on land. A 'Concerto' effort equates to Japan getting owned in asia.

Its been done to me more than once. Its a brutal tactic against japan with USA coming in hard from the pacific.

I think CJ has enough to go on to make a decision as to how he wants his game to go.

And I totally understand the need for multiple fronts by each country.

[pagan]

I've got a question regarding TECHs boys:

The current standing is 4:2 for tech roll minimums.

Should a player be able to spend for 6 dice straight out and get the tech?

I think he should simply for the fact that: the costs for the Tech have been paid.

Buy 6 dice and you get the tech.

No luck ; No cheapies

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

I've got a question regarding TECHs boys:

The current standing is 4:2 for tech roll minimums.

Should a player be able to spend for 6 dice straight out and get the tech?

I think he should simply for the fact that: the costs for the Tech have been paid.
at first i liked the idea that technology could not be garaunteed in one round. but the more i play i see a huge difference in the games where a side gets technology in the first attempt(although partly due to the fact that they spent less ipc). so i now agree with you pagan. if a player wants to pay the whole amount up front i think they should acquire the desired technology

[axis_roll]

Since tech is still delayed, I don't think this is necessarily a bad option. In essence, you are trading the chance to get the tech cheaply to ensure you get it next round.

Sounds like another good OPTION that Enhanced is all about....

[DocD]

I understand DocD. But I am not overemphasizing the power of an attacking Russia.

Alone, they dont have the power, but with a Delay-Japan strategy + Non-Agression pact where they can attack through the asia territories (excluding orange) then Japan is 'hard-pressed' to even be able to stay on land. A 'Concerto' effort equates to Japan getting owned in asia.

Its been done to me more than once. Its a brutal tactic against japan with USA coming in hard from the pacific.

I think CJ has enough to go on to make a decision as to how he wants his game to go.

And I totally understand the need for multiple fronts by each country.
Even this "brutal tactic" carries signficant risk to Russia and I'm not quite sure you understand how little this Russian effort in Asia matters.
Also, with all due respect, I would have to say you may not have been playing enhanced with a "enhanced mindset" at that time. (I'm not trying to belittle your play style so don't take it as that, please!) :)

The multiple fronts in enhance is its greast strength, and to many players, its greatest enigma.

Germany can no longer hold off the Allies and play "footsies" with Russia while waiting for the Imperial Army to march on Moscow.
Germany should strike hard at Russia or run the risk that the Soviet bear go east to the discouragement of Japan. That is the enhanced world, that is the enhanced way.

As for me, with two VCs in constant and immediate danger, Russia is least of the Allies I would worry about in Asia...attack or defense.

[DocD]

I've got a question regarding TECHs boys:

The current standing is 4:2 for tech roll minimums.

Should a player be able to spend for 6 dice straight out and get the tech?

I think he should simply for the fact that: the costs for the Tech have been paid.

Buy 6 dice and you get the tech.

No luck ; No cheapies
I have to say pagan...you bring up some awesome ideas.

The only thing I see wrong with the 4:2 rule, and somebody else already pointed this out, is that a player gets tech cheaper and quicker than maybe another player who got it for more money and took longer.

I would have to punder this one. I'm not ready to pay for tech outright though....seems un-Axis and Allies to me.

[axis_roll]

I'm not ready to pay for tech outright though....seems un-Axis and Allies to me.

Well... you are ALREADY doing that if you play Enhanced with th 4:2 rule... albeit sometimes in the two installments plan!

[DocD]

Well... you are ALREADY doing that if you play Enhanced with th 4:2 rule... albeit sometimes in the two installments plan!
Yeah, but at least I get to roll dice like in the ole days!!! :D

[Stephen]

The only thing I see wrong with the 4:2 rule, and somebody else already pointed this out, is that a player gets tech cheaper and quicker than maybe another player who got it for more money and took longer.
I don't get it:

Johnny #1: pays 20 IPCs R1, misses, and then pays 10 IPCs R2, and succeeds.

Johnny #2: pays 30 IPCs R1, and succeeds.

In my books, it's impossible for Johnny #1 to pay more than Johnny #2. It is, though, possible for Johnny #1 to pay less than Johnny #2.

So I don't see this rule as inherently unfair. Not sure I agree with it, but I don't necessarily disagree with it.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

I don't get it:

if player #1(you can call him johnny if you like) goes for major tech and rolls 4 dice, and gets it. 20ipc and 1 round to get tech

player #2 goes for major tech and rolls 4 dice and misses, then next round rolls 2 dice and is garuanteed tech. 30 ipc and 2 rounds to get tech

so a player can pay more, and take longer to get the same tech, than another player.

[DocD]

It is, though, possible for Johnny #1 to pay less than Johnny #2.

This is what I meant stephen. Why does a player who pays more for tech, get tech one turn later. In essence, paying more for less.

I can't say I want 4:2 to change though. I like the idea of rolling dice for tech. I have to see what CJ thinks of all this. He and I have had several discussion on tech....at this point I like 4:2, even though it appears unfair.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

i like pagans suggestion of giving players the option to forgoe the chance of getting a cheap tech(4 dice first round and suceeding) for the more costly but certainty of tech(6 dice, garauteed tech first round)

[luke swensen]

I was wondering how you could get someone that is on line to coment on things?

[cousin_joe]

Whatever the ruling ends up being there is a more pressing matter to be addressed:

AARe DICE ROLLER !

If someone wants money, then that could be arranged I'm sure.
People should get paid for their codes.
If someone wants to design an AARe roller, I would be willing to pay a small amount of cash, not something you'd make a fortune off of, but enough to reasonably compensate you for your time. :)

I do have some PHP knowledge, and had plans to design one myself, but just haven't had the time to do so :( If anyone's interested, let me know and we can discuss it.

[cousin_joe]

I understand DocD. But I am not overemphasizing the power of an attacking Russia.

Alone, they dont have the power, but with a Delay-Japan strategy + Non-Agression pact where they can attack through the asia territories (excluding orange) then Japan is 'hard-pressed' to even be able to stay on land. A 'Concerto' effort equates to Japan getting owned in asia.

Its been done to me more than once. Its a brutal tactic against japan with USA coming in hard from the pacific.

I think CJ has enough to go on to make a decision as to how he wants his game to go.

And I totally understand the need for multiple fronts by each country.
Hey Pagan,

The US and UK start out with very little in Asia, and to deter Russia from being able to attack Japanese troops in Sink and Ind (by having them sacrifice their 4 free INF) really hurts this more. Japan will be able to take territories at will and subsequently land planes the next turn to further reinforce. This is especially important early on until the Western Allies can build up their own sfficient troops to fight back without Russian support.

I don't think the Nonagression Treaty limits Japan's options. It will certainly SLOW them down, but Bury is VERY accessible as of Round 2 if the Russians don't protect and Japan really wants it. Otherwise, I usually see it go down eventually in Rounds 3-5.

[cousin_joe]

I've got a question regarding TECHs boys:

The current standing is 4:2 for tech roll minimums.

Should a player be able to spend for 6 dice straight out and get the tech?

I think he should simply for the fact that: the costs for the Tech have been paid.

Buy 6 dice and you get the tech.

No luck ; No cheapies
You know, when I first saw this idea, I didn't like it. But now that I think about it, I think it actually might not be too bad.

Pay 30IPC up front for a 100% chance at the Tech, but at a more expensive price.

Pay only 20IPC up front, for a 50% chance, but with the knowledge you'll get it next for sure for 30IPC (your only punishment is waiting a turn)

There's a little more strategy here, as YOU make the call. Do you want to play it safe, and pay the whole shot now?... or do you want to take a chance and try and get it cheap? People are more responsible for the decision they make, rather than just attributing the outcome to the dice.

I like it! It's in! Good idea Pagan.

[pagan]

YES ! I WIN AGAIN !!!


{but DocD did reposess my earlier trophy...} BLAST!

DocD: I am a newb to Enhanced & am not 'on-the-cj-bandwagon' yet. HOWEVER - I do admit to my current AARe games being more fun than any basic games I've had. I am only making my points vocal, and if you more "experienced" enhanced players see the need for a more agressive russia in asia without upsetting the balance then it must be so. That clarification on 'orange' territories for the rules was absolutely necessary too.

[axis_roll]

I don't think the Nonagression Treaty limits Japan's options.

Gents,

I figured since Enhanced used LHTR as its base rules set, that I would try to get a clarification of how LHTR interprets this NA (since Enhanced did not change the LHTR rule, just made it standard)

So I asked the original rules commitee for an answer: Follow: http://dicey.net/revised/viewtopic.php?t=43 for the outcome.

[DocD]

Gents,

I figured since Enhanced used LHTR as its base rules set, that I would try to get a clarification of how LHTR interprets this NA (since Enhanced did not change the LHTR rule, just made it standard)

So I asked the original rules commitee for an answer: Follow: http://dicey.net/revised/viewtopic.php?t=43 for the outcome.
Oh, give it up roll. The enhanced ruleset overrules this.

Besides, changing it only weakens the Soviets, and this is not needed.

[DocD]

YES ! I WIN AGAIN !!!


{but DocD did reposess my earlier trophy...} BLAST!

DocD: I am a newb to Enhanced & am not 'on-the-cj-bandwagon' yet. HOWEVER - I do admit to my current AARe games being more fun than any basic games I've had. I am only making my points vocal, and if you more "experienced" enhanced players see the need for a more agressive russia in asia without upsetting the balance then it must be so. That clarification on 'orange' territories for the rules was absolutely necessary too.
So you got CJ to change 4:2 eh!

Cool, this is what makes enhanced the best ruleset yet. Players talking about what works and what could work better!

I admit, I was skeptical at first, but this seems ok. Anybody worried about the US getting HB's one round early for sure?

If not, let's do it then. If so, let's talk about it.

[axis_roll]

Oh, give it up roll. The enhanced ruleset overrules this.

Besides, changing it only weakens the Soviets, and this is not needed.
So you're chastising me for wanting to know how LHTR interprets this rule??

Give me a break, will you DocD?

nice courtesy exhibited there.....

[pagan]

Alright you 'e' players.... I'm 2-0 with the Axis !!!!

[DocD]

So you're chastising me for wanting to know how LHTR interprets this rule??

Give me a break, will you DocD?

nice courtesy exhibited there.....
LOL, :D sorry roll....don't take it personal....I chastise everybody at some point. :D

It's the DocD way of doing business.

Hey, what's wrong with the way CJ interpreted?

[axis_roll]

LOL, :D sorry roll....don't take it personal....I chastise everybody at some point. :D

It's the DocD way of doing business.

Hey, what's wrong with the way CJ interpreted?
I never said there was anything wrong with the Enhanced ruling...
In fact, I even opinioned that I preferred it ths way as well earlier in this thread.

I was merely trying to see what LHTR says... so we know that the two rules sets are either in agreement or if the enhanced NA is different and should then be noted more clearly such.

OK?

[axis_roll]

Alright you 'e' players.... I'm 2-0 with the Axis !!!!
You won't be 3-0 if I can help it...!

Where's the end of Germany turn 2?

[DocD]

I never said there was anything wrong with the Enhanced ruling...
In fact, I even opinioned that I preferred it ths way as well earlier in this thread.

I was merely trying to see what LHTR says... so we know that the two rules sets are either in agreement or if the enhanced NA is different and should then be noted more clearly such.

OK?
It's all OK. Glad to see we don't disagree on this one brotha.

[luke swensen]

They look good. Number four is the only one i wouldn't us until the third or fourth round. I always attack Russia as Japan but I go through China to do so. This hurts Russia more in the long run because you can hit things that are worth more. Especially if the American player puts an IC in one of the China territories. Bonzi this whole area and the Allies will be hurting.

[DocD]

They look good. Number four is the only one i wouldn't us until the third or fourth round. I always attack Russia as Japan but I go through China to do so. This hurts Russia more in the long run because you can hit things that are worth more. Especially if the American player puts an IC in one of the China territories. Bonzi this whole area and the Allies will be hurting.
You are very correct luke! All this talk about what russia is going to do in China....ha.....Japan owns China!!
Or at least they should by round 3! :D

[DocD]

Enhanced v2.0 Final?........

Anybody seen CJ around lately?

I hope Santa Clausey hasn't shuffled him up to the North Pole.

[pagan]

Tokyo Express ----

can only pick up and carry 1INF on amphib/combat movement ??????
can pick up and carry 2INF on NCM ??????

This is a bad idea for the NA.


Tokyo Express should be viewed this way---->

0. DD can conduct Naval Battle OR Amphibious assault
0. DD can amphib only 1INF
(these are the only changes to the actual game rules necessary)

1. on pickup the DD could pick up INf in either phase: combat AND/OR non-combat
2. DD amphib can only drop off 1 INF
3. non-combat phase can drop off last INF if its in the SAME zone (Tranys cannot drop off into two different zones)

you can do all 3 things (1-3) with transports if you wanted to by the rules.

TRANY Excerpts from FAQ & RuleBook:

[FAQ] Must I offload all the units from a transport?
No. Units may stay on board when other units offload. For example, one unit may offload during an amphibious assault, while another may offload into the same territory during the noncombat move.

[RuleBook] Loading & Offloading
A transport can load cargo before, during, and after its move. A transport can pick up cargo, move 1 sea zone, pick up more cargo, move 1 more sea zone, and offload the cargo at the end of its movement. It may also remain at sea with the cargo still aboard. A transport can offload into a hostile territory only during an amphibious assault.

Whenever a transport offloads, it cannot move again that turn (except when retreating). A transport can never offload in two territories during a single turn, nor can it offload cargo onto another transport.

A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.

If a sea zone contains hostile units, the transport may not load or offload in that sea zone.

[axis_roll]

1. on pickup the DD could pick up INf in either phase: combat AND/OR non-combat
2. DD amphib can only drop off 1 INF
3. non-combat phase can drop off last INF if its in the SAME zone (Tranys cannot drop off into two different zones)
on #2, can the DD do an offshore if they have combined arms?

[Stephen]

Have the AARe 2.0 Final rules been posted yet?

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

Tokyo Express ----

can only pick up and carry 1INF on amphib/combat movement ??????
can pick up and carry 2INF on NCM ??????

This is a bad idea for the NA.


Tokyo Express should be viewed this way---->

0. DD can conduct Naval Battle OR Amphibious assault
0. DD can amphib only 1INF
(these are the only changes to the actual game rules necessary)

1. on pickup the DD could pick up INf in either phase: combat AND/OR non-combat
2. DD amphib can only drop off 1 INF
3. non-combat phase can drop off last INF if its in the SAME zone (Tranys cannot drop off into two different zones)

you can do all 3 things (1-3) with transports if you wanted to by the rules.



another good idea pagan. i hope this is how the rule is written.

[pagan]

on #2, can the DD do an offshore if they have combined arms?By the rules they can. HOWEVER, the TE change is that Japan has to decide if its going to use its DDs for Amphib OR NAval battle. So they can Amphib+Bombard OR fight in a Naval Battle

The rules as CJ has written for TE basically means that no one in their right mind will ever get TE again.

The way I have it written, then they are the same as a transport (INF only) and can only be used in one or the other WITHOUT inhibiting thier drop-offs. The power of the DDs are reduced due to not being able to do naval combat & amphib PLUS they can only amphib 1 inf unit. Decreasing their ability even further is not a good idea.

I have been using these things. They are not that good as it stands. NAval battles seriously inhibit their use. PLUS DDs have to be in specific areas to drop of units at all menaing that they are not out fighting against other naval powers. You just cant do everything with these things.

It is a fundamental difference that makes a BIG difference.

[cousin_joe]

I am pretty much finished writing up the rules. Tokyo Express remains the final stumbling block. I had asked for a rules clarification on LHTR transport rules at the AAMC that I needed to know before finalizing Tokyo Express.

Here are the principles behind LHTR transport rules:

-Units loaded in Combat, must be used in combat
-If two units are aboard a tranport, you can only unload the transport once ie. in combat or noncombat. Once unloaded, the transport's move is finsihed
-No unit (except planes), can participate in Combat and NCM on the same TURN
-No unit (except planes), can participate in MORE than one combat in one TURN

AARe uses LHTR as it's base, and so these principles must generally hold. Keep these in mind while I address Pagan's post.

[cousin_joe]

Tokyo Express ----

can only pick up and carry 1INF on amphib/combat movement ??????
can pick up and carry 2INF on NCM ??????

This is a bad idea for the NA.
The whole strategic idea of the NA is that instead of buying transports, which are militarily quite weak, you can buy destroyers instead, which supplements your navy, without losing too much on the transporting end. They are NOT meant to totally replace transports by making them obsolete.

Tokyo Express should be viewed this way---->

0. DD can conduct Naval Battle OR Amphibious assault
0. DD can amphib only 1INF
(these are the only changes to the actual game rules necessary)

1. on pickup the DD could pick up INf in either phase: combat AND/OR non-combat
2. DD amphib can only drop off 1 INF
3. non-combat phase can drop off last INF if its in the SAME zone (Tranys cannot drop off into two different zones)

you can do all 3 things (1-3) with transports if you wanted to by the rules.


The TE DD does not become a transport. It is at heart still a destroyer with transport capabilities. Therefore, you must also take into account some limitations of the destroyer.

Now, refer to the principles I mentioned in the previous thread.

1. No unit (except planes) can participate in two combats on the same turn. DDs, like their BB counterparts, must only participate in one combat, either the naval attack or the amphibious assault. If the SZ is occupied, then the DD, like the BB, is compelled to participate in the naval attack. However, it cannot participate in both.

2. No unit (except planes) can participate in combat and NCM. In AH rules, units could unload one unit in combat, one in NCM. LHTR states not, the transport can only unload in either combat or noncombat but not both. Even from the AH rules though, once a TRN offloads, it cannot move again that turn (some argument as to how to interpret move in that statement - physical movement, or any further action)

Now, I know not all the LHTR changes are popular... heck, there's even some that I frankly don't like, but, in the end, I'd like to see Enhanced get variant status in the clubs and for that, LHTR needs to be in the base ruleset.

I disagree though that no one will pick Tokyo Express in it's scheduled state. From playtests, it was quite overpowered in it's previous state (amphibs with 2INF). It is simply more reasonable for certain strategies and not the Super Versatile NA it was previously.

Major uses:

NCMing INF over to Asian mainland while maintaining strong navy
Extra support (in addition to transports) for Amphibs on Haw and Aus

[pagan]

I want to go through some PROBLEMS here.....

-Units loaded in Combat, must be used in combat
--->why? Why can't i load up my stuff and move my tranys into a territory and not unload them. I must decide this stuff before combat commences anyway. Aren't they in combat if they are in a naval fight as casualties? And if so what unit actually gets 'used' in combat: the trany or the loaded units?

-If two units are aboard a tranport, you can only unload the transport once ie. in combat or noncombat. Once unloaded, the transport's move is finsihed
--->The FAQ and 20 years of trany use says they can offload their cargo in either & both phases but the stipulation has always been 'to the same territory'. There is no possible reason why a transport cannot unload its payload in combat & again in NCm. It is done in Real Life amphib situations, and it should be able to be done in this game. In fact, is CAN be done in the game. The reason for the restriction is a confused look at what comprises an attack and what does not. A transport is attacking in a naval fight. a trany is not attacking a territory during amphib: The UNITS it drops off are attacking the territory.

-No unit (except planes), can participate in Combat and NCM on the same TURN
---> except Trany drops as the 'unit' is actually participating in only the NCM. The trany in the naval battle being able to be taken as a casualty IS in the fight. Now it can drop off its stuff on the NCM if it survives.

-No unit (except planes), can participate in MORE than one combat in one TURN
---> and nothing does INCLUDING planes in the base game (excluding NAs)
---> AARe Combined Bombardment Tech allows BBs to combat twice (air and naval)
---> NA Lighning Assault allows mulitple combats
---> NA Tokyo Express allows naval fighting + bombard + amphib

[axis_roll]

You are arguing about the Base rules set: LHTR.

Many of these decisions were reached for clarification purposes. For example, movement rules were clarified: If I am moving in combat movement, the pieces being moved must go into combat ONLY!

National advantages are exceptions. So when you quote them as "rule breakers", you have to keep that in mind... they are PURPOSELY written to break rules to make them an advantage.

[Caractacus]

Just to return briefly to the Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Treaty:

Why not compromise along the following lines - The Russians may not ATTACK Japanese forces in China or India (or anywhere else that isn't a Japanese orange space), but they may BE ATTACKED without breaking the treaty.

I.e. The issue is then that, for instance, that the Russians could be invited into India (Churchill spins in grave, Stalin's shade giggles and drips saliva) and help defend it if the Japanese come (and they will) without breaking the treaty (a proxy war). Even if successful in the defence, the Russians could not, though, push on in their turn into the space the attack was launched from, as this is currently (presumably - hard to see whose else it could be) a Japanese space.

Similarly, the Japanese can fight the Russians without breaking the treaty as long as it does not affect a space that is either Red Russian, or Russian because they captured it from Germany.

In brief, they can fight each other in territories that are not owned by either of the two sides. The Japanese though, can launch attacks , the Russian must defend.

Any good?

[pagan]

I have argued that basically defense is not an overt-hostile act and thus does not break the treaty. A directed attack against a territory is an attack on the owner of that territory (the taking of IPCs) no matter what is in there defending it.

No one other than myself thinks the Japan/russo Non-Agro pact (as written for AAR) is good for the AARe game.

[pagan]

AXIS ROLL --> 'rule breakers' as listed are "exceptions" to the rule. But whatever language you want to use, there are also changes to the rules with Techs.

Are Techs 'rule-breakers' too?

And in order to follow the LHTR to the letter AARe Tech Combiined Bombardment needs to be changed.

Let's get consistent no matter if its bad for the game or not.

Consistent = Consistent (right?)

how about this:
If I am moving in combat movement, the pieces being moved must go into combat ONLY!is a naval vessel that moves into a sez zone with occupying enemy naval units moving "into" combat?

If the answer is "Yes" then a transport can NOT amphib due to 'No unit is able to attack twice' _;_ don't let your language confuse you about a zero attack versus a non-attack.

If the answer is "No", then you are being disengenuous as a trany being able to be taken as a casualty makes a different statement. RuleBook pg.19, third column, 3rd paragraph: "All your sea units (including your transports) attack all enemy sea units and fighters in that sea zone."

I guess we could find "exceptions" to make the game better, but that wouldn't be "consistent" with the rules whether we are looking at LHTR or the core rules.

[axis_roll]

how about this: is a naval vessel that moves into a sez zone with occupying enemy naval units moving "into" combat?

If the answer is "Yes" then a transport can NOT amphib due to 'No unit is able to attack twice' _;_ don't let your language confuse you about a zero attack versus a non-attack.
First of all, I am no expert on LHTR.

My opinion: The tranny is not being USED in the actual amphibious assault. The UNITS it carries ARE in combat, and these units have moved during combat movement (being picked up and transported).

might I suggest:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/index.php or
http://dicey.net/revised/index.php
or
AAMC message board
http://www.dicey.net/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums
(you'll have to register to see the rules forum)

[pagan]

What I am talking about is consistency. LHTR don't go far enough. I'm talking about LETTER of the LAW. If we are going to make a rule and interpret it exactly as written, then ALL things need to follow suit and fit withiin that rule.

AARe needs to change some things.

LHTR players need to comit to the Letter of the Law.

I'm only here to make the arguement that the Letter of the Law is the only way to go, and the Letter of the Law makes the game suck.

There can be NO exceptions to the rule, otherwise we devalue the rule. And if someone thinks that the rule needs to have exceptions, then why make the rule in the first place AND why argue the Letter of the Law in some cases and not others.

I don't think I am actually getting anyone to see my ad absurdum attack on the persistent arguements on this thread, so I will end my dead-wind.

[pagan]

I need to restate my opinion about Japan/Russian Non-Agression Pact:

-The pact needs to be done BOTH ways.

-I'm ok with the Territory colors being the treaty breaker

-I'm for a 4-6INF free immediate placement OR the country gets 12-18IPCs to spend immediately in that territory and/or can pocket the money if they so want.

Now that's a method of deterence.
I will restate that with average dice, japan CANNOT hold the mainland on asia against a double IC placement in Asia and a triple-team coordinated effort by the allies PLUS let's not forget a pacific allied naval threat.
If you want to win as the allies in AARe, then go with StallJapan strategy with a strong US pacific. Odds are SERIOUSLY on your side.

[cousin_joe]

I need to restate my opinion about Japan/Russian Non-Agression Pact:

-The pact needs to be done BOTH ways.

-I'm ok with the Territory colors being the treaty breaker

-I'm for a 4-6INF free immediate placement OR the country gets 12-18IPCs to spend immediately in that territory and/or can pocket the money if they so want.

Now that's a method of deterence.
I will restate that with average dice, japan CANNOT hold the mainland on asia against a double IC placement in Asia and a triple-team coordinated effort by the allies PLUS let's not forget a pacific allied naval threat.
If you want to win as the allies in AARe, then go with StallJapan strategy with a strong US pacific. Odds are SERIOUSLY on your side.
In AARe, the allies are incredibly stretched for resources

If they are going to be devoting so much to the Pacific, then Germany becomes very dangerous via one of the following strategies:

1) Heavy SUB - killing allied income
2) Heavy Eastern Front - heading straight for Russia
3) Heavy Expansion - Africa + Eastern Front

AARe makes it NECESSARY to pay adequate attention to BOTH Axis powers.

[DocD]

In AARe, the allies are incredibly stretched for resources

If they are going to be devoting so much to the Pacific, then Germany becomes very dangerous via one of the following strategies:

1) Heavy SUB - killing allied income
2) Heavy Eastern Front - heading straight for Russia
3) Heavy Expansion - Africa + Eastern Front

AARe makes it NECESSARY to pay adequate attention to BOTH Axis powers.
I couldn't agree more here great one. Germany can cheaply put subs to work in the Atlantic. These UBoats become very annoying to the UK and forces the Allies to do something about them.

And with 3 out of 4 needed VCs on the Eastern front, the Allies cannot concentrate totally on Japan without significant risk of Germany extending its lebensraum into Russia.

Hey CJ, when will v2.0 FINAL be done??

[cousin_joe]

I couldn't agree more here great one. Germany can cheaply put subs to work in the Atlantic. These UBoats become very annoying to the UK and forces the Allies to do something about them.

And with 3 out of 4 needed VCs on the Eastern front, the Allies cannot concentrate totally on Japan without significant risk of Germany extending its lebensraum into Russia.

Hey CJ, when will v2.0 FINAL be done??I finally have a day off and am starting to feel better (sick for a few days) so Enhanced 2.0 FINAL will be done today! :) I have to go out shopping with the wife, but mark my words, it will be done by midnight Dec 19th, 2004! :) . The doc file is complete (I've sorted out Tokyo Express) and all I have to do is put it up on the boards and edit it in the usual fashion. :)

[cousin_joe]

Here's the final version of Tokyo Express:



2. Tokyo Express - Your destroyers gain limited transport capability. Each DD can be used during either combat or non-combat, but not both.

i) COMBAT - Your DDs can load and/or unload only 1 INF during Combat. As per LHTR rules, a unit loaded in combat must be unloaded in combat on the same TURN (unless DD is sunk or forced to retreat). If the SZ is hostile, your DD MUST first participate in Naval Combat (at full strength, ie.3/3). If your DD survives Naval Combat, it may also unload 1INF into the Amphibious Assault.
-If you have the Combined Arms Tech, your DD can bombard, BUT only if there was no Naval Combat prior to the Amphibious Assault (Like BBs, if the SZ is hostile, DDs must participate in Naval Combat, and thus forego their Bombardment)


ii) NON-COMBAT - Your DDs not participating in Combat can load and/or unload up to 2 INF during Noncombat. Maximum carrying capacity is 2INF per DD. INF loaded during NCM do not need to be unloaded the same TURN, and may remain aboard the DD. A loaded DD does not suffer any combat penalties (ie. it remains 3/3)



Rationale:

Since a transport essentially participates in both Naval Combat (by being eligible as a casualty) and the Amphib Assault , the TE DDs should be able to do the same thing.

The limit to 1 INF during combat makes is so that DDs do not replace transports. You'll still need to buy TRNs, esp. for a big attack (or to bring in RTL and ARM). At the same time though, allowing the DD to participate in Naval Combat and Amphib gives it a fair amount of punch.

[DocD]

Ok....good....except for....DD can allow 2 inf to stay aboard after Non-combat!

What stops me from using those 2 inf in the next round of amphibious combat??

[Vollick1979]

Joe you've done it again. Balancing a game properly is one of the hardest things to do yet you make it look too easy.

[cousin_joe]

Ok....good....except for....DD can allow 2 inf to stay aboard after Non-combat!

What stops me from using those 2 inf in the next round of amphibious combat??
Ah, but remember, "only 1 INF is able to be loaded and/or unloaded in Combat", so even if there are 2 INF aboard, only 1 can be unloaded for an Amphib next turn.

[pagan]

Expect to see the TE-DD carrying 2 INF on a previous round, and droping 1 off on amphib @ the second off on NCM (into the same teritory).
___this can only be done every other round by your rules
***these are the ways of transport rules

But i suppose that the value of the death of the DD makes it anywhere from 13-16IPcs in losses.

[DocD]

Nice way to look at it Pagan. I guess this rule makes more sense now and definitely carries some risk to the player wishing to keep two infs aboard for a round.

[axis_roll]

Expect to see the TE-DD carrying 2 INF on a previous round, and droping 1 off on amphib @ the second off on NCM (into the same teritory).
___this can only be done every other round by your rules
***these are the ways of transport rules
I don't think so.

Once a transport (Or Tokyo Express destroyer) unloads, it ends it turn.

You can not drop 1 inf in combat and 1 in non-combat.

This is if I understand LHTR rules regarding transports correctly.

[pagan]

yep, you are right Axis_roll.

LHTR change for tranys from the Core-Rules (excerpt from CJs earlier post):
-If two units are aboard a tranport, you can only unload the transport once ie. in combat or noncombat. Once unloaded, the transport's move is finsihed