Everything else then an atttack from UK on SZ5 if germany doesn´t sink in more ships is a failure, if sz 14 isn´t up for grabs of course (that means it consists of 1 bb, 1 trn).
Then my new idea is to allways attack it with 1 bmb, 1 fig and that makes it dumb to hit sz5 the same turn.
Bean,
It’s correct that the bomber won’t be available for BOTH battles (SZ 7 and SZ 13.) But it does not NEED to be available for both.
If England’s making a stretch and does both battles, they can win them both. Dunno if they can survive it financially, but they can. 2 Transports, Battleship, 2 Fighters to SZ 7, Bomber Destroyer to SZ 13.
Dunno, I don’t think I’d do it. Guess it would depend on Russia. If Russia hit Ukraine almost unscathed and Egypt destroyed the Africa Corps, I’d be much more inclined to punch Germany right in the nose with the British RAF and Navy. (After all, America is coming and you know Germany’s going to be crying for Japan if you get lucky OR unlucky then.)
If Russia got hurt and/or Egypt fell without resistance, I might think better of it.
Anyway, I find that with most CSub Papers, they have some good ideas, but they’re usually ones I already had, but they have a lot of bad assumptions as well. The worst assumption is that their papers work outside of their groups and that’s bad because no one else uses their rule set; just about everyone else is using LHTR and if not LHTR then it’s the rules from the box. Only their group uses their rule set, really.
Further complicating the matter is that this, specific, paper is asking you to count on Cascade Dice Failure. I don’t think you can ever count on that. I think you have to plan for Cascade Dice Failure to ONLY work against you, never for you. This is why 100% of my Bombers on SBR runs get shot down on their first run, but 0% of my enemy bombers on SBR runs ever get shot down (and always do 4 or more IPC damage per bomber too, mind you.) CDF would tell you that SBR is a bad move because you are risking 15 IPC for 4 IPC on the roll of 1 die that has a 17% chance of hitting you. Real life tells you that SBR is a bad move for YOU because you have a 97% chance to get shot down and a 3% chance to take 1 IPC while your enemy has a 97% chance to survive and do 5 or 6 IPC damage to you.
If England’s making a stretch and does both battles, they can win them both. Dunno if they can survive it financially, but they can. 2 Transports, Battleship, 2 Fighters to SZ 7, Bomber Destroyer to SZ 13.
Yes, but that’s what the paper wants England to do - to stretch itself thin and give itself the possibility of bad dice happening to them.
1 bom 1 dest vs 1 btl 1 tp
According to frood, attacker survives 23% of the time. Hmm….defender survives with 1 unit or more 59% of the time. Is that a great battle?
2 fig 2 tp 1 btl vs 3 sub 1 tp 1 dest
Attacker survives 75% of the time, with the most common result being both tps and 1 fig lost.
So the average dice shows that the UK isn’t going to do well. Usually what will happen is the med tp is killed, but the bb survives and both dest/bom are dead. And what usually happens in SZ7 is both tps and 1 fig are killed.
IMO, that is amazing for zero naval IPCs spent. You cashed in 2 tps 1 fig 1 bom of useful equipment (well and 1 dest, but I don’t count that since it’s not something UK really misses) for a navy you didn’t even care about or spend a dime into. You didn’t even use or risk a fig. UK has to rebuild its entire transport chain and has a measly fig for an airforce. Is that a recommended battle? You say Uk can win, which is true, but that’s pretty much a useless statement. It would be like saying well, I could send 4 inf 1 arm on R1 to W. Russia, and it could win.
Not to mention, UK is absolutely forced to buy a carrier on UK1 and probably…another fig to replace the one it expects to lose! We’re not talking about insignificant changes to the UK plan.
Better to prove that it is a recommended route to go.
For someone who would prefer to avoid attacking the Baltic fleet, you seem strangely anxious to take 2 battles which have lower odds and wind up with you losing more.
I understand, Bean. That’s why I said if, and that’s a BIG IF, I did it, that would have to be contingent on a stellar performance by Russia and a sub-optimum performance by Germany.
Honestly, in that situation, if I did anything, it would be RAF only. Ignore the submarines.
Better would be to ignore the whole fleet, get a carrier and a submarine and bring American reinforcements to stop op Sea Lion. Block the invasion of Brazil with the Russian submarine.
I wanted to follow-up to this paper based on what I learned trying to use something similar (before I even saw the paper), as I mentioned above.
There is one problem with part of the discussion of what the UK can do in response. The paper states:
@Crazy:
So ignoring the fleet is bad, how about attacking the boats with everything? The UK could send 2tra 1btl 2ftr 1bmr against 1tra 3sub 1des. Clearly that is a good fight for the UK, but it has some interesting risks. First off, if the UK gets two hits on the first round, the Germans will lose the transport and the destroyer and submerge the subs. Because you can’t retreat from submerged subs, the UK fleet will be pulled out of range of the American reinforcements.
[[i]emphasis added]
The problem is, this isn’t quite how it works in reality. While it’s true the attacker can’t retreat from submerged subs, they can retreat before the subs submerge. Most of the time, for expediency, we just declare our OOLs and submerges at the same time, but that’s not how the rules work. The defender has to declare their OOL first in conduct combat, then in press attack or retreat, the attacker has the option to retreat. So when you choose to sink the DD and TRN, the UK just retreats before you can dive*. It seems the best scenario is to strafe with the British fleet (which, by the way, can only score 4 hits so it can’t possibly get trapped by sinking the entire german flotilla), then retreat to sz8 for US reinforcements and perhaps a CV build that was probably going to happen soon anyway. That’s what was done to me. Then those subs get hammered by the USAF - especially if they leave an open spot on the brit cv for the EUS fighter. Then you’ll likely get your entire navy smoked if you try to link any remaining subs with the med BB (again, speaking from experience).
So running the fleet limits what the UK can do offensively for a turn, but it lets them bring an extra 4 dots from the BB, and gives them the BB damage and plenty of fodder instead of risking the RAF completely which seems to counter the addition of the subs to the battle.
*LHTR is crystal clear that the attacker has the option to retreat before the defender can dive the subs. Actually the OOB rules are a little vague (surprise!) on who can declare retreat first - the attacker or the defending subs. But even if you’re playing OOB, the best case scenario is you get in a big argument about who can retreat or submerge first which will inevitably end with the board getting flipped up in the air with pieces flying all over the room.
TripleA is just as crystal clear the option to submerge subs is BEFORE attacker’s retreat. Programmers consulted with a rules guru…
And many games are going around with TripleA, almost a de-facto standard. Or not ??
B/c TripleA will allow/not allow certain moves it doesn’t mean they are legal or Illegal. TripleA is not necessarily a rule set, it is only a platform to play the game. Now if TripleA Club/Ladder members all except certain quirks that is fine, but as Tim points out you may find someone call you on it if you are using TripleA and playing with LHTR, in which case the retreat would come before the submerge.
I’m not fully up to speed on all the corrections and additionals made to TripleA but it is possible they haven’t updated it or editted it for LHTR 2.0.
The TripleA dev community is working hard on LHTR compliance.
However, due to shotrage of programmers (and IMO an aging code structure) various issues are on low priority.
I find the TripleA community (those who visits the TripleA forum) is informed of the situation and wouldn’t consider the missing rules of TripleA a de-facto standard. Players would do the right thing even when the program does not force them.
(Though sometimes its not good enough. Hence TripleA now has a edit mode.)
Now, I do see your worry and wonder whether CSub papers are built from TripleA playtesting data.
TripleA allows and does not allow things all the time. For instance, it will not allow you to move your fighters into combat without moving the carriers appropriately first. However, it’s perfectly legal to move the fighters and only declare you are moving the carriers IF the fighters survive.
I suspect it’s the same here.
Anyway, you COULD strafe and kill the Transport, Destroyer. But what if the Germans decide to kill a transport/submarine instead of the transport Destroyer leaving a submarine/destroyer? Are you prepared to leave the Germans with a free destroyer? What if they decide to sink two submarines leaving a transport, Destroyer? How many of us are prepared to allow the Germans to slip a destroyer and a transport into the Med with their Battleship, Transport?
The problem is, this isn’t quite how it works in reality. While it’s true the attacker can’t retreat from submerged subs, they can retreat before the subs submerge.
Now, I do see your worry and wonder whether CSub papers are built from TripleA playtesting data.
Guys, this is just silly.
Don’t you think that a CSub paper would be written under CSub rules?
We don’t write for LHTR, or TripleA, or DAAK, etc. We write for our own system because it is the simplest and most coherent.
CSub rules are only one page long, and half of that is explaining the bid. It is completely logical that we would use our own system, not someone else’s.
If you haven’t taken the time to understand the shortest rules around, then don’t be so quick to criticize.
Rules (last link):
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/files/
Peace
Mazer,
You have to realize that when you take CSub rules out of CSub then you have to account for the rules everyone else uses, not just your adjustments (all of which are included or improved on by LHTR.)
I dare say 100% of the people, except you, use LHTR on this site. Maybe there’s one or two others out of the 15,000+ registered members who do not use LHTR, but the point isn’t the ratio of users to non-users, but that the vast majority of this site uses LHTR primarily, the rest use TripleA only because they like using the TripleA program.
If your papers do not work in LHTR, then expect to have them blasted out of the water on this site. If you do NOT want them blasted out of the water, I suggest you type up your rule set and then your paper so as to limit the discussion to only your rule set.
That said, I’m holding to my statement. No matter how England attacks the fleet or does not attack the fleet, it is bad for England. The only chance you have is if you attack with air only and the defender scores no hits. But the odds of that happening is identical to the same happening in SZ 5. If England attacks with fleet, the obvious objective would be to kill the destroyer and transport to make clearing the Med easier. Killing the submarines really isn’t a high priority for the allies. So all Germany has to do is use teh same OOL they would against Air only, Sub, Sub, Trn, DD. If the navy attacks, just go trn, sub, sub, dd. If he retreats without killing the DD, you effectively earned a 12 IPC bid (assuming the American bomber is shot down or misses.) If he kills the DD, then he’s set up for an Air Attack by Germany on Round 2.
I almost forgot. I should have included links to our parent organizations:
http://www.scientology.org/
http://www.tomcruisefan.com/
http://www.worldpath.net/~minstrel/
I knew there was something off about you. :P
Hey Jen.
I think it is imminently reasonable to assume people can “decode” that a paper on the CSub website with CSub in the filename and CSub in the header is going to use CSub rules.
You are incorrect about the use of LHTR. LHTR does not even include a bid, and yet most players will play a game that uses a bid. Ergo, at best they are playing some special variant of LHTR, and no one actually plays with pure LHTR. Not only that, but TripleA is not pure LHTR, and that is probably the most common rule set in use.
Those who wish to play an enlightened game, however, can play a CSub game with 30 seconds of reading the rules.
If history is anything to go by, this thread is about to become useless and I will bow out. The floors yours; do the dance you have to do!
:mrgreen: :evil: :mrgreen: :-D :mrgreen:
Actually, I don’t think it is reasonable to assume someone who has never seen a CSub paper will look for a CSub only rule set. They’ll probably look around the same forum that they saw the paper in and determine that is the rule set.
Since LHTR seems to be the standard around here (rare to find a game where they say OOB rules or something like that) then people will naturally assume that LHTR is what that paper goes with.
Also, for those who wish to play an enlightened game, however, can play a LHTR game with about 10 seconds of reading the rules. There are NOT that many differences between LHTR and Box rules. The reason you think LHTR is so huge is because all the box rules that were NOT changed were printed in LHTR. Unlike CSUB which requires you read both the box rules and then the CSUB rules, so it really takes about 20 minutes to read the CSUB rules, if you had never read the rules. (Same with LHTR, except you don’t have to read it one way, then read the contradiction/correction after; you just read the LHTR.)
That said, the idea does work out nicely in LHTR. The only change I would make is Submarine from SZ 8 to SZ 13 instead of SZ 7. You don’t need it in SZ 7. But having it in SZ 13 can save a fighter, and thus, make a counter attack on SZ 7 much more fruitful.
Is there a nit that either of you will not pick with the other?
:wink:
@ncscswitch:
Is there a nit that either of you will not pick with the other?
:wink:
Yup. I won’t argue who has the bigger penis. I’ll just re-iterate that women are genetically superior to men because God had to practice first to find the flaws, then created the perfect being. :evil:
@Cmdr:
I’ll just re-iterate that women are genetically superior to men because God had to practice first to find the flaws, then created the perfect being. :evil:
Then Why was Man made in Gods image?
and a woman was made from the rib of man.
She’s a copy of a copy… and we all know how poor THAT quality is! :evil:
Pals, better end the sex-war debate :-P All wars are bad (saving wars with plastic pieces , of course), but war of the sexes (spelling?) is the worst war of all :cry:
@Mazer:
The problem is, this isn’t quite how it works in reality. While it’s true the attacker can’t retreat from submerged subs, they can retreat before the subs submerge.
Now, I do see your worry and wonder whether CSub papers are built from TripleA playtesting data.
Guys, this is just silly.
Don’t you think that a CSub paper would be written under CSub rules?
We don’t write for LHTR, or TripleA, or DAAK, etc. We write for our own system because it is the simplest and most coherent.
CSub rules are only one page long, and half of that is explaining the bid. It is completely logical that we would use our own system, not someone else’s.
If you haven’t taken the time to understand the shortest rules around, then don’t be so quick to criticize.
Rules (last link):
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/files/Peace
Hmmm… didn’t know you had a rule set. Sorry to have offended you.
I don’t intend to play by them, but they your comment in the paper makes much more sense given those terms.
