Thanks Panther that is what I thought.
Invasion of Mongolia
-
@WILD:
Krieg,
I’m guessing that you take over pro to your side neutrals in your noncombat move (like the Dutch), as long as your enemy hasn’t invaded.Then you would attack/invade neutrals that are pro to your enemy in combat phase.
Seems like a reasonable assumption.
-
What about the neutral ACME walls as we saw in Mongolia in AAP40? In global, when you “wake” a neutral territory, all the country is awaken as well? (Mongolia and Portugal will be examples for sure, and it’s probable that Turkey and Spain as well)
If ACME wall is totally cartoonish and ilogical for China, it’s even worst for neutrals, because you have not the bad excuse of the Chinese Civil War (that is represented anyway by the smurf-sized chinese army and income)
-
The only thing cartoonish around here are the constant complaints by Players, surrounding China’s rulesets and limitations.
It’s a game, get over it. How cartoonish is it that artillery can take part in amphibious landings, or that it’s shorter (in terms of sheer movement distance) to blitz tanks through the northen steppes of Russia, or Across canada in one go, then it is to go from one Europen territory to another 2 away.
Or the fact posts about ACME walls, and complaints to Krieghund aren’t outright banned.
If it’s so bad for you that the game becomes unplayable. Leave the community. Please.
-
It should also be noted “ACME” Situations in real life are not even that uncommon.
Like in Yugoslavia, They struck a deal with the allies, No air bombing of cities, for no AA shooting at allied planes.
Chinese infantry also often wore German Uniforms too, is that not ridiculous?
Or how about when Macarthur was ordered to bomb HALF of a bridge?
Better tell everyone on your twitter/myspace/facebook about these revelations so they can help you come up with some new, constructive material.
-
The only thing cartoonish around here are the constant complaints by Players, surrounding China’s rulesets and limitations.
It’s a game, get over it. How cartoonish is it that artillery can take part in amphibious landings, or that it’s shorter (in terms of sheer movement distance) to blitz tanks through the northen steppes of Russia, or Across canada in one go, then it is to go from one Europen territory to another 2 away.
Or the fact posts about ACME walls, and complaints to Krieghund aren’t outright banned.
If it’s so bad for you that the game becomes unplayable. Leave the community. Please.
Thank you for saying so.
What people tend to forget is that these annoying ACME wall rules are in place to prevent even more annoying and a-historical abuses, such as Chinese units marching across Russia to can-opener against the Germans (you know it would happen).
If a rule has been put in (especially by someone who is notorious for NOT wanting special rules), then please trust that it is there for a good reason. I for one am inclined to trust the judgment of a veteran game designer who has a 30 year history producing success after success with a dozen versions and variants of a flagship game franchise than the nitpicking rants and whines of people who have had, shall we say, slightly less success as professional game designers.
-
The only thing cartoonish around here are the constant complaints by Players, surrounding China’s rulesets and limitations.
It’s a game, get over it. How cartoonish is it that artillery can take part in amphibious landings, or that it’s shorter (in terms of sheer movement distance) to blitz tanks through the northen steppes of Russia, or Across canada in one go, then it is to go from one Europen territory to another 2 away.
Or the fact posts about ACME walls, and complaints to Krieghund aren’t outright banned.
If it’s so bad for you that the game becomes unplayable. Leave the community. Please.
Thank you for saying so.
What people tend to forget is that these annoying ACME wall rules are in place to prevent even more annoying and a-historical abuses, such as Chinese units marching across Russia to can-opener against the Germans (you know it would happen).
If a rule has been put in (especially by someone who is notorious for NOT wanting special rules), then please trust that it is there for a good reason. I for one am inclined to trust the judgment of a veteran game designer who has a 30 year history producing success after success with a dozen versions and variants of a flagship game franchise than the nitpicking rants and whines of people who have had, shall we say, slightly less success as professional game designers.
Are you one of the few(from what I’ve seen on the forums) people who think P40 is balanced?
-
So you think that it has any logic that Japan (or any other power saving China) can march by Mongolia better than the very Mongolians
So you think that KMT should not attack their hated enemies bases at FIC or Korea, and not bomb lone jap trannies at chinese coast
So you think that th FT, a US voluntair unit, should not escape to home when China is lost?
So you think that chinamen are the only ones that can use magic lightsabres to destroy ICs, a think that only they can do?
So you think that KMT should not have any interest on attacking key zones for their war effort as Burma (in AA50) and India. Any?
So you think that chinamen would go against Germany if we had a normal China with a IC and a capital? KGF is truly a religion :-P And sure they are not going to escape to anywhere in AAP40, why is the ACME rule in that game if there are no soviets?
So you think that Greece would stop at their homes when attacked by Italy? Oh, no, In real war they kicked Italian asses all the way to Albania, and that is not in Greece!
So you think that Franco would not fight back against any possible invader? Not even to recover Spanish territory?
Come on, you cannot be serious. There are rules that simply should not be there. I’m trying make the game better, can you say the same? Ban any ACME walls and then I don’t mind if you make some chinese civil war rule or the much needed non-agression treaty
And finally, chinamen entering in USSR is at least possible (not very probable, that for sure). Chinamen not attacking their enemies just and only because the enemies are not in China, that is not possible
-
So you think that it has any logic that Japan (or any other power saving China) can march by Mongolia better than the very Mongolians
So you think that KMT should not attack their hated enemies bases at FIC or Korea, and not bomb lone jap trannies at chinese coast
So you think that th FT, a US voluntair unit, should not escape to home when China is lost?
So you think that chinamen are the only ones that can use magic lightsabres to destroy ICs, a think that only they can do?
So you think that KMT should not have any interest on attacking key zones for their war effort as Burma (in AA50) and India. Any?
So you think that chinamen would go against Germany if we had a normal China with a IC and a capital? KGF is truly a religion :-P And sure they are not going to escape to anywhere in AAP40, why is the ACME rule in that game if there are no soviets?
So you think that Greece would stop at their homes when attacked by Italy? Oh, no, In real war they kicked Italian asses all the way to Albania, and that is not in Greece!
So you think that Franco would not fight back against any possible invader? Not even to recover Spanish territory?
Come on, you cannot be serious. There are rules that simply should not be there. I’m trying make the game better, can you say the same? Ban any ACME walls and then I don’t mind if you make some chinese civil war rule or the much needed non-agression treaty
And finally, chinamen entering in USSR is at least possible (not very probable, that for sure). Chinamen not attacking their enemies just and only because the enemies are not in China, that is not possible
To stay on topic as far as Mongolia and invading neutrals, having fully independent player-controlled neutrals would be much more complicated than it already is. We play mostly 1-on-1 here online, but A&A is really designed to be a multi-player game, and for every neutral power that joins the game when invaded you would have to have some system of determining who controls that power and blah, blah, blah… If you want that level of complexity, find one of the many computer games that can handle that level of complexity (especially if you play online mostly anyway), rather than a board game with the purpose of (relatively) simple game mechanics.
Regardless of the validity or usefulness or any other opinion about the China rules or neutral rules, it is still not appropriate to insert a China rant into messages posted regardless of the topic. That I think is the major issue: if you want to discuss disagreements with the China rules, doing so in the proper forums and threads is the better way to express your ideas in a way that isn’t distracting and bothersome to others.
-
@SAS:
So you think that it has any logic that Japan (or any other power saving China) can march by Mongolia better than the very Mongolians
So you think that KMT should not attack their hated enemies bases at FIC or Korea, and not bomb lone jap trannies at chinese coast
So you think that th FT, a US voluntair unit, should not escape to home when China is lost?
So you think that chinamen are the only ones that can use magic lightsabres to destroy ICs, a think that only they can do?
So you think that KMT should not have any interest on attacking key zones for their war effort as Burma (in AA50) and India. Any?
So you think that chinamen would go against Germany if we had a normal China with a IC and a capital? KGF is truly a religion :-P And sure they are not going to escape to anywhere in AAP40, why is the ACME rule in that game if there are no soviets?
So you think that Greece would stop at their homes when attacked by Italy? Oh, no, In real war they kicked Italian asses all the way to Albania, and that is not in Greece!
So you think that Franco would not fight back against any possible invader? Not even to recover Spanish territory?
Come on, you cannot be serious. There are rules that simply should not be there. I’m trying make the game better, can you say the same? Ban any ACME walls and then I don’t mind if you make some chinese civil war rule or the much needed non-agression treaty
And finally, chinamen entering in USSR is at least possible (not very probable, that for sure). Chinamen not attacking their enemies just and only because the enemies are not in China, that is not possible
To stay on topic as far as Mongolia and invading neutrals, having fully independent player-controlled neutrals would be much more complicated than it already is. We play mostly 1-on-1 here online, but A&A is really designed to be a multi-player game, and for every neutral power that joins the game when invaded you would have to have some system of determining who controls that power and blah, blah, blah… If you want that level of complexity, find one of the many computer games that can handle that level of complexity (especially if you play online mostly anyway), rather than a board game with the purpose of (relatively) simple game mechanics.
Regardless of the validity or usefulness or any other opinion about the China rules or neutral rules, it is still not appropriate to insert a China rant into messages posted regardless of the topic. That I think is the major issue: if you want to discuss disagreements with the China rules, doing so in the proper forums and threads is the better way to express your ideas in a way that isn’t distracting and bothersome to others.
The rationelle is that the defenders of Mongolia don’t defend the country, but their own territory only.
In how many games can China attack a territory it can’t right now?
Since it is a VOLUNTEER unit, it is controlled by China; otherwise the US would be at war with Japan.
No, they destroy IC’s since they can never use them
Greece and Spain were industrialized nations
In history, did any Chinese forces attack the Japanese anywhere outside China besides Burma?
-
@SAS:
To stay on topic as far as Mongolia and invading neutrals, having fully independent player-controlled neutrals would be much more complicated than it already is. We play mostly 1-on-1 here online, but A&A is really designed to be a multi-player game, and for every neutral power that joins the game when invaded you would have to have some system of determining who controls that power and blah, blah, blah… If you want that level of complexity, find one of the many computer games that can handle that level of complexity (especially if you play online mostly anyway), rather than a board game with the purpose of (relatively) simple game mechanics
What’s the problem? You have two simple options if we want the full neutral activated when one territory is attacked:
-
That neutral power joins the other alliance. That alliance chooses what power will join the neutral (if they cannot decide, roll a die or let the attacker decide). Example: Japan attacks any Mongolian territory, so full Mongolia joins allies, and allies choose that soviets will control Mongolian units and income (of 0), but allies could not decide, so they must roll a die or then axis will choose wich allied power controls Mongolia (you can safely assume that will be France :-D )
-
That neutral power joins the other alliance. You have a diplomatic chart that says what power will take the control (example: Greece, attacked by axis, will join UK; but if attacked by allies, will join Italy)
Since Larry wants simple rules, I guess number 1 could be the best for him. You don’t need another player to play joined neutrals or another wacky rule as static defenders. It’s simple, easy of remember, and more important: it has logic. He did more complex and more ilogical rules with China, and that’s the reason why I talked about all the chinese issue
-
-
The rationelle is that the defenders of Mongolia don’t defend the country, but their own territory only
Mongolia was a full contry, not a bunch of isolated hordes. Still, any army will attack a declared enemy if has the chance and it gives advantage, no wonder if they enemy is beyond your frontiers
In how many games can China attack a territory it can’t right now?
See the map attached. I had more games where Japan taken advantage of this rule, even in AAP40
Since it is a VOLUNTEER unit, it is controlled by China; otherwise the US would be at war with Japan
The FTs can be China controled but they are still USA’s citizens. You can bet your pants that the real FTs would bomb lone trannies and escape to home if needed in the real war, Chinese civil war or not
No, they destroy IC’s since they can never use them
Well, they should use ICs, even if purchases are limited to inf and art. The current dinamic leads to some wacky situations. Anyway, there is not real world reason why China can destroy ICs and, say, soviets cannot do the same as a scorched land strat. Or all, or nobody
Greece and Spain were industrialized nations
More reasons to ban the ACME wall from neutral powers :wink:
In history, did any Chinese forces attack the Japanese anywhere outside China besides Burma?
In history, wich army in any epoch would not attack a enemy power for the only reason that the enemy units are outside their frontiers? In real war, China attacked Burma because they had a reason and because they had the chance, and you can guess that they would do the same if Korea or FIC were in the same situation. Why limit chinese options then (that should not be done any case) and at the same time refuse to do a non-agression treaty jap-USSR? The chinese civil war is already represented by the fact that the chinese army is smaller than the real combined armies of KMT, CCP and warlords (China should have more units in game, but is OK that they have a smaller army because half of them are fighting the civil war. I don’t have complaints about the chinese army size in AAP40, maybe about the size of the japanese army, but that’s another matter)
Suggested Topics
