LHTR: Larry Harris Tournament Rules

[Romulus]

I have a curiosity. Why the last release of LHTR is labelled 2.0?  :?
Prior to download and read them I expected important changing in the rule, given the fact that major version number is changed.
At first reading it seems to me that they have only minor difference from the preceding 1.3. (But I could have read too much rapidly  :-D not seeing important changes). Apparently in LHTR the major release number and the minor release number are inverted.

I do not want to criticize, I would like only to better understand the use of versioning (major number and minor number) in labelling the releases of the LHTR.

Regarding the rules itself, they are great!
I like very much the changes made to the NA, and also the other detailed specifications and examples. The rules are explained well and clearly.
The elimination of German artillery NA (from a gaming point of view is very interesting the research NA that replaced it) and USA Superfortress NA (using the preceding rule that requires two dices for each bomber was too much time consuming) are two things that I take part in.
Regarding that last USA NA, does it means that TRN and SS cost 7, DD 11, AC 15, BB 23, FIG 9, Bomber 14? Or do I misunderstand the rule?

[Guest]

I think the 2.0 was more to signal that the “Beta Testing” was over, and we now had a “final product grade” release.

[tekkyy]

Somehow version 2.0 document isn’t as well made as previous versions or is it just my version…

No more columns, tables and stuff. Just looks plain text now.

[Romulus]

I have a doubt on the USA National advantage number 6.

---

War Economy
Your cost of buying sea and air units is reduced by 1 IPC.

---

In my group we are playing that the naval and air units cost as follow:

SUB 7 IPC
TRN 7 IPC
DD 11 IPC
CV 15 IPC
BB 23 IPC
FIG 9 IPC
BMB 14 IPC

are we using the rule correctly?

[Jennifer]

War Economy is SOOOO going to get abused!

Also, teaming Most Powerful Battleships and Night Fighting is going to spell death to any American attack in the Pacific.  No more games exploring KJF!

And I really don’t see how this is going to change the Banzai use in this game, honestly.  Most times you are attacking with a large force to get 1 or 2 defenders and then stack.  The reason is, 20@2 vs 10@2 is not going to be much better then 15@1 and 5@3 vs 10@2.  Even if you got multiple rounds with Banzai on.

Only real change I can see is if an attack goes wrong when it’s 2 inf attacking 1 inf with banzai.  Even then, you still have odds to win. :P

[Guest]

@Romulus:

I have a doubt on the USA National advantage number 6.

---

War Economy
Your cost of buying sea and air units is reduced by 1 IPC.

---

In my group we are playing that the naval and air units cost as follow:

SUB 7 IPC
TRN 7 IPC
DD 11 IPC
CV 15 IPC
BB 23 IPC
FIG 9 IPC
BMB 14 IPC

are we using the rule correctly?

Yes.

It is the equivalent of “Industrial Technology” tech from Classic.

[Romulus]

Thanks a lot!
I had used in a couple of match as USA that we played with NA and they are very effective.

[Guest]

Well it is NOT QUITE Industrial Tech, which in Classic also included INF, ARM, AA, and IC’s (and of course excluded DSTs since they did not exist!)

[Jennifer]

Dunno, so far in 3 games Ver 2.0 seems to have reskewed the NAs to massively favor the Allies (America and Russia in particular, America in the NA itself, Russia in the nerfing of Axis NAs.)

Maybe it’s just my fondness for the old NAs where Fortress Europe + Atlantik Wall = Very light garrisons in W. Europe and S. Europe and massive focus on Moscow?

[Romulus]

Indeed I think that also Axis NA are good.
Germany has Atlantic wall that is good (infantry defends on 3 in the first cycle of amphibious assault) and Dive-Bombers, which I consider a strong NA: fighters hit on 5 in the first cycle of combat if there are not defensive fighter presents.

To have a fun and interesting game with NA, I think that they should be chosen by the player one at time at the start of their turn. In this way we found, in our games with NA, that the relative value of the NA is variable, depending also from what the other have chosen, and also that their interaction is a fundamental thing to consider in the initial planning.
I think, however, that USA have two very powerful NA: War Economy and Mechanized Infantry.

However, NA do not change so much in the game Strategy. Axis is always focused on conquering Moscow, as Jennifer said.

[Jennifer]

But if you chose them all the time, most NAs will never get used, while Enigma Decoded and Colonial Garrison will be used almost 100% of the time. (It is, after all, the best complimentary set of NAs in the game, especially in a KJF scenario!)

[Guest]

If you are going to use NA’s, AND try to balance the game…

Give each Allied power one CHOSEN NA and one RANDOM NA.

Give the Axis each TWO chosen NA’s and one RANDOM NA.

Another option would be the same for the Allies, but give the Axis:
1 Hand Selected NA
1 Random NA
1 Random Tech

Either should negate the need for a bid AND change the strats up a bit…

[Jennifer]

That would do it, Switch, but most players are used to two random NAs per nation, one choice for Germany, Japan and one for the allies.

In the “standard” version of 2.0’s NAs, the axis barely have a chance to get started before Germany gets royally spanked.

[Romulus]

We do not use NAs to balance games, we use NA to have variation in the games. Frankly I like the NA from LHTR 2.0 as I like the NA from LHTR 1.3.

To have balanced game we play without NA, and we have started to use the bid.

[jsp4563]

@Jennifer:

In the “standard” version of 2.0’s NAs, the axis barely have a chance to get started before Germany gets royally spanked.

Voice of experience?  Seems you thought the NA’s in the previous version were way to much in favor of the Axis, and the new ones were even more so.  :roll: :evil:

I had this view too…but now I’m thinking that they may be a little more balanced than it appears, it boils down to “how you use them”.

[Jennifer]

No, in the original the NAs were stronger for the Axis.  In the new LHTR the NAs are back to being stronger for the allies.

Why can’t we just have NAs that are balanced for Axis and Allies?

Anyway, I’ll give 2.0 3 more games, if after 5 games, there’s no demonstrable way for the Axis to win without lucky dice, I’ll write off LHTR as allied propaganda and go back to 1.3.

[jsp4563]

@Jennifer:

No, in the original the NAs were stronger for the Axis.  In the new LHTR the NAs are back to being stronger for the allies.

Why can’t we just have NAs that are balanced for Axis and Allies?

Anyway, I’ll give 2.0 3 more games, if after 5 games, there’s no demonstrable way for the Axis to win without lucky dice, I’ll write off LHTR as allied propaganda and go back to 1.3.

When we’re done with our current game, I’ll take the Axis, no bid. Roll for NA’s.

[Jennifer]

Will you remember in 3 years when this game is over???

[Romulus]

@Emperor:

@Jennifer:

In the “standard” version of 2.0’s NAs, the axis barely have a chance to get started before Germany gets royally spanked.

Voice of experience?  Seems you thought the NA’s in the previous version were way to much in favor of the Axis, and the new ones were even more so.  :roll: :evil:

I had this view too…but now I’m thinking that they may be a little more balanced than it appears, it boils down to “how you use them”.

I agree, NAs usefulness is connected to their utilization.
For this reason we allow the chosing of NA. For example, if someone would try the submarine warfare with Germany, may choose the NAs related to the UBoote, etc.
They are not to balance the game, but to differentiate strategy and planning.

[jsp4563]

@Jennifer:

Will you remember in 3 years when this game is over???

hehe…shouldn’t take that long…I see storm clouds gathering.