Question about a rule

@taamvan said in Anniversary 2017 Reprint - rule changes?:

The reprint could have re-organized the setup charts, which are not very rationally laid out and appear to just wander around the area and put the units in a different order in each list. In the better organized versions, the lists are alphabetical, or some snake around the land then the sea–but it would be more rational to have some uniformity to that, rather than just a messy list without any rhyme or reason.

As to the tournament rules, the game is VASTLY different in that setting than OOB. The NOs add a ton of money, the tech adds a lot of randomness. I think the tech favors the allies because they are well-positioned to invest in that starting on turn 1, and would probably make better use of most of the random outcomes than the Axis.

I find both games to be quite imbalanced, towards the Allies. There are no other maps where fighters can fly in one move from US to London, then from London unblockably to Moscow (over the top, 4 moves). There are more layers of buffer territories for moscow–almost as many territories in the “maze” as global. In the 42 scenario, the Germans just punch themselves out really quickly trying to fight in the russian maze. And the 5$ tanks are a big boon for Russia because it can fight Germany on even terms. You might argue that goes both ways, but in most of our 41 and 42 games, Germany has to buy DEFENSIVELY, all game–not just $5 tanks. The Allies have easy choices of what to buy–tanks for russia and fighters for the other two powers, until Russia is absolutely untakable. India without a factory is a lost cause. Both setups are an easy 5-turn KGF, OOB.

In the tourney, its a 6 turn game with less than a 6 bid for either side. The Allies won 1-2 more games than the Axis did, in 2018, under these parameters. I think the only way this is possible is for the Axis to grab Sydney, India, Karelia, and then hold those, plus the original Axis cities. They can lose 1 and still win a tie, I believe.

Not having watched the invitational games in detail, that’s the only conclusion I can draw from the available data.

This is an odd reply to a question about the rules being reprinted…

Yes.

It’s already the case on land, 1 infantry can stop 100 tanks from doing a blitz

In that case, any hits scored by the fighters have to be assigned to the AC.  The only units that can hit the subs are the cruisers and that is only if the subs decided not to submerge.  Plus they would get their suprise strike.  They can submerge because there is no enemy destroyer.  Basically, destroyers are anti-sub units.  Also, remember that hits scored by subs can never be assigned to aircraft.

After further consideration I no longer feel the fighter escort/interceptor rule needs any fine tuning. In my previous posts I expressed the view that the rule nerfed strategic bombing too much but I’ve since changed my mind. After all, bombing raids over inland German targets without escorts was near suicidal, especially during the daylight. It wasn’t until the Allies had deployed long range escort fighters and had outnumbered the defending Luftwaffe aircraft, that the Allies were able to conduct bombing missions without terrible loses. The same is true with the fighter escort/interceptor rule as it stands now and it should stay that way.

I do see why they didn’t want to complicate the sub rules w/exceptions and what not, sub rules are tough enough. It would have been easy to add transports must be escorted with surface war ships through enemy sub infested waters or they are lost however. This would have pacified some of us.

Thanks guys.  The faq clears up a few things too.  Am planning a 2nd game Friday and will be playing the allies again.

I fail to remenber in wich thread this thing has been discussed but the answer is no.

You have always to palace your units if your IC has the capacity.