This thread was hijacked and no longer holds relevance

Lie.

BAN HIM !

BAN VANN !

@SS:

BAN VANN !

They should ban you also since you are continually attacking me.  :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

@SS:

@Dauvio:

@Young:

@Dauvio:

Young Grasshopper, with all due respect you are not equip to modifying existing units, or adding new units to the game. You need to use the ENIGMA (vann) FORMULAS to do that. I’ve been doing this before you ever got into A&A. If you want to make the game better like I do, then we have to all work together.

Sometimes you frustrate me, we are like water, and oil together, SAD.

You are officially weird without a doubt!… do me a favour and stay off my threads weirdo!

You are a hypocrite, you are arrogant, and ignorant!!! I will attack you on your ideas on using different sided dice, modifying existing units, and adding new units to the game because you don’t know what the hell what you are doing!!! Why I am doing this because I am very passionate about A&A!!! You need to wise up boy!!!� :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

@SS:

BAN VANN !

I’m not sure if “weirdo” is really an insult in that specific context but other words appears very offensive and bashful.
Categorizing people is very detrimental attitude.

IMO, this out of place emotional attitude can be excuse with correct amendment. I don’t think either banishment and silencing someone is a democratic way to deal with this.

Please people, it is only a game, not a matter of life and death, how matter we are invested into it.
HR forum is a place for ideas, sharing experiences and dialogue.

Sorry but this is not helping your case Vann.
I’m deeply sad that you cannot admit such blatantly offensive language.
YG has develop many good ideas for house rule.
His records talk by itself.

@SS:

BAN VANN !

I second the motion.  All in favour please say “Aye”?

And what are Vann’s qualifications? He has a formula. He’s been playing since the game came out. Does he even know when it really came out?

Better yet, how is he in any way qualified to judge anybody else’s qualifications?

All I ever see or hear about Vann on YouTube or this forum is how his “formula” makes the units and game obsolete.

GREAT NEWS GUYS! WE have all been playing and enjoying an obsolete game for 35 plus years! Thanks Vann for that insight.
For someone who claims to have a lot of passion for this game, your sure spend a lot of time talking down about it.

He has said he is a A&A Grandmaster…
The rank of Grandmaster is a coveted title that is most well known in Chess terms. Chess Grand Masters gain their ranks through a laborious and lengthy process that is overseen and regulated by a world wide governing body.
I searched for Axis & Allies Grand Master. I couldn’t find it.
His rank of Grandmaster is awarded by WHO?
His rank of Grandmaster is sanctioned by What Organization?

When I asked him, he did not to respond to those questions.

Okay good, so he has been playing since the start of A&A, so have a lot of people! That doesn’t make him better than others, or even an expert.
It only means he has been playing since it began…period!
There are plenty of people that have started playing recently or at least not that terribly long ago that I would give a lot more credence to and respect to simply because they have respect for others.
They don’t constantly criticize and harass others and say that your opinion is wrong and that you are not equipped.
They also do not threaten to show up to tournaments and cause trouble and argue with the man who created the game in the first place. Still can’t believe you said you were going to show up there and cause trouble…unbelievable!

I’ve asked nicely before on YouTube: Vann, if you are going to respond to peoples posts, or videos, or whatever, then respond to the content of that post and do so in a courteous manner.
Telling people that they are not qualified, that they are greenhorns or that something is out of someone’s skill range is not courteous.
Why is it not courteous?
Because I know, and others know, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you also know that what you said is not true!
Respectful, stand up kind of guys also would not feign that they were the one attacked first, when it is clearly obvious from the tone of your post that you were being downright insulting and demeaning.
It is also obvious from your history of posts here on A&A.org and on YouTube that have some kind of grudge against certain people. LET IT GO! It only hurts yourself in the long run to carry a grudge.
You claim to be a Christian?
Then look back at your history and give yourself a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself of that fact.
You haven’t been acting like one lately!

You may have explained your formula before in some thread or post or forum, but honestly and humbly, myself and others simply disagree with your “formula” and or application thereof.
If people disagree, then realize that you cannot and will not change their minds by constant bombardment and harassment, and move on!

its a shame this happened…
lets try to move forward…
bottom line this 8d system is an improvement from the “stale” current system…

and remember IMO everyone is qualified regardless of so called level…
so in other words we need to respect ones opinions whether we agree or disagree…

the last thing we need to do is argue…its hard enough to find people that know how to play…

so again…lets move forward

Half this thread is completely off topic. Can a moderator delete the horse pucky so people can read about the d8 without checking extra pages for relevant info?

@Ichabod:

I think regular infantry should still defend at 2 which is still less odds than on a 6 sided dice.

I think the other restrictions are ok, however, I personally don’t care for them.

Russia at times can only purchase infantry. I don’t think they should be nerfed this way and have to spend 4 IPCs for a better defending unit.

YG, what do you think about moving regular infantry to defend @2 and leave the other stats the same? I have a feeling that Russia is going to get nerfed more easily with the 8 sided die. Even 2/8 is obviously less 2/6.

@Ichabod:

@Ichabod:

I think regular infantry should still defend at 2 which is still less odds than on a 6 sided dice.

I think the other restrictions are ok, however, I personally don’t care for them.

Russia at times can only purchase infantry. I don’t think they should be nerfed this way and have to spend 4 IPCs for a better defending unit.

YG, what do you think about moving regular infantry to defend @2 and leave the other stats the same? I have a feeling that Russia is going to get nerfed more easily with the 8 sided die. Even 2/8 is obviously less 2/6.

YG has left the site. When he returns is any body’s guess. And thats that.

@Bob77:

Half this thread is completely off topic. Can a moderator delete the horse pucky so people can read about the d8 without checking extra pages for relevant info?

Its was on topic until the Grand Master crashed it again !

Why don’t the moderators just ban this Vann guy? He’s so obviously a troll. He spends inordinate amounts of time baiting people, particularly Young Grasshopper. Vann is basically a cyber-bully.

Has anybody given thought to qualifying artillery support so that the lowest-cost infantry are either unable to use that ability or able to use it only on attack? (I think being able to receive support while attacking is probably easier than coordinating defensive artillery fire.)

Der Keunstler has had some great ideas about infantry, especially the idea that they Might be able to entrench. Perhaps elite infantry should be able to neutralize entrenchment on a 1:1 basis?

Leatherneck has a great idea to qualify airborne attacks so that they suffer a penalty unless made in conjunction with either a land or amphibious invasion. I also love Der Keunstler’s special rules for amphibious landings: defenders get entrenchment tokens to simulate beach defenses that absorb hits.

@Trenacker:

Has anybody given thought to qualifying artillery support so that the lowest-cost infantry are either unable to use that ability or able to use it only on attack? (I think being able to receive support while attacking is probably easier than coordinating defensive artillery fire.)

Trenacker, I’ve thought about this, but my line of thinking is that Russia has a hard enough time not falling as it is unless the allies get a stack of fighters to Moscow. They’re base unit (infantry) should not be nerfed anymore.

Also, coordinating artillery when defending is easier than attacking. Let me convince you here.

Defenders can establish pre-determined firing coordinates within the perfect safety distance of their positions; artillerist in turn know the exact amount of gun powder and angle of the tubes, ect. The infantry units can lay down telephone lines (which was the preferred or primary means of communication which permits plain text speech). Radios were the secondary means of communication (not as good because you have to break squelch and often speak in codes, use military jargon phonetic alphabet). In theory, the defenders could have the artillery units on standby 24 hours a day waiting for fire requests.

If I convinced you, now my question is what about giving a bump to defending artillery on the initial roll; like maybe 1/2 artillery get a little higher roll on the initial defense roll? Maybe even the slight bump just going to Russia and we call it a specialty “Russian Winter” faction advantage. In the Revised edition, there was an alternate rule for one time only “Russian Winter” declaration where the infantry rolled @3 on the first roll. There is an Axis and Allies historical context to this.

Artillery support to an attack is harder; especially in a fluid battlefield after the initial volleys and the maneuver units go forward. Pre-determined coordinates can be made to support an attack against objectives too. But attack plans always change the moment it begins. In any event, whether attacking or defending, artillery support is important, it’s why it’s called the King of Battle!

To tie this back to the thread, I like the idea of an 8 sided dice, just my concern is for the Russian infantry defending rolls being significantly disadvantaged which is why I think Russia might need something.

Man, where have I been? I missed all the action.

This Venn Diagram guy is a real character, eh. Reminds me of a borderline senile seventy-something contractor I have the significant displeasure of working with. His posts are written in like a eighty year old who just discovered email. Words are misspelled, there is an overuse of punctuation, annoying capitalization and re-sizing of fonts. He also keeps tirelessly plugging his patented venn diagram formulas at every opportunity. It’s like a granddad with headphones on - you try and talk to him, but he only hears what’s going on in his own head and speaks in an unnecessarily raised voice.

Please, for all that is holy, learn some etiquette. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus didn’t say that flamers and trolls would inherit the earth.  :roll:

Ha, and why does it say “Disciplinary Group” with a nice shiny star in his profile page? Couple more of those and you get a dishonorable discharge?

What sucks is that YG is now gone for a while. A solid, fair dude if there ever was one. I am thinking we got shafted with this trade.

I don’t like banning people and I am not sure it would be effective anyway. Can’t he just get a new profile and continue pushing his venn diagrams?

I say we shun him. That is the Amish way.

@Ichabod:

Also, coordinating artillery when defending is easier than attacking. Let me convince you here.

This is slightly off topic from YGs original post about infantry, but I will adress it anyway.

Defense is the strong way of using military force, and defense will favor all land unit types, if we consider the tactical level. Both defending infantry, artillery and even Tanks dug in for protection, and usually they even lay a minefield to force the attacking enemies into a killing zone covered by pre determined fire coordinates. The attacker will need 3 times the firepower of the defender to succeed with an attack. But this change at the strategic level, since the attacker can bypass the defending strongpoints. Unless there is a bottleneck with natural flank protection, like the Russian attack on Viborg, or the D day landing in Normandy, in which cases could only be solved with brute frontal attacks and huge losses. But usually the units got other combat values in the strategigal level. A strong defender can never cover all of the border, unless we speak trench warfare of WWI, so basically mobile units like Tanks can make surprise attacks at light defended points, or breakthrough at an unexpected place, and later make a follow up attack on the dug in defenders from behind, or if the defending strongpoint is too strong, just cut off their supply line and let them starve, or exploit the chaotic situation in other ways. But since our A&A map dont have terrain like mountains, forest, swamps or plains, and no effect if the border are short or long, and no wheather effect neither, and the Battle board have no way of telling what type of combat we resolve, is it an infantry assault, or a Panzer blitzkrieg attack ? It dont even treat an Amphibious Assault much different than other attacks. Even air combat and naval battles are resolved basically the same way. So then I figure the current OOB combat values are good enough.

Accidentically I have made a study of this issues for several years, and my suggestion is to differ the type of territories, and the type of combat too. Keep the current units values for simplicity, but let the defenders land units roll one round of preemptive fire if there is an amphibious assault, or the territory contains mountains, marshes and terrain that favor the defender, or the territory is small, like Gibraltar or Viborg, forcing the attacker to face all the dug in defenders, with no possibility for a bypass. Aircrafts really should get their own combat phase, with possibility to target other aircrafts, and only the part that get air supremacy should be able to take part of the later combat phases. Also, naval battles need an distinct and specific combat phase, and only the part that get naval supremacy can take part in the land combat phase, that will be resolved last, after the other phases.

About YGs suggestion, I dont like it. Infantry are too weak as it is, and attack at 1 with a D8 must be a joke. Maybe if regulare infantry att 2 def 4 with a D8 maybe I endorse it, but then there are game balance.

Inf too weak?
In absolute number, yes; but not relative to cost. Being cheapest, providing 1 hit for 3 IPCs make Inf strong unit.
Do you mean compared to M2 MechInf?

Increasing Inf strength would recreate the slow Infantry Push Mechanic.

Well, Ichabod, color me convinced. I am going to use the phrase, “Let me convince you” next time I need to persuade somebody to accept correction.

So figure, according to my house rules, the infantry units are as follows in a d8 or d12 system:

Colonial Infantry are A1D1C2M1, with no abilities.

Cavalry are A1D1C3M2, with the ability to blitz and withdraw.

Regular Infantry are A1D2C3M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only and to entrench. This should fix your concerns about Russia’s ability to defend itself, Ichabod.

Airborne Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to conduct parachute drops from transport aircraft, to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Airborne Infantry attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct airborne assaults.

Marine Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Marines may reduce amphibious defenses by 1 on a 1:1 basis during an amphibious assault and attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct amphibious assaults.

Heavy Infantry are A2D2C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on attack and defense, to entrench, and to neutralize entrenchment on a 1:1 basis during an attack.

Armored Cars are A2D2C7M2, with the ability to conduct reconnaissance (reroll artillery on a 1:1 basis), to Blitz, and to withdraw.

I should add that, in my games, artillery fire precedes normal combat. Casualties in this phase are removed without a chance to fire back. The attacker always goes first, then the defender, when resolving the artillery phase. After that, combat proceeds normally.

We also use Der Kuenstler’s rules on etrenchment and amphibious assaults. The entrenchment option will presumably give the Russians additional breathing room.

Per Narvik’s comments, we have developed air-to-ground and air-to-air ratings for all air units, although I am leaning strongly toward including an air phase that precedes naval or ground combat.

@Trenacker:

Well, Ichabod, color me convinced. I am going to use the phrase, “Let me convince you” next time I need to persuade somebody to accept correction.

So figure, according to my house rules, the infantry units are as follows in a d8 or d12 system:

Colonial Infantry are A1D1C2M1, with no abilities.

Cavalry are A1D1C3M2, with the ability to blitz and withdraw.

Regular Infantry are A1D2C3M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only and to entrench. This should fix your concerns about Russia’s ability to defend itself, Ichabod.

Airborne Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to conduct parachute drops from transport aircraft, to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Airborne Infantry attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct airborne assaults.

Marine Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Marines may reduce amphibious defenses by 1 on a 1:1 basis during an amphibious assault and attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct amphibious assaults.

Heavy Infantry are A2D2C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on attack and defense, to entrench, and to neutralize entrenchment on a 1:1 basis during an attack.

Armored Cars are A2D2C7M2, with the ability to conduct reconnaissance (reroll artillery on a 1:1 basis), to Blitz, and to withdraw.

I should add that, in my games, artillery fire precedes normal combat. Casualties in this phase are removed without a chance to fire back. The attacker always goes first, then the defender, when resolving the artillery phase. After that, combat proceeds normally.

We also use Der Kuenstler’s rules on etrenchment and amphibious assaults. The entrenchment option will presumably give the Russians additional breathing room.

Per Narvik’s comments, we have developed air-to-ground and air-to-air ratings for all air units, although I am leaning strongly toward including an air phase that precedes naval or ground combat.

Trenacker,
showing your rules are not a way to convince someone else.
You need to push a little forward and compared both and shows benefits from one over another.

Also, you are including more HRs which are outside YG’s parameter for sure.

Besides, I’m trying to have wider grasp of all air-to-air combat rules (in hope of developing a toggle option in Triple A G40 redesign), would you please give me the link for your rules. I believe this is within HR forum already, right?

@Narvik, I’m also interested if you wrote it somewhere.
Thanks,

Wrote what ?

@Narvik:

It dont even treat an Amphibious Assault much different than other attacks. Even air combat and naval battles are resolved basically the same way. So then I figure the current OOB combat values are good enough.

Accidentically I have made a study of this issues for several years, and my suggestion is to differ the type of territories, and the type of combat too. Keep the current units values for simplicity, but let the defenders land units roll one round of preemptive fire if there is an amphibious assault, or the territory contains mountains, marshes and terrain that favor the defender, or the territory is small, like Gibraltar or Viborg, forcing the attacker to face all the dug in defenders, with no possibility for a bypass. Aircrafts really should get their own combat phase, with possibility to target other aircrafts, and only the part that get air supremacy should be able to take part of the later combat phases. Also, naval battles need an distinct and specific combat phase, and only the part that get naval supremacy can take part in the land combat phase, that will be resolved last, after the other phases.

Your air-to-air combat rules.