Bear in mind that 9 VC means, in a typical game that:
Either Germany is 100% defeated, and that Russia is still intact AND that UK still has India
Or that Russia is completely destroyed, India has fallen, and German and Japan core territories are UNTOUCHED.
No matter how you slice it, 9VC is next to impossible to come back from.
As for game length with our victory conditions…
5-15 is pretty average, with games over 20 not uncommon.
LHTR v2.0 is out. You can access it here: http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=392
Thank you for posting that.
I will look over them and see if I notice anything major that will impact us for Tournaments, and I am sure Darth will check them out to see if there are any issues regarding the League. For now, we continue with 1.3 for both Tournament and League play (no active Tournaments at present, so not an issue)
we’ll have to change the fact that if an attacking sub(s) get hits on defending subs on first stike, still then now the defending subs get to shoot back regardless of first strike.
SUBs have always had simultaneous opening fire, I am not reading a change in your post (Am I mis-reading what you are saying?)
But I’ll be sure to read that section of the new rules to check for changes (there were a lot of clarifications, but allegedly no major changes except in National Advantages)
@Craig:
I sent an email to D. Jensen with the new pdf asking him to post it, like he did with v1.3.
I was hoping that he would get to it before the links from other sites started popping up.
The link listed is a link to the DAAK site, through the AAMC site.
No rules were changed, just clarified.
Enjoy!
Craig
Actually the rules that were changed significantly where the National Advantages.
http://www.axisandallies.org/LHTR
Is the place on this site for v2.0. You’ll notice that the URL is actually the same as the previous URL. I did that on purpose so that folks wouldn’t have to update all of their old links. On the new page you’ll see a link to LHTR 1.3.
Enjoy.
Well done.
External link to discussion, but the file right there for easy access.
And a SUPER EASY URL!
I love it :-)
Hey Craig, is it possible or can you point out some of the main changes (if any) that were made to these latest set of rules?
- Some changes made in the NA’s - read them in detail. One I remember clearly is the Japanese “banzai” NA. I’m surprised nobody picked up on it, but it was a potential game breaker in LHTR up til now (think of a stack of 50 inf all attacking on “2”).
Why would this be a problem?
If japan builds 50 Inf the axis are dead anyway…
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?
I think the 2.0 was more to signal that the “Beta Testing” was over, and we now had a “final product grade” release.
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.
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?
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
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 IPCare we using the rule correctly?
Yes.
It is the equivalent of “Industrial Technology” tech from Classic.
Thanks a lot!
I had used in a couple of match as USA that we played with NA and they are very effective.
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!)
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?
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.
