Re: mobilization of new fighters/carriers

Check this site: http://www.historicalboardgaming.com

There are no rules for those extra units. You have to make them yourself. But then you can better go to the forum for house rules.

I just started using the gametableonline site for my A&A fix. I’m loving it as it is the same program that was on the Gleemax boards at Wizards. Now I can play A&A whenever I desire, life is good.

If the FIG is killed, the AC does NOT have to move; and can in fact make any other NCM it wishes.

If the FIG lives, the AC MUST go to the designated SZ to recover the FIG.

@Bunnies:

@allies_fly:

I am not new to Revised, but new here.  I have been trolling the board for a while

I like the PBF area.
who are some of the better player so I can follow their games

thankz for ur replies

Trolling rly?

it IS almost fishing season!

@rjclayton:

…
Which is better?  Which is more fair?  I suppose it depends on your perspective.  For me, I think of the 4 movement for fighters as being the hard and fast rule unless long range aircraft, then it’s 6 movement (I played classic for many years).  In OOB Revised, this quirky new rule bent the old rules that I had become accustomed to, so definitely seemed odd.  The LHTR Revised ruleset seems to intuitively make more sense to me, and doesn’t bend that rule.  So for me I like this rule change made in LHTR.

I think about it like this: If I wanted to send my fighter to combat, with the intention of landing it on a carrier that was not yet fully launched, when it returned from it’s mission would it return to the shipyard, or would it land on the carrier once it was launched?  I think the answer would be to the carrier once it was launched.  And that’s how I justify this rule change.

Rob

Personally, having seen the pain of trying to get a bunch of fly boys onto a real live ship, I prefer the requirement that the planes land at the airbase closest to the shipyard(IC) and embark on the carrier when it launches (is built).  I find it ridiculously unrealistic to have those planes “meet” and land on a CV that is still trying to figure out if all the bilge level alarms work and why they get seawater out of number 3 A/C refueling station instead of JP5.

Heck, if I really wanted to argue this I would say that CVs can only embark new aircraft if the aircraft are built on a CV.  No carrier next to the IC?  No new naval avaiation units.  Your naval aviators get waxed far from home?  Don’t go expecting those Army Air guys to figure out how to land on a bouncing postage stamp after they have gotten so used to 1500’ long runways that don’t move and are wider than a carrier is long.  I might be convinced that land based air can convert to sea based air in a Non Combat Move but during Combat???  I can see it now, the FTR pulls up next to the refueling plane, fills up his tanks after combat and orders a side of tailhooks.  Of course, all of this is trading playability for complexity.  If I really wanted to do that, I would would not be playing A&A.

Give me OOB rules of FTR at the IC can move to the fresh built CV and stop giving the FTR an extra range of space during the combat move if they happen to grow tailhooks and figure out how to land on new carriers on their way back from the fight.

@Jennifer:

In that case they are +4 IPC for Caucasus that turn.  However, they are not in an tactical advantage and Russia has suffered no loss for loosing it.

Net:  Russia Tactical Advantage with larger then normal stack in W. Russ.  IPC Gain +2 (WR)
Net:  Germany at no advantage, IPC gain of 4 in Cauc, IPC loss of 2 WR, net 2 IPC gain, tactical disadvantage due to larger then normal stack in WRuss.

The way I see it, Germany gains +4 IPC from the territory, and +1 IPC from the 1/3 chance of killing a unit with minimum value 3 IPC (one infantry), so net +5 IPC for investment of +3 IPC.  Germany also benefits from tying down the UK bomber for that turn, which is not trivial; a UK bomber can do a lot of damage to valuable naval units.

The Allies gain a tactical advantage from killing a forward placed German infantry, as well as the fact that the UK, not Russia, depleted Germany’s forces, which in turn allows Russia’s forces to mass and therefore be more efficient.

Russia gains nothing by holding West Russia because I believe Russia should hold West Russia until Germany has heavily massed at Ukraine.  That is, Russia should probably be holding West Russia anyways.

Thanks man - that does help!

Weapons development is a viable option now since you can choose what you get instead of spending a lot of $ and getting super subs.

Even though it’s six times as easy to get the tech you want, the risk associated with it doesn’t translate well into consistent strategies. If you roll 9 die of tech (45 IPCs) you have an almost 20% chance of NOT achieving the tech. That sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? Ironically super subs is the only tech that I try for, and only if I’m the US and gunning after Japan. Rockets are pretty good for Germany but I really can’t find space in my economy to throw away 30+ IPCs for an uncertain tech. If you’re a habitual gambler or feel like you’re playing against  superior player so you need to take your chances, then I would say tech. Otherwise, it isn’t going to win you a whole lot of games unless you are already winning.

One part of the game that I have not explored is the option of the US going into the pacific in a big way.  Of course, the pressure off Germany is a huge reason not to do it, and it was hardly ever done in the old game.  But the increased value of the islands make it more attractive.

This is pretty fun to do if you have all the Allies cooperating against Japan. You can really make Japan squirm if the US is dumping all cash into a navy while Russia/UK swipe the Asian territories away. If the US smartly maneuvers the navy and researches super subs right before a big battle, likely Japan is going to be staring at an 8 IPC paycheck and squatting on his capital for the rest of the game. But yeah, taking pressure off Germany is a pretty big no-no. You’re leaving 10 IPCs in Africa alone to Germany (couple more in trans-jordan/persia as well) and letting him hammer Russia with full strength, which is much harder to defend against than a Japanese attempt. I admit I’m not an expert though; I haven’t taken that many games to conclusion in a real bonafide KJF strategy. It’s hard to say if the Allies can recover or not once Germany kills Russia; perhaps taking the Japanese mainland gives the Allies too good of a position to retake, but then again maybe Germany takes too many IPCs and can overrun the UK in short order and then the US.