The UnBaltic - CSub paper #18

No, we only need to worry about the internet community because the other communities are not present to worry about.

Why should you give your hot dog to some kid from Uzbekistan if you cannot get to the kid from Uzbekistan because you are in Chicago and he is in Uzbekistan?  Give the hot dog to a kid where you are.

Same here.  Why talk about some non-entity that may, or may not, exist when we have a large sum of entities who are impacted and present and we know exist?

@Craig:

@newpaintbrush:

To me, there is ONE basis for “everything”, and that’s the official FAQ released on the Avalon Hill website.  LHTR is not on there.  That’s all there is to it.

DAAK, Axis and Allies Org, the Larry Harris forum, US tournament scene - all that’s fine and good, but I really don’t give a d*** about them.  As fine as all those organizations are, they do not speak for Avalon Hill.

If you’ve really got an inside line on things, Yoper, put it where it counts - get a final revision of LHTR put up on the Avalon Hill website.  Then LHTR will BE official.  It won’t just be “oh, it ought to be official shoulda woulda coulda blah blah balance blah blah original designer blah blah”.

I’ve got a story for that too, but I can’t tell it right now.

One big problem with just posting the LHTR up on their website (or putting it into the next print run)- what happens to all those copies of the game sitting on the shelves of the local game store?  Those merchants would be a bit pissed if people didn’t want to buy that stock and were clamoring for the new stuff.

Yes, what DOES happen to those copies sitting on the shelves?  They sell just like normal.  In fact, I think they sell BETTER than normal.  What YOU are talking about is releasing a NEW edition of Axis and Allies Revised (whether by changing the rulebook for the reprint or coming out with another version).  What I am talking about is releasing LHTR on the Avalon Hill website.

Why would Axis and Allies Revised sell BETTER than normal?  Because you wouldn’t have all this unpleasant disagreement over what ruleset people should play.  As it is, people that are aware of the two rulesets will see a conflict.  Once people see that there is only ONE ruleset, then there will be no conflict.  A stronger community makes for more players.

And note that Avalon Hill ALREADY has an FAQ on their website.  I don’t see that merchants made a clamor over that.  Why would they suddenly object over LHTR?  You still need a board and pieces to play (and if you were using ABattlemap or TripleA, you still wouldn’t need a board and pieces).

Gets back to your whole argument about noobs not knowing about the different versions of the rules and then buying an older copy of the game with the first set of rules.  They would probably not even know that there have been problems and might just end up with an older version.  That leads to chaos and pissed of customers.

That isn’t my argument at all, Yoper, and I think you’re rather going out on a limb there.  After all, if you want to argue that different versions of the game leads to "chaos and pissed of(f) customers, then I’m sure you would have argued against the release of Axis and Allies Revised as opposed to the last release.  But that’s not what you’re saying, is it Yoper?  I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth, now.

My argument is that there are a very loud and vocal minority in the boardgaming community that think they have the right to speak for everyone else.  Frankly, I wouldn’t tolerate that sort of thing even if they were the majority, nor would I tolerate being told that I don’t have a right to my own opinion even if those people WERE the officials in charge of the boardgame rules in question.  What I think is nuts is that somehow I’m being told what I’m supposed to think and act, and I’m being told what everyone else thinks and acts, and I just don’t see this supposed magical understanding in real life.  Chaos and pissed off customers?  I’m pretty happy with Wizards of the Coast; all they’ve ever done for me is put up helpful FAQs and ship me free stuff to fix what I think was wrong with my purchased products.

But this whole LHTR thing - yeah, there seems to be a lot of argument and negative emotions attached to that, regardless of the fact that it’s the better ruleset.  There is chaos, there is argument, there are displeased customers, but those are not things that I perceive in any way as being attached to Wizards of the Coast.

I’ve never had a problem with using OOB/FAQ; I say “It’s on the Wizards of the Coast website.  It’s the official FAQ.  Here’s the web address”, and that’s the end of it.

Yes, it would be nice if AH/WotC/Hasbro would make them official right now.  But just wait.

@tekkyy:

Oooh more insider hints.
Still doesn’t fix the disappointment of LHTR 2.0 being a bit “LHTR 1.4”, yet.

There are, as I have stated before, reasons for that.  Sufficed to say, it will all be clear eventually.

Craig

:roll:

In all seriousness, it isn’t that I have an issue with the INTENT of what you’re saying, Yoper; I’m sure you’re as honest as the day is long.  But plans have a way of changing, and there are many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.

I believe in what I see.  Words are cheap.

Would YOU be satisfied if you had a problem, and someone, even someone with some authority, said “Don’t worry, everything’s going to be OK”?  And let’s say there were no explanations forthcoming.  It’s just “Don’t worry!”  I don’t know how you do things in your neck of the woods, but I find such situations unacceptable.

And to be told that my opinion doesn’t matter?

My opinions don’t matter, and everything’s going to be okay, just don’t worry about it?  Just try pulling that sort of thing at work.  People that work under or with you will hate you, and your boss will just fire you.  Think I’m wrong there?

I’m sure that if you think about things in that perspective that you will understand and agree with my position.

So NPB, in OOB/FAQ rules, if there is a sea zone battle, and the defender takes all but subs as losses, can the attacker retreat, or can the defender submerge the subs and trap the attacker in that sea zone?  I couldn’t find a clear answer to that.

@newpaintbrush:

I’m pretty happy with Wizards of the Coast; all they’ve ever done for me is put up helpful FAQs and ship me free stuff to fix what I think was wrong with my purchased products.

How does one get this free stuff of which you speak?  I like free stuff. Free stuff is GOOD! (and Tanks are STRONG!)

All they do is issue a press release that if you mail in your proof of purchase seal you get a copy of the fixed instructions free of charge.  Bingo, end of story.  Done.  If you don’t WANT the new rules, don’t mail in the UPC code.  (Hell, you have to do this all the time for rebates and to get free toys from cereal box tops, etc.  Not like this is NEW or WEIRD.)

@TimTheEnchanter:

So NPB, in OOB/FAQ rules, if there is a sea zone battle, and the defender takes all but subs as losses, can the attacker retreat, or can the defender submerge the subs and trap the attacker in that sea zone?  I couldn’t find a clear answer to that.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

Retreats (section)

Can I retreat if I’ve eliminated all the defending units or if all defending units have submerged?
No. You can only retreat if enemy units remain on the battle board.

I believe that indicates that the defender can choose to submerge subs first, leaving the attacker stuck.

@newpaintbrush:

I’m pretty happy with Wizards of the Coast; all they’ve ever done for me is put up helpful FAQs and ship me free stuff to fix what I think was wrong with my purchased products.

How does one get this free stuff of which you speak?  I like free stuff. Free stuff is GOOD! (and Tanks are STRONG!)

Well, I play a fair bit with an actual board, and soon after buying my Axis and Allies Revised game, I was talking with some friends, and they mentioned that Wizards of the Coast had recognized that the game was short on chips, and was - for a limited time - mailing out free chips.  So being me, I said “orly?”  And they were like “yarly.”  So I called WotC the next day.

Now get this.

I say “Hey, I hear you guys might be mailing out free chips”.  Apparently they had discontinued the program, but they still had some bags of chips left.  So they said they’d mail me some chips.  Then I said “Half of my UK tanks are tannish-green, half are tannish-brown.” (they were) So they said “OK, we’ll send you some tanks.”  So I thought “wow, this is pretty sweet.”  So I said “I keep running out of Japanese infantry because I push Japanese infantry in Asia, and all my infantry pieces are on the islands.”  So they said “OK, we’ll send you some.”  So I was like “Wooahah.  Do I pay shipping or anything?”  And they said “Nope.”

I forget if it was a week, or a few days, or how long.  But one day I opened up my mail, and I got all white chips, red chips, a whole new set of UK pieces, and a bag of Japanese infantry.  At no additional cost.  No arguing, no negotiation, no long and involved painful complaints, no wasted time.  Just sweet satisfaction.  I love those guys.

I blew about $1500 on Hecatomb, which was a Wizards of the Coast card game that folded (the cards are pretty much worthless now).  But I still love Wizards of the Coast, because they support their product well.  (BTW, I sent in a fair deal of offset-printed Hecatomb cards and got free replacements.  Again - good customer service.)

I’ve never spent a penny on Wizards of the Coast product that I didn’t consider well-spent, and I don’t hesitate to buy new Wizards of the Coast product, because I’m sure they’ll back their product up.  Good times.

I never heard of the mail in proof of purchase bit.  I just use the WotC website to print the rule clarifications; link above.

Mail in Proof of Purchase is just something that a lot of companies require.  Dunno what WotCs policies are.

@newpaintbrush:

@TimTheEnchanter:

So NPB, in OOB/FAQ rules, if there is a sea zone battle, and the defender takes all but subs as losses, can the attacker retreat, or can the defender submerge the subs and trap the attacker in that sea zone?  I couldn’t find a clear answer to that.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

Retreats (section)

Can I retreat if I’ve eliminated all the defending units or if all defending units have submerged?
No. You can only retreat if enemy units remain on the battle board.

I believe that indicates that the defender can choose to submerge subs first, leaving the attacker stuck.

That is still vague to me, because the subs may have submerged on a prior combat round. :shrug:

@TimTheEnchanter:

@newpaintbrush:

@TimTheEnchanter:

So NPB, in OOB/FAQ rules, if there is a sea zone battle, and the defender takes all but subs as losses, can the attacker retreat, or can the defender submerge the subs and trap the attacker in that sea zone?  I couldn’t find a clear answer to that.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

Retreats (section)

Can I retreat if I’ve eliminated all the defending units or if all defending units have submerged?
No. You can only retreat if enemy units remain on the battle board.

I believe that indicates that the defender can choose to submerge subs first, leaving the attacker stuck.

That is still vague to me, because the subs may have submerged on a prior combat round. :shrug:

I thought there was a line in some ruleset about how you can’t retreat if all that is left is submerged subs. This would indicate that the submerge step is before the retreat step. But anyway, this thread has really strayed. CSub says subs first, LHTR says attacker first, OOB is crap.

Can’t we get back to the UnBaltic discussion?

Yes, NewPaint

CaspianS says one and LHTR the other thing

BUT WHAT IS THE RULESET FOR OUR TOURNAMENT AND LEAGUE

SWITCH, DARTH, PLEASE CLARIFY, SO WE AVOID ANY POTENTIAL INCONVENIENCIES

THANK YOU

@Craig:

npb- As I stated, my scenario was just one problem that could arise.

Why don’t they just post it on their website?  My guess is that they don’t want to look foolish for having put a crappy ruleset into their game in the first place.

If I had to guess, I’d say that Avalon Hill doesn’t want to put up the LHTR ruleset because of royalty and/or copyright and author credit issues.  I don’t think “looking foolish” has anything to do with it - first, because a mistake that is not corrected is more “foolish” than a mistake that is corrected, and second, because Avalon Hill’s put out a few games with rulebooks that weren’t so great (like Betrayal at House on the Hill, which although fun, required a bit more editing - note that Avalon Hill put up an FAQ for that game too).

Placing a FAQ/Errata up is a lot different than a wholesale changing out of the rules.

Avalon Hill/WotC/Hasbro could summarize the changes between out-of-the-box rules and LHTR rules in an FAQ/Errata.

Also, weren’t you the same person that talked about most people not even knowing about the LHTR?  Even if AH/WotC/Hasbro did post the LHTR on their website, there would still be a large percentage that would miss the fact that there had been a change.

Yoper, don’t try to slide out of this one.  A fix is a fix, and a website posting is a reasonable fix that doesn’t terribly inconvenience Avalon Hill (apart from the copyright issue already mentioned) that helps the customers.  If you want to have the attitude that nothing should be changed or recognized, I fail to understand why you are even trying to say that LHTR should be used in the first place.

You say that WotC can’t release a new version because retailers will complain about unsold product on their shelves, you say that WotC can’t release errata on their website - all I’m hearing are negatives, despite the fact that you’re saying there should be change.  If you want to say things like

The LHTR are here.  And further more, they are the basis for everything moving forward.  (Yes, I have an inside line on things.  cool )

Then you follow with -

You talk about words and actions, but from my point of view, AH/WotC/Hasbro has done little or none of either to soothe my unhappiness.  The only positive that I have witnessed in the last four years is the exchange of the A&A:Guadalcanal cruisers for the proper pieces.  And that seems to be more of a function of a new brand manager for the A&A name than because of anything else that has happened.

You see how there could be confusion, Yoper.  You say there’s a fix.  But you’re not satisfied with the fix because WotC hasn’t soothed your unhappiness.  I mentioned that LHTR could be put up on the website, and you are talking about a new edition causing unsold product on shelves, WotC not putting a fix on their website because they think they’ll look foolish - frankly, I don’t think we’re having the same discussion.

I just don’t understand what you’re shooting for, Yoper.  I hope you can state what you think the problem is, and what you think the solution would be; I can’t imagine your nondisclosure agreement would prevent you from expressing your personal opinion - and I must say that although I’ve tried, I can’t figure out what you’re trying to get at here, other than that you think everyone should use LHTR, and yet that Avalon Hill shouldn’t make LHTR available on their website.  Maybe that isn’t your position, but if you read back over your posts, I’m sure you can understand how I would arrive at this understanding.

@newpaintbrush:

I believe in what I see.  Words are cheap.

I believe in what I have seen out of AH/WotC/Hasbro and I think that their words and actions are cheap.

Well, I know that dealing with a company on the inside is a lot different from dealing with the company on the outside, and as a tournament organizer, I’m sure you may have had some negative experiences.

But for myself, as a customer, I’ve had a universally positive experience with WotC/Hasbro.  I’m not a fanboy either; I would rather that WotC/Hasbro had fixed the rules issues to begin with, and done more playtesting/editing work (anyone can tell that Superfortresses/Heavy Bombers is a broken strategy, as are Lend-Lease and any number of other out-of-the-box NAs).

Mistakes happen, though, and I feel that WotC/Hasbro has addressed the issues - perhaps not to everyone’s complete satisfaction, but at least to a reasonable standard (I actually feel in my case that they surpassed a reasonable standard)

I would love to tell all that I know about how these things have been and are now being handled.  But I can’t.  Having signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement means that I can’t discuss what I have been doing.

That is why I couch my statements as I do.  I am not saying that you have to “trust” me implicitedly.  I saying that I think that things will work out for the better once what I know about comes into the light.

Not everyone will be happy. :cry:  That is just the way things are, no matter how hard you try to get it absolutely right.  But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to get them right.  Isn’t that just what I’ve been saying all along?

Eventually, the deck will be cleared of this rules debate in its present form.  That doesn’t mean that somehow there won’t be another one based on the next set of conditions.  But hopefully it will be just about likes and dislikes of said ruleset, not about vagueness in what is said within the rulset.

Craig

TimTheEnchanter - I hadn’t thought of subs already being submerged.  I suppose it is ambiguous.

Hyogoetophile - My personal thought on CSub paper 18 is that it is filled with hoboes with candy-filled pockets.  I’ll explain in my next post.

Looking back on this thread, I nominate it for most Thread-Jacked of 2008.

Hoboes with Candy-Filled Pockets  :roll:

The Local Hoo-ligan Speaks on CSub paper #18

–

CSub papers outline strategies that look tempting and sound good.  (Like candy.)  But there are potentially nasty consequences that CSub papers generally only briefly address. (Like hoboes.)  It’s a great deal if you’re making happen what you want to happen.  (Like if you had a hobo with candy-filled pockets as a friend; free candy, and nobody wants to mess with you because of your potentially stabby hobo friend).  But sometimes, things don’t go quite your way.  (Like if you were with your hobo friend and reached in his pocket for some candy, and he suddenly slapped your hand away and stared at you with a menacing hobo glare!)

The trick is making it to Rock Candy Mountain without a hobo in tow.  But you’ll find that lots of hoboes love the Rock Candy Mountain.

–

“The key concepts of this move are:
Cascade dice failure risk (CDFR)
A German United Fleet (GUF) – Covered in previous Policy Papers
A Western Europe air base”

Hobo 1:

“Your other option for ignoring the fleet is to build your fleet in Z02.  There is no risk in this move, but it does mean that the German fleet can slip into the Med.  At that point the Med Fleet will become essentially unsinkable, and two transports will perpetually threaten Africa and the Caucasus.  In addition, the Germans will have the option of pulling the fleet back out of the Med for a strike on Allied shipping.”

So the German fleet becomes unsinkable.  Yehaw, that sounds good don’t it?  UNSINKABLE.  It almost sounds like . . . UNDEFEATABLE!    Hey kid, want some CANDY?

But the Allies don’t have to walk into that.  The Germans can have their little Med fleet.  Now, with the Med fleet at Gibraltar and the Baltic fleet off UK, the UK can probably counterattack Anglo-Egypt on UK1.  The probable following German move is either invasion of London or moving the Med fleet east and moving the Baltic fleet south of Western Europe.  (The Med fleet moves east because the Med fleet transport is best suited to moving units to either Libya, Anglo-Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Balkans, Ukraine, or Caucasus).  This prevents the Allies from moving to Algeria on UK2 as the Baltic fleet plus German air from W. Europe can sink it - but if German fighters are indeed at W. Europe, UK should be able to take Norway, German bomber notwithstanding.  Now, the Allies can start moving units through into the Norway/Archangel/Eastern Europe route early because they don’t have to worry about the Baltic fleet.  True, it takes some time for the Allies to reach that goal, as they need to build the necessary transports and need to account for the extra German bomber.  It’s the HOBO!  Maybe not a stabby killy hobo, but you can see that it isn’t all candy for the Germans.  The paper says

“In addition, the Germans will have the option of pulling the fleet back out of the Med for a strike on Allied shipping.”

Will they really?  The Allied fleet moving units from E. Canada to UK (if KGF) will be in range as soon as the German navy moves to the sea zone west of Algeria, as will any Allied navy in the sea zone west of Norway.  The only reasons the Allied navy wouldn’t be in that sea zone west of Norway are player error, or an early Allied mass of ground units in Karelia/Archangel/Eastern Europe, which is in its own way bad for Germany.  Add to that the Allied air, and you’re talking serious fleet commitment.  Subs and transports will not cut it, the battleship will have to come out to play.  But the battleship is expensive fodder - you see where this is going.  Once the Germans are in the Med, they will probably stay in the Med, unless they decide to commit west, in which case the Allies don’t NEED to hit them there anyways, but in which case Germany will have lost that initiative in the Med/Africa.  Hobo indeed.

Hobo 2:

“What about the third option of an air-force-only attack on the boats?  That is not a great fight for the UK.  In the first place, in a fight to the death UK wins less than 51% of the battles.  The attack is inherently risky.  In second place, the normal attacker advantage of being able to call off the attack is largely negated by the presence of subs.  If the battle is going well for the UK, the subs will submerge and could slip into the Med on the next round.  Worse yet, if the UK bricks on the first round, suddenly the Germans could be in a dominant naval position (that happens 8.33% of the time).  Notice the mounting CDFR opportunities in this battle.  The UK would be unhappy both if they hit very heavy or if they hit very light.”

1.  Attackers do not need to fight to the death, and the risk is minimal.  With two fighters and a bomber (with the German Med fleet moving west, the Indian fighter will in all probability be sufficient to retake Anglo-Egypt with 3 inf), the attacker gets perhaps 2 hits, or 16 IPC worth of boats.  The defender gets perhaps 1 hit with its transport and destroyer defending, worth 10 IPC of fighter.  Granted, there are chances of failure on both sides, but the UK isn’t doing much else with its air force, and doesn’t have much to lose (it isn’t risking its precious bomber, and will still in all probability have air left to trade territory in Europe, IF UK retreats after the first round which it probably should).

2.  If the UK bricks (performs poorly on attack and gets hit heavily by defending German navy), that’s a risk the UK takes, but it’s reasonable, and the Allies are not totally ruined.  Hurt, yes.  But not by any means ruined.  On the other hand, if the UK smashes the crap out of the German fleet, the subs submerge on the first German turn, the US follows up with a free bomber attack run, and perhaps 2 or if very lucky 3 German subs make it to the Med, where they have to be joined by the German battleship or be sunk by further UK and US bomber runs, and the German battleship joining the German subs means the German battleship and transport can’t be used to make progress in Africa/Europe.  This is NOT bad for the Allies.

–

I’m not going to go much more into detail, except to note that a W. Europe fighter base is generally relatively poor, as the fighters cannot be used to trade except for Karelia or rarely Norway, but the second German bomber makes trades without tank commitment possible with up to three territories, which is a real bonus.  Also, a unified German fleet is of some use, but if the Germans commit navy to the Med, the Allies move to the Baltic, and if the Germans commit navy to the Baltic, the Allies can build up air force to hit the trapped navy, or can transport units to Africa, or both.

–

And that’s my take on CSub paper #18.  It’s a strategy worth trying, but it isn’t a magic bullet.

@Amon:

Yes, NewPaint

CaspianS says one and LHTR the other thing

BUT WHAT IS THE RULESET FOR OUR TOURNAMENT AND LEAGUE

SWITCH, DARTH, PLEASE CLARIFY, SO WE AVOID ANY POTENTIAL INCONVENIENCIES

THANK YOU

Both Tournament and League use LHTR 2.0.

@Mazer:

Hey NPB.

Nice post.  I’ll just make a couple comments.

And that’s my take on CSub paper #18. It’s a strategy worth trying, but it isn’t a magic bullet.

Oddly enough, that would be my take on the paper too.  I would never say that any paper is the magic bullet.  In fact, in our paper on the zone 42 sucker punch we explicitly say the move is not a Crane Kick, but you should have it in your arsenal.  Same thing with the UnBaltic.

Come to think of it, that’s true.  I apologize for giving the impression that I think CSub papers make unsubstantiated claims, for they do not.

My criticism is more directed at PLAYERS than CSub.  Think critically!  Look at every strategy upside down and sideways!  Give that gift horse a mouth exam, a rectal exam, and test it for plastic explosives!

There are many openings in chess; there ought to be many standard openings in Axis and Allies.  Just because an opening is described doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be an unbeatable strategy.

(I myself am still highly partial to a Land Bridge opening.  I’ve had a lot of success with it and it is plenty fun to play.)

So the German fleet becomes unsinkable.

Nope, it becomes “essentially unsinkable”.  The difference is significant.  Sure the allies can sink the fleet, but will it be worth it if it is parked in the Med?  How many planes will the allies be willing to lose to take out that fleet? The only way that fleet is going down is if it is prepped for a strike on Allied shipping and the Germans get careless by coming in range of expendable Allied boats.  Otherwise it’s going to keep shucking troops to Africa or Bal/Ukr/Cau.

That isn’t my point - my point is that EVEN WITH a strong Mediterranean navy that is for all practical purposes unsinkable until quite late game, the Allies have a counter.  Not a GREAT counter.  Not a bad counter either, though.

Last thought: if, as you write, this is a “strategy worth trying”, is it really fair to characterize the move as a hobo giving away candy?  I can’t quite reconcile the idea that the strategy is worth trying but it’s also the strategy of a man skilled in cooking out of tin cans, jumping railcars, and stealing your shoes while you sleep.

Peace

My characterization of CSub paper 18 as a hobo with candy-filled pockets was extreme.

The REAL hobo with candy-filled pockets is complacency.