Posts made by Ranor

OK thx I must have been mistaken.

Sorry for asking but doesn’t Italy plays before UK, at least that’s what I remember from reading the rules for 41, so why can’t the Italians sink the brithish fleet at gibraltar?

I’m not absolutely sure, but i think something might be wrong with the ipc. In the 42 scenario germany has only 18ipc

Actually the transport-sub-thing depends on the rule set. Under LHTR 2.0 the trn can load units and attack somewhere else, the one thing that is prevented by the sub are any non combat moves by that trn.

At the beginning of the combat move phase you may already have sea units in spaces containing
enemy units that were there at the start of your turn.
This situation will require you to do one of the following:

• Remain in the sea zone and conduct combat;
• Leave the sea zone, load units if desired, and conduct combat elsewhere;
• Leave the sea zone to load units and return to the same sea zone to conduct combat;
• Or, simply leave the sea zone and conduct no combat other than sailing out of harm’s way.

LHTR 2.0 page 10

Aircraft Carriers
Aircraft carriers can move during this phase. Any fighters belonging to the aircraft carrier owner
launch before the carrier moves and move independently of the carrier.

Clearly the fighter must have been on the carrier before it could launch.

Guest fighters belonging to a friendly power on board your carrier must remain on board as cargo
if the carrier moves in combat. They cannot take part in combat and are destroyed if the carrier is
destroyed.

The fighters are definitly landed on board a specific carrier, cause they are destroyed if that specific carrier is lost in an offensive battle.

Whether it moves during the combat move or noncombat move phase, an aircraft carrier allows
friendly fighters to land on it in the sea zone where it finishes its move.

3 references that figs do land on carriers, not in seazones with carriers. Especially the second example proofs that they are landed on a specific carrier.

Some more references in the rules, that figs are landed on carriers, not seazones containing such:

on page 17 under the headline

Step 8: Concluding Combat

Air units can never capture a territory. If your attack force has only air units remaining, you can’t
occupy the territory you attacked, even if there are no enemy units remaining. Air units must
return to a friendly territory (fighters may also land on a friendly carrier). They do so during the
noncombat move phase. Until then they stay at the space where they fought.

on page 21 under the headline
Where Units Can Move

Once any fighter lands on a carrier, movement for BOTH pieces ends.

and on page 26 under the headline

Fighters

Special Abilities:
Land on Aircraft Carriers: Fighters may be carried by aircraft carriers. Up to two fighters may
be on a friendly aircraft carrier at a time. A fighter must be launched from the carrier’s initial
position to participate in combat this turn. However, it may land on a carrier in the noncombat
move phase (even if withdrawing) or during any other noncombat move. (A fighter may not land
on a carrier during the carrier’s movement). Your aircraft carrier can move to a sea zone where
one of your fighters has ended its move (and in fact, it must do so if it is able) but cannot move
any farther that turn.
A fighter based on a defending carrier that is destroyed in combat must try to land. It must land
on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move 1 space to a friendly territory or aircraft
carrier, or be destroyed. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been
resolved and before the attacker’s noncombat movement phase begins.
Your fighter based on your attacking carrier launches before combat (even if it is not participating
in combat), and if it survives, can withdraw to a friendly territory or carrier within range. If any
fighter is not in an eligible landing space by the end of the noncombat move phase, it is
destroyed.

I hope this is sufficient to proof that figs land on carriers and furthermore specific carriers as the second example states.

The maneuvre discribed by switch can be looked at in this game.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=11650.0

In turn 10 Japan prepares for the invasion of US in hope of turning a lost game and in round 11 it pulls the trigger and builds another charge of trn.

It didn’t helped me to win the game but it was definitly something to keep in mind for future games. As the invasion was successful in so far as Japan could take WUS on my last turn and would have been able to hold it.

As I said above I’m not that keen on sea lion myself. and if the conditions are unfavorable (like Russia took Ukr) than to hell with it.

Additionally I want to remind you that I would spend only 1 die on tech so germany can build new troops on G1 for 35 ipc.

Because you have a reasonable chance (75%) to kill the canadian trn if you attack it with the sub. And thus a 75% chance that UK gets no income for an additional turn leading to no recruiting in UK2.

And retaking UK is not likely either could US block your med fleet with one of their ships and/or they could decide to reinforce Gbr with 2inf, 1art, 1arm, 1fig, 1bom and maybe russia can land figs too.

Furthermore do you not attack egy if you decide to go after the bb. Under all these circumstances I would neglect the bb and procede as discribed in my first reply.

I do not realy favour the sealion, simply because the odds are too bad, but if you succeed and drop the UK canadian transport, then you have gained an considarable advantage over the allies

Even after you snatch England’s IPCs and get the 8 income from England, this maneuver probably costs Germany 10-20 IPCs (I didn’t crunch numbers).

You get 30 ipc from UK bank + 8 ipc for London that is a + of 38 for germany. Now you have also to consider how much less units the allies can buy. UK1 no units will be bought that is -30 ipc for the allies and if UK can’t retake London on UK1 (your sub sunk the canadian trn) than they will earn no money for another round thus leading to no units bought by England on UK2 thus at least another -28 for the allies compared to a normal game.

This is a net shift of +38 for the axis and -58 for the allies so we are talking about 96 ipc diffrence.

If you attacked with 1inf, 1arm, 6fig and a bom and even if you lost all except the arm you made a loss of 78+5 (you’ll loose the arm too only later) =83 (actually germany should keep 1 or 2 air units in this battle and still take UK). UK will have lost 2inf, 1art, 1arm, 2fig, 1bom = -50 ipc. So even after the casulties are taken into account the ipc shift for the axis is considarable.

It also has the opportunity cost that you will make little or no progress against Russia and are virtually guaranteed to be giving up on Africa.  With no air support the English Mediterranean Battleship is almost sure to survive, and there is very little hope you will take Anglo-Egypt.

UK1 will also see the UK’s Mediterranean Battleship, likely supported by a Fighter from Anglo-Egypt, smashing up Germany’s southern fleet.

Depending on the bid you may have 1 or 2 units in lybia together with 2 units from South Europe you can attack Egypt and take it.
The single UK BB will surly never take on the german fleet in sz15 single handled so you’ll have to take the fig of sz 35 now you are not retaking egy and you bring less pressure to the Japan player too.

If not: On UK1 the infantry and tank stationed in Canada are up to Sea Zone 2 or 3 and have a good chance of removing your token force.

You can only bring the UK arm because the inf in WCA is simply not in range.

You’ve spent a good chunk of IPCs on a tech that isn’t going to do you too much later in the game.

Noone prohibits germany from buying new aircrafts additionally to the 1 or 2 that survived in UK.

Furthermore I would recomend to use only 1 tech die to try for LRA (other players on this board council against this) if you succeed fine now you can try the sealion, if you miss to gain the tech you only wasted 5 ipc (1arm). IMO that is something that can happen any time in trading battles, so you should not be severly hindered in your efforts.

1. Yes

2. As long as we are talkin about defense, all fighters on board your AirCraftCarriers defend together with the rest of the units in that seazone (on a 4) and can be taken as casulties.

Has some fails (Republicans always win SCW)

Then you’ll have to take the historical example. As Germany you try to seek alliance with nantional spain and then send some real troops for training, thus they should always win. :evil:

I’m sure noone wants his chickens fed with motor oil and this clearly was a crime. But this is also a single event and can not be generalized for a whole branch of farming. I’m pretty sure that common agriculture has its own standard which forbades using motor oil.

Neither am I advocating prices for food that are so low, that farmers are forced to such criminal methods. But even with fair prices I think you will agree with me that conventional farming is less expensive than organic agriculture.

I was referring to the lower yields of organic agriculture in comparision to “normal” agriculture and the more work you have to invest in it, thus leading to higher prices for the consumer.

This makes no sense.  The people that are involved and interested with organic farming are pretty low on the economic ladder.  By nature, they can’t be mega farms because that goes against the principles of the idea.

I can’t speak for your country but here in germany so many people are obsessed with the “bio, green and nature” thing that farmers who are in the organic agriculture business are not poor. And neither is it the poor that buy those products, simply because they cost more money than the regular food.

The fertilize they use is natural and nondamaging…that’s kinda the point of organic farming.  The standards prohibit using artificial fertilizers, sewage, human waste, which has all been used.

Sewage and dung have the same purpose as the evil chemical fertilizer they increase the ammount of certain compounds available to the plants (e.g. nitrates). And if you bring out to much sewage on the field these nitrates will surely land in the water, as with artificial fertilizer if you overdose. The nitrate is the same regardless of the source where it came from. Actually the probability to overdose is greater if you use sewage since you can’t be sure of it’s quality (I know sound funny when talking about sh*t), where the quality of the artifical fertilizer is always the same.
Furthermore I know for a fact that here in  germany organic agriculture farmer are allowed to use old fertilizers that have been developed before any standards have been raised. These old fertilizers do contain for example copper and are themself much more damaging to the enviorment than artificial fertilizers that have been developed in the recent past

Organic sales account for so little of the total product sold that it debunks your theory.

I didn’t propose any theory I was only refering to my previous poster who thought it would be a good idea to do only organic agriculture. I don’t mind the people who want to eat only “bio” food, but to do only organic agriculture would surely result in an increase of prices for food.

In my own experience, organic produce, meat, and processed foods are always better hands down, and I’m not some Walmart shopping moron that thinks I can get quality for cheap every time. You get what you pay for…

In my experience they are not - but hey who cares  :wink:

Hey no problem this dicision must be made by everyone for himself, but some people propose to do only organic agriculture (and I understood your post in this way) and thus to stay with your choclate example you propose to remove the “milka” and produce only “Côte d’Or” now only the rich people can buy the choclate.

Organic agriculture is something for the rich people too, because it simply produces much less food with more of everything. And if you believe there are no chemicals used with organic agriculture then you are wrong. They too use fertilizer, only the ones they are allowed to use are much older then the modern developed furtilizers used in the common agriculture and are sometimes even more damaging to the enviorment then the latter. And even dung and slurry contain the same chemicals (e.g. phosphate and nitrate) as the normal fertilizer and if used too much they are equally bad for the “nature”.

And don’t you dare touch my meat  :-D

nope

You may defend together but never attack since the UK ships are not “placed on the battleboard” they can take no hits.

2. It’s a bit better for the environment to use organic fuels instead of fossil fuels

As far as I know the net gain for regrowable fuel is 0 or below.

• cutting down of forests, in order to have more land for fuelproduction (Brazil)
• all the “evil chemicals” used to increase/ secure the harvest
• great amounts of energy needed to actually convert the plants into ethanol

8 IPC is a heck of a lot cheaper than a capital…

No doubt, but that should be a special situation not the regular one.

From the avalon hill FAQ for revised edition:

Map

Does sea zone 14 connect to the Balkans? Does sea zone 35 connect to French Indochina?
No in both cases.

if england destroys only 3 inf on avarage I wouldn’t buy the sub, cause england has to invest an inf to make his bombardment, so in  this case the net gain for england is only 6. Thus the sub stalling only would be profitable if he mades 4 hits on avarage.