Cold War 1965 - Official Thread
-
@LaFayette said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
- in v1, control change is immediate, so that is the only case where paratroops can fly beyond newly captured territories
In v3 control change is immediate also when you blitz the first hostile (undefended and without infrastructures) territory, yet you cannot fly beyond it, anyways. So this means that you can never fly over (land) territories that were hostile at the start of the phase. The reason for this is that all movement happens at the same time, so it doesn't matter if you moved first the armour or first the paratrooping bomber, into the hostile territory.
-
@Panther said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
@Cernel said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
The wrong implementation of defenceless territory capture/liberation in TripleA is a source of bugs (like this one) and also a problem in the moment you want to switch the combat movement and purchase phase, as it causes the fact that you can spend the captured income on the same turn, if a capital is captured when defenceless. This is documented as a special rule in NWO and WAW, but it is really based on a TripleA problem turned into pseudo-normal practice.
I wonder if this behaviour is consistent in all Axis & Allies game since Classic 1st edition? In particular, how about the fact that the Classic 3rd edition program (1998) actually switched ownership of blitzed hostile territories during conduct combat, not combat movement? I know in practice nothing changes, but was that a program inconsistency, or in 3rd edition you actually changed control of blitzed territories during conduct combat, instead of combat movement?
This is consistent since v2.
In Classic (v1) 2nd ed. moving land units into empty enemy territories during Combat Move Phase leads to taking control immediately.
I have no idea regarding the 1998 software (3rd ed.).Ok, then I was arguably partially wrong. Since the default behaviour of TripleA is arguably v1, the TripleA behaviour of changing control of undefended territories during Combat Movement is correct. What is wrong is that when the game is supposed to be v2 or following rules (like having the WW2V2 property true) it still works as v1 rules, for this behaviour. I guess this is substantially a bug or missing feature of the WW2V2 property.
I'm now very curious why Classic 2nd Edition and Classic 3rd Edition appear to be one the opposite of the other one, since, as you say, in 2nd Edition all undefended territories are captured/liberated during combat movement, while the 3rd Edition program have them being captured/liberated during conduct combat, even in all blitzing cases. I suppose I'll have to ask krieghund on the Axis&Allies fan forum about that, right?
-
@Panther said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
Paratroopers are not part of the v1 ruleset. In case someone intends to introduce paratroopers here, I would recommend to apply the v3 clarification, as all combat movement occurs simultaneously in every edition. So bombers carrying paratroopers should never be able to fly beyond newly captured territories, IMHO.
For reference, this is the respective clarification:
Q. Bombers carrying Paratroopers must stop moving in the first hostile territory they enter. If a
tank is blitzing through an unoccupied hostile territory, does a bomber entering that territory
during the same Combat Movement phase have to stop there, or can it keep moving?A. It must stop. Even though the territory is captured as soon as the blitzing tank enters it, and the
territory is considered friendly at that point, all combat movement is simultaneous. This means that
the bomber and tank entered the territory at the same time, when it was still hostile.Paratroopers (actually "Paratroop Units") are part of the Classic ruleset, albeit only for the 3rd Edition and as on option. At least for this matter, there would be no problem for this edition, as the paratrooping bomber didn't have any additional movement limitations. This is a feature that TripleA fails to support. As long as the actual "World War II Classic 2nd Edition" game goes, there was indeed no paratroopers like option, so, as being a house rule, whatever.
My personal opinion, Classic paratroopers were much better than Anniversary paratroopers, hands down. I especially like the fact that the bomber loses the ability to attack if it paratroops, while the Anniversary limitation that a bomber is somehow unable to fly over a hostile territory is totally unrealistic.
@redrum Going back to this actual game, especially if not fixing all paratroopers related bugs, I would recommend making paratroopers able to fly over hostile territories (TripleA supports this optional behaviour), mainly for realism, but this would likely require rebalancing the cost of whatever units able to air transport (and documenting this v3 rules exception in notes).
-
@Cernel said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
Paratroopers (actually "Paratroop Units") are part of the Classic ruleset, albeit only for the 3rd Edition and as on option.
Fair enough. I am always referring to the boardgames only, as I have never dealt with the CD-edition. That is why I said "no idea" above.
-
@Cernel said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
I'm now very curious why Classic 2nd Edition and Classic 3rd Edition appear to be one the opposite of the other one, since, as you say, in 2nd Edition all undefended territories are captured/liberated during combat movement, while the 3rd Edition program have them being captured/liberated during conduct combat, even in all blitzing cases. I suppose I'll have to ask krieghund on the Axis&Allies fan forum about that, right?
Actually I am currently in the process of discussing the change-of-control-aspect in v1 reconsidering it with Krieghund. While there I have already addressed the 3rd-edition Blitz "maybe" inconsistency.
I will add any news here...
-
@Panther Allright. My personal favourite, actually, is definitively as the 3rd edition used to work, at least as implementation (everything conquered during Conduct Combat, no exceptions). Until now, I assumed that was how Classic worked in all editions, but I was far from sure, since also that program is seriously buggy, from what I vaguely recall.
Excluding the 3rd, I'd rather prefer 2nd edition (guess the same as 1st edition here?) rules over the Revised onwards ones, especially since I don't think it makes sense that an armour blitzing a territory conquers it during combat movement, while if the exact same armour moves into it, without using its second movement point, it has to wait conduct combat to conquer the territory. Of course, here we are in a pure theorical field, as I don't believe anything changes anywhere if the blitz "conquest-on-the-move" exception would be moved to Conduct Combat in all rulesets from v2 onwards (right?), and I assume this exception exists only for practical reasons in physically managing your game on the board (so that you can signal ownership during Combat Movement, as the blitzing unit won't be anymore there, in Conduct Combat, to keep track of that).
-
I am glad that I have contacted Krieghund to discuss the change-of-control aspect in v1 when I stumbled over the eventual inconsistency through different editions, as it turned out, that in v1 ownership of the walked-in empty enemy territory is supposed to change during Conduct Combat Phase, too (except the discussed Blitz-situation, of course). That means we do actually have consistence from v1 on - it means that TripleA is wrong starting from v1, too.
The misleading sentence in the Classic rulebook
"Attacking Enmy-Controlled Territories - A Combat Move Without A Battle!
During the combat move phase of your turn, you can move your units into adjacent enemy-controlled territories and take control without engaging in combat. These enemy-controlled territories are not occupied by enemy units..."(and emphasized by me) is supposed to be interpreted simply to call out the fact that such a move is still a combat move, even though no actual battle will result.
Concerning the v3-Blitz-issue, Krieghund said: "Control of a blitzed territory, on the other hand, changes immediately, in the Combat Move phase. I don’t know whether the control change in the Conduct Combat phase is a programming error or it was just done that way because it was easier."
cc: @LaFayette
-
@Panther Well, at the end, nothing would be changing, for the regular games, if we would change ownership of blitzed territories during Conduct Combat or change any other granted conquests so to anticipate them during Combat Movement. That is why I assume this blitzing exception exists only for physical gameplay purposes, as otherwise you would need adding something to keep track of blitzed territories until the start of the Conduct Combat phase.
But do you agree it is at least weird that an armour takes a blitzed territory during Combat Movement while it has to wait Conduct Combat to take a territory it entered with a single movement without blitzing?
TripleA wise, on the other hand, if you switch the purchase and combat movement phase, what should happen, instead, is that you can get the money from captured capitals only if you blitzed them, which in any of the WW2 Global mods with CM first or in a custom game like World At War would mean you should never get it, as all capitals have factories in them, and you cannot blitz territories with capturable units (thus no need of leaving 1 cheap combat unit to defend or risking it happening anyways if an ally clears it beforehand).
-
@Cernel said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
@Panther Well, at the end, nothing would be changing, for the regular games, if we would change ownership of blitzed territories during Conduct Combat or change any other granted conquests so to anticipate them during Combat Movement. That is why I assume this blitzing exception exists only for physical gameplay purposes, as otherwise you would need adding something to keep track of blitzed territories until the start of the Conduct Combat phase.
That might be definitely one reason...
But do you agree it is at least weird that an armour takes a blitzed territory during Combat Movement while it has to wait Conduct Combat to take a territory it entered with a single movement without blitzing?
... but I think another reason is to legitimate the blitz movement itself: A blitz move is supposed to end in either a friendly or another hostile territory. As no other land unit is neither allowed to enter two hostile territories during the same combat move nor to continue movement after capturing a hostile territory, maybe that "making the first hostile territory friendly immediately" has been constructed. Pure speculation here, of course. I see your point.
TripleA wise, on the other hand, if you switch the purchase and combat movement phase, what should happen, instead, is that you can get the money from captured capitals only if you blitzed them, which in any of the WW2 Global mods with CM first or in a custom game like World At War would mean you should never get it, as all capitals have factories in them, and you cannot blitz territories with capturable units (thus no need of leaving 1 cheap combat unit to defend or risking it happening anyways if an ally clears it beforehand).
Agreed - for the A&A games. IMHO - if not otherwise intended by game makers - switching the Combat Move Phase with the Purchase Units Phase should have no economical effect during the same turn at all.
I am not familar with every game where those phases are switched, but what I know from the standard A&A games, especially the G40 games, the phases sometimes are switched for convenience reasons only and never for economical reasons. -
@Panther said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
Agreed - for the A&A games. IMHO - if not otherwise intended by game makers - switching the Combat Move Phase with the Purchase Units Phase should have no economical effect during the same turn at all.
I am not familar with every game where those phases are switched, but what I know from the standard A&A games, especially the G40 games, the phases sometimes are switched for convenience reasons only and never for economical reasons.Yeah, this is yet another bug turned into pseudo-regular practice. The matter is that if a developer would fix this problem at the engine level, then World At War and other Sieg games would still have documented in their notes that income captured from undefended capitals can be spent on the same turn; so one would need changing the rules' notes for those games too (or I guess the players would be supposed to edit the income as per what the notes say it should happen).
My guess is this rule was not really that intended, but the mapmakers just decided to "go with the engine", documenting it as an official exception to Revised rules.
-
You guys are getting like off topic. My main question of why cannot paratroops during non combat is a serious question. Nato will get kicked out of mainland Europe, its a matter of time. It is frustrating that i cannot use the factory in Britain to para troops over during non-combat.
To make the situation worse for NATO, Russia and Arab League have unlimited expansion space into neutral territories. I suggest that:
-China AI just act as neutral towards Russia (more appropraite to call it Soviet Union) or Russia can just eat up China slowly
-India as a seperate faction hostile to everyone but start with lots of stationary troops
-Arab League as an independent faction hostile to all -
@Lord-Bevan said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
Nato will get kicked out of mainland Europe, its a matter of time.
Sorry for not taking a detailed look, and it's been a while, so my memory might be faulty, but doesn't UK fall to USSR round#1 or round#2? IIRC, USSR uses one nuke to hit USA, then then uses second to hit UK and purchases overwhelming force to ensure capture the next round.
-
I find that SBR to be very profitable in this map, especially by the Soviets against the Allies. The only counter is not to use the big factories, especially London or Japan. This means you must rely on smaller factories or farway factories. This means you have a lot of PU which you could invest in Nuclear bombers. This becomes a visicous cycle where both sides just bomb each other and produce little troops.
And what happens to air intercept? This is 1965.
-
Hi all. Is this map worth a go? It looks fun but I'm a bit worried given some of the comments on this thread.
Also, please can you confirm recommended AI setup for a 2 human game? Eg is it AI Hard for China and Sinopact, with AI Does Nothing for the USA-Neutrals and USSR-Neutrals?
Lastly, what are the recommended Options setups please? I propose to select: all the low luck options and AlwaysOnAA, leaving the rest alone. Does that make sense?
Thanks, Matt
-
Incidentally, why not include S Vietnam (and maybe S Korea) within the realm of territories that Sinopact can attack, for an extra bit of realism, even if it might become a side-show once captured?
-
I assume that USSR wants to Nuke eastern US to knock out 2 US nukes, then build more nukes as soon as it can?
-
Should Trucks be able to LandTransport?
-
-
@mattbarnes said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
I assume that USSR wants to Nuke eastern US to knock out 2 US nukes, then build more nukes as soon as it can?
That is definitely a bug abuse.
-
@Lord-Bevan oh, what are the nukes for then? Why should Russia not fire at US like that?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login