Clausewitz

Thank you for clarification.

I am confused by requirement for A Bomb. Script says allies control Tinian but I read script construction text to say allies must control Manila 341/116 and one of 340/103, 346/99,363/100,375/116 342/85? If so Tinian is not crucial. Thank you to knowledgeable person.

Thank you for sharing. Great screen shots. Where are German tanks?

Totally agree. Force the allies to sail in open waters. I doubt one is going to see many amphibians from Los Angeles.

Many players are still in tournament which utilizes 1.02. The requirement of 1.03 will require players to have two versions running. Is this necessary or could ladder use 1.02 until possibly summer with a conclusion and then start new ladder fresh with 1.03?

Originally Posted by Clausewitz View Post If Cater/Bill do not wish to move both Tokyo and Seoul inland by one square then making Osaka a third capital would help. Thanks to all. Hi Clausewitz. "Cater" has a forename too, and it is Hubert. Very sorry! No disrespect intended.

Gentlemen: Thank you for your thoughtful responses and per my reading the consensus support for the threads request of alleviating the axis capitals vulnerability to amphibious landings supported by CV/land based air. In my opinion there were many other ideas that have merit. However my preference and request of Cater/Bill would be to stay with a simple fix in 1.03that would not have unintended consequences and disrupt as Amadeus noted a very playable game. Amona mentioned OSAKA which was an item of puzzlement in our recent match. At one point I as axis player was presented with the Decision to move the Japanese capital to Seoul if Tokyo and Osaka were captured. I accepted but was doubtful of Osaka because it does not appear on map as alternate capital. If Cater/Bill do not wish to move both Tokyo and Seoul inland by one square then making Osaka a third capital would help. Thanks to all.

After playing several matches in both tournament and ladder it has become very clear that experienced players quickly devise strategies that are clearly within rules but in my opinion distort game as a result of the map design. Three of the four axis capitals are directly adjacent to the sea and thus can be conquered without a land unit in close proximity. I am not a master at geography and map may be accurate but my issue is playability of game. In my opinion even at maximum builds the axis cannot compete with allied naval and that is fine for battle of seas but should not dominate land battles. If playing community concurs I believe this could be easily solved by giving Italy a second capital and adding a land square at either Tokyo or Seoul or both. I respectfully ask players to share their thoughts.

I just had a match end and I do not have file so I hope I have the facts correct. A fortification was next to coast and a fighter was in fortification. Fighter was attacked and killed by multiple CVs. There was a naval unit next to fortification but no land unit. Fortification was destroyed when air was killed. This doe not seem correct to me. Should a land unit adjacent be necessary? Thanks

Amona; Thank you for comment. Since ladder administrator has no issue with gambit and you my opponent does not have an issue all is good.

Apparently I have been fortunate because to the best of my knowledge I have not experienced saved file. However I totally agree that saved file in not in the spirit of fun, competitive and honorable play. Speaking of honorable, I believe I am an honorable player but I was aware of Chengchow gambit and did use in this ladder. Unlike saved files I thought gambit was a creative move within 1.02. However if the ladder administrator wishes that gambit not be used I request a statement to all participants and I would be happy to offer my opponent a restart.

Please include me.

Bill101, I have always been confused about intelligence research advances. Clearly if UK gets Intell LV1 the added spotting helps UK and US movements but does the LV1 by UK help US intell advances and does it hurt all axis countries? Thanks.

Amadeus: Thank you. Clarifications suggest players may be able to complete game which will give better results.

Amadeus: I am confused by what appear as contradictions. #4 says match must be decided in 130 turns but remainder of conditions refers to days. I would assume if two players move at fast pace they can go as far as 130 days permit. It might be helpful to give an end date of second round. 4) “Playing time” Every match has to be finished in 130 turns. If you play mirror matches you still need only 105 turns. 5) “Playing speed” At least 1 turn a day has to be played in 105/130 days averaging! 6) “Victory conditions” Due to the fact that it could be difficult to finish a game in 105 or 130 days the Axis minor victory conditions decides the match. Axis minor victory conditions are (after 105/130 days in tournament): Berlin, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, Manila Allies minor victory conditions (after 105/130 days in tournament). One of these cities in Allied hands (REMARK: I know that the Allies minor victory conditions are different to this but we need a clear decision after 105/130 days)