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)

I would like to add a few clarifying comments as I see them for the benefit of Amadeus's deliberations. The six victory cities were not created by Amadeus they are the encoded six cities of an axis minor victory. Amadeus merely chose to use them for both axis and allies to accommodate the many and sometimes competing desires of players on a totally new release with many unknowns regarding playing strength. Both sides of this discussion quickly learned that for all the reasons discussed in these posts that modifications were advisable for round 2. In my opinion moving to the complete encoded victory conditions is less unilateral than artificially assigning point values to 10-15 cities across the globe. The game we all bought and love has no such point value approach anywhere in game. However if Amadeus determines for the good of the tournament that points values should be assigned to the encoded cities to judge tied games I believe we all would be satisfied. Speaking for myself I would also find it acceptable to judge games at the end of '45 using encoded cities with point values if this is Amadeus's conclusion.

Thank you Highlander! Amen, Amen, Amen, At the risk of repeating myself the game design favors allies in playing strength but that strength takes time to develop thus the need for longer games. The balance to allied player strength is easier axis tactical victory conditions. The skilled players in tournament playing mirror matches will find their own path to a well earned victory. We do not need to artificially guide or impede their battle plans. All due respect to differing opinions but the design team has built a great game.

Amadeus; I believe the game is best when played using the standard victory conditions and allowed to play until conclusion. However, I agree with the comments in this thread that some mechanism for resolving ties should be in places pre start of round 2. In my opinion when one adds cities beyond standard victory cities one starts to artificially influence a player's battle plan. Thus I would favor only assigning values to victory cities.

I hope this post is not too premature but from what I can judge from two tournament mirror matches both at end of '43, Carter, Bill, and all beta testers have produced a great product. The '39 game has both a good historical basis and in my opinion good balance between standard victory conditions and playing strength. The game favors allies in playing strength but axis on standard victory conditions (axis only needs to hold one capital to achieve a tactical victory while allies cannot achieve any victory unless they achieve a minor which basically requires they conquer everything that was theirs at start of game). It appears (admittedly only two matches) that if the allies throw everything against Germany it is likely they will run out of time before they can conquer Tokyo and avoid a axis tactical win. Thus the allies will need to think long term in both Europe and Pacific to have a chance of minor victory. In my opinion this is a great outcome. No more Germany crushing everyone with no fear of losing and the added benefit of most games going the distance. Many of the aspects of Gold which I did not like appear to be gone in AoD (such as the excessive impact of unit experience and destructive power of Tac Bombers and naval bombardment of ground units). I expect as more games are played to conclusion that some potential adjustments will surface and may possibly include lower allied MPPs. However at this point in my opinion a great job. Congratulations! Hopefully other players will add their thoughts!

I am currently playing two mirror matches in tournament (my only experience with 1.02) and I agree with much of Monster Claude's analysis. It may be difficult to change rules for games in process but I favor option A. The other options all dictate strategy in some form and I prefer to permit Allies to choose their own battle plan. All my respect to Amadeus and his judgment.

I have never seen the forum so quiet! I hope we can get 1.02 this weekend (?) and playing life can return.

I would suggest all players stop games and that tournament adopt 1.02. If players use 1.01 and then wish to upgrade they will be forced to run two versions for extended time.

Amadeus: I would appreciate hearing other players opinions but I believe the highest level of interest in the tournament is when many players still have a vested interest. Eliminating half of the players after one match is in my opinion not the best approach. I believe participation not speed of tournament should be the goal. Three players per bracket with two advancing promotes continued involvement. I realize with 15 or 16 players this might complicate later rounds but I am confident you could overcome this issue.

Do I understand your post to mean that you have abandoned the bracket format in your 6/30 post?

Amadeus: I noted comment by Highlander regarding vacation. I also will be away for a week at end of August. The reason I am writing is that many people travel in August and I would ask you consider staying with original schedule of early-mid September.