WAW rules survey

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

WAW rules survey

rockrobinoff
Was speaking with Sieg yesterday about a ruling on theoretical carrier moves. He said he would rather implement popular opinion than just make a ruling, so: how do we feel about this notion of the NCM only carrier moves that must move through a zone blocked by enemy ships?

In dice, which is non standard in WAW, a single sub could theoretically defeat 10 battleships, and thus clear a route for carriers. By that standard, as long as it is possible to attack a ship or ships blocking a zone through which a carrier might move, then planes depending on that carrier move should be allowed to assume a successful combat.

However, WAW is played LL as standard. A single sub cannot even theoretically defeat 10 battleships, and therefore, one might argue that the move should therefore be illegal. The problem with such reasoning, is that we would have to potentially calculate multiple rounds of combat before we arrive at a 'theoretical chance' or not one - can 4 subs theoretically defeat 7 cruisers? etc. etc. etc. That strikes cumbersome and far from ideal.

So, what we need is a catchall and simple rule. Either the carrier move must be available without combat, or is always available, assuming at least one ship (or plane) can and does attack any blocking ships.

What say you?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Ajmdemen
Yeah, there are these 2 choices. Making differences between movement rules in dice and LL would be a very bad direction imo. I think that rule with movement having to be available without combat is simpler, ergo better.

It means that you can block some attacks with single ships, but I don't really think this is so bad...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Swobo
I say the attacker just runs the risk of losing those airplanes.  Otherwise the Japanese get shackled in the Pacific.  Plus, carrier warfare was waged this way in WWII anyway, squadrons took off without knowing if they would have a carrier to land on.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Prussia
second that.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

pug6000
In reply to this post by rockrobinoff
There has been a discussion about that topic in the tripleawarclub:

http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=2574#forumpost2574

A short overview:
During the tournament it's not allowed to make a fighter move based on a successful outcome of another battle.
The majority supports this as a general rule, but some (if I remember right e.g. bung) have also good arguments for the other version.

For the details read the discussion. It's really interesting and I dont think you will find many aspects left out :)

Pug
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

rockrobinoff
i don't have strong feelings either way on the issue. both options have their drawbacks - more a flaw in a basic concept of the game (fighters needing a place to land) than anything. if original A&A was conceived with suicide planes (a perfectly reasonable and historical way to play) then we wouldn't be talking about this.

that said, standing neutral isn't going to move this forward, so i am going to suggest: move must be available during combat to be legal for sheer simplicity.

people should really pipe up and take a stand so this can be put to rest, and added to the game notes, officially.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by rockrobinoff
i prefer the "assume you win all your battles with zero losses" method of determining if your carrier can move in the non-combat move or not.
it makes the game more fun for carriers and fighters, and brings more action to otherwise boring naval play
(not to mention being the official rules of both revised and LHTR, [and all a&a games])
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Swobo
agreed
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Ajmdemen
In reply to this post by Veqryn
I like the simple way you put that assumption into words. Don't really have anything against this solution either, but I agree one method should be chosen as default...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

pug6000
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Not correct:
LHTR supports that rule, the official rules say nothing about it (dont have the newest version G40). And if you remember that kamikaze is forbidden, I argue, that LHTR is against the official rules, as it gives the possibility to kamakaze.
And assume that you loose every battle with 0 losses means, that you attack with a single sub 5 Battleships and so open the possibility to the fighters ...
And furthermore the difference between ll and dice: in the case above with ll the sub looses for sure, but by  "assume 0 losses"-Policy you can still do Kamikaze.

Against the "assume 0 losses"-Policy.

Pug
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

ice
i agree with pug, in the official revised rules it is very clear about kamikaza, also it saiz that a plane needs to have a landingspot assigned in combat move, thus meaning not reliing on any sort of battle.

1 inf can block 10000 tanks from blitzing, 1 tranny can stop 10000 bb's from moving trough, so it doesnt even make sence that the carrier is not blocked by similar examples.

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Veqryn
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by pug6000
well, actually, the official rules do say something:


"You cannot send air units on “suicide runs,” deliberately moving them into combat with no place to land afterward. If there
is any question about whether an attack is a “suicide run,” then in the Combat Move phase, you must declare, prior to rolling
any battles, some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn.
This could include a combination of combat moves. It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier. If it does include
noncombat moves by a carrier, then the carrier cannot move in the Combat Move phase.
In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will
be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You cannot, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate a
possible safe landing zone for any fi ghter.
If you declared that a carrier will move during the Noncombat Move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fi ghter moved
in the Combat Move phase, you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move
phase unless the fi ghter has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed before then.
"

Quoted from AA50 rulebook, page 26.

These are the EXACT rules used for LHTR, AA50 (ww2v3), Spring 1942 (ww2v4), Pacific Europe and Global 1940,
AND also used for Revised, according to the official rules guy employed by larry harris and hasbro, Krieghund.

To quote Krieghund's answer to a question on the revised forum of Axis and Allies .org
"Technically, they have to move to a legal landing space immediately after combat.  However, many people wait until the noncombat movement phase to move all of their planes at once.

When the FAQ refers to the "landing" of planes, it means actually touching down, not moving to the space where they will land.  For instance, a fighter could move into a sea zone after combat and then "hover" there until a carrier also moves there in the noncombat movement phase, at which point the fighter would land on the carrier.  If the carrier were unable to reach the sea zone for some reason (an intervening hostile sea zone failed to be cleared), the fighter would have nowhere to land at the end of the noncombat movement phase, and it would be lost.
"

and another quote from Krieg:
"The rules on this point are the same in Revised and LHTR as they are in the newer games.  The move is legal."

I think this should solve the issue pretty much completely,
ALL versions of Axis and Allies follow the same rules on this, and to differ is to not be compliant.

That said, if you guys want to differ, that is fine too.  I make a lot of maps with rules that are different from standard A&A rules.  Just know and acknowledge that your rules are not standard, and everything will be fine.  (however, I will say again, that I prefer the A&A rules on this issue, because it makes the game more fun)

thx,
veqryn
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

erik542
Well I don't like those official rules. :P They shouldn't be used in LL games for two simple reasons.

First the official rules don't use LL and thus do not consider the effects of LL, therefore any oughts derived from the rules are null.
Secondly, taking the rules officially as written and blindly applying them to LL games leads to the problem of counting combat rounds. Now I'm happy to have any advantage over opponents resulting from my math skillz, but basic rules interpretation should not require manual calculations. In theory, it's perfectly fine if everyone was competent at math. In practice this will lead to hour long debates mid-game while someone is making their combat moves. This is compounded by the fact that maps like WaW makes things like this real game destroyers because of the interlacing of different countries' moves.

This leaves us with the two reasonable unofficial rulings, which is assume auto-win or auto-lose. The closest in spirit to the official rules is auto-win. Ultimately, the decision comes down to where people want to play a more aggressive game or more defensive game.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

rockrobinoff
erik542 wrote
 Ultimately, the decision comes down to where people want to play a more aggressive game or more defensive game.
ultimately, this should come down to what is best for the game. one of the problems with this kind of discussion is that the desired end result will be different for different people. some people think that historical accuracy is the holy grail of Triplea/ A&A games. some, like me, couldn't possibly care less about whether the game is historically accurate or not. either the game works well, or it doesn't, being my only concern.

that said, we need a decision on this, and i would rather see Sieg just make one rather than put it to a vote or whatever. both are good rules, and you cant please everyone.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Veqryn
Administrator
if we keep "auto-win" then: "Any move legal under Dice is Legal under Low Luck" remains true.

if we change to "auto-lose" or "case-by-case", then that saying stops being true.


at least for NWO, that saying has to be true. (its been in the game notes for years).  i guess WAW could be different, but that could confuse people.
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Swobo
Since this game is set to LL by default why not use LL as the rule base?  If, in LL, there is 0% chance of enemy ships surviving the move can be made, because the carrier would be able to catch up in NCM.  I know this requires calculating in some instances, but would normally not be a problem, because many times blocking is done with few (1-6) ships and can be figured out without the calculator.

Its simple, and allows for more dynamic movement and strategy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WAW rules survey

Ajmdemen
Far from simple, moves being legal should NOT be based on probabilities of battle outcomes. We need clear assumptions for clear conclusions.