วีดีโอ

The intel condition was a surprise due to Watchtower, so no reaction allowed. Also, I believe I attacked Seoul to kill his air unit, which effectively pins the stack. (If the hex you're in is a declared battle hex, you have to fight in that hex - can't go reacting off to fight in a different hex.)

@johnsteidl293 I asked because I saw no pinning move. Thanks for the answer, didn't notice it was a surprise attack. Thanks a lot for the fast response, and your overall work! Has taught me a lot so far.

@@georgiosiosifidis5999 The pin was tricky to see because I didn't move the US CVs onto the map section here. I just removed 6 x 1-step Japanese air units given that each CV was assured of killing one. (It's right around 29:00.) I'm sure this wasn't the only place I was going a little too fast to easily follow! It's a great game, but there's a lot of subtlety.

@johnsteidl293 Three comments: 1) yes, often times it's hard to follow, but you have generally been doing a great work, without overloading the viewers with info. 2) for physical play, I suggest the use of some custom made counters (I have created my own) to denote all movement, activations, battles and unit participation in battles, as well as possibly HQs' activation range. Such counters will help retrace moves if needed, in otherwise big and chaotic operations. I think it would be helpful to add such counters into the mix in future printings. 3) In my channel I have been working on several GMT Games tutorials and playthroughs so far. Eots is among the very next ones I am going to deal with, very soon. I am going to adopt a "from scratch " approach, directed to total beginners. So, once more thanks for the videos, they have helped me understand a lot of subtleties!

@@georgiosiosifidis5999 Something to be aware of for your tutorial... These videos were based on a key rule interpretation from the Consimworld team play of about 10 years ago. At that time, a CV(L/E) starting an operation in the same hex as a ground unit could escort that unit through enemy air ZOIs to an invasion hex. Per the current version of the rules, that is not legal. The ground unit either has to trace a path that avoids enemy ZOIs, or the player might put his Carriers in positions where they can neutralize those ZOIs. In practice that means creating a path of battle hexes through the enemy ZOIs. The main effect of this change is to make it more difficult for the late-game Americans to penetrate the Japanese perimeter and grab an undefended naval base in the rear. They can still do it, but it will take a major operation, probably with a big EC card.

It's definitely a game that tends to encourage analysis!

It's out of range for activation but also OOS I think. (It's been a long time!) Kunming is only a supply source through the Burma Road or the Hump. With India in turmoil, the Chinese are on their own here.

Yes. That's a great description of many bits of this game. It's definitely easier to learn by playing with someone who knows it

I don't recall the older rules, but the latest version 13.79 Kwai rule only refers to an activating HQ, it doesn't say it has to be an offensive HQ.

Very cool! Was that at Surigao Straight? (Leyte)

Yes. With Olmendorff's BBs...he always said that they were the battleship right behind the Missouri in Tokyo Bay at the surrender. All the pics I've seen are cropped so you can't tell. I always told him he was full of BS. :-)

It's pretty much what it says. A supply trace requires ports when going out to sea and back. An activation trace doesn't. (If it helps, think of the first as getting fuel and ammo through - which takes ports, while the second is about getting orders through. Or logistics vs. command and control.) As far as rules writing and editing, I don't think GMT or any other wargame publisher has a technical writing staff. The designers usually write their own rules and find someone to proof them, so there are bound to be differences in writing style and editing. I think one reason folks find these rules confusing is that the mechanics are not like any wargame you're used to. Also, Mark's style is not to duplicate something in all the places it might be useful to have as a reminder. That might be nice at times with the unusual mechanics, but it would also make the rules a lot longer.

Hi Matt, if you're like me, there are a lot of games on the "want-to-play-someday" list! When you get to this one, it helps a ton if you can find someone willing to do a teaching game. It's just so different from anything else you're used to. The main videos to jump right in are supply & activation, and running an offensive. Amphibious assault can be useful, and hit allocation is only 10 minutes but covers one of the more confusing concepts for new players. Good luck!

@@johnsteidl293 Indeed. It looks like a deep and complex game. I'm an ASL player, though, so the rules aren't too intimidating for me. I've also played Paths of Glory a couple of times, so I'm familiar with those kind of card choices. It's just a question of whether/when I can get it on the table with a friend. Lots of other games on that 'want to play' list also.

@@NigelIncubatorJones I will just add that the Vassal module for this is excellent, so that's one way to get into it if table space is a challenge.

In my experience there are three things folks struggle with. First - the game is unlike any wargame you've ever played, so there is no basic mental framework to start from. Second - Mark doesn't duplicate rules in various places where they might be relevant; the rulebook would be much longer if he did. Finally, a lot of rules questions are actually answered by the sequence of play. Until you internalize that, it can be a little rocky. My suggestion is to skim the rules lightly, then watch some videos, then skim the rules lightly again, then more video time. Supply and Activation, Running an Offensive, Amphibious Assault, Hit Allocation cover most of the basics. Playing the Allies and the AAR get into using them more strategically. For your first attempt at the game, I'd suggest the Souith Pacific scenario/mini game. If you can manage it, play with someone who knows the game, even if that means Skype and Vassal.

@@johnsteidl293 We just had a run at the mini scenario with other 3 gamers, two of whom had previous experiencie with the game, and have to say that it was just as you said. Thank you!

Missed this one and, yes, you are absolutely right about the benefit of odds calculation. It can get fairly complex though, especially once you get into amphibious assaults. There you need to win both the air/naval and the ground combat, and the defender may have multiple options for reaction. Establishing an optimal force composition, or even deciding whether you want to make the AA, will require looking at your own options for force comp and his best responses to those. A whole other piece of the puzzle is knowing what cards are still in his deck that could ruin your day, figuring the odds that he has one of them in his hand, and then trying to come up with a strategy to get him to play it to stop another offensive so your most critical offensive can go through. This is one place that chess concepts like tempo and fork provide a nice analytic framework. I would say that you don't need to get into this level of analysis to enjoy the game, and its hard to do F2F as it can slow the game down. But I would encourage trying it out with PBEM for anyone who is probabilistically inclined.

Thanks for raising this James. To clarify, the designer's interpretation of the naval movement rules has changed since these videos were created. These videos (including the AAR) were all done with the interpretation that naval units (especially CVs) could legally escort a ground force starting in the same port to an undefended hex without having to declare a battle hex. The current interpretation does not relax the restriction to declare a battle hex for escorts, which means that a CV CANNOT escort an AA to an empty hex UNLESS it's able to declare a battle against another hex in range. Obviously it could escort to a defended hex and declare that as the battle hex - that was always the case. I'm sure this issue comes up a few times in these videos. I'll try to highlight them as I see them or when folks point them out as you have done here. It's worth noting that this probably doesn't come up that many times in any given game, but when it does it can be significant. I have not explored the implications for strategy, so really don't know how much this changes the way either side needs to play the game.

@@johnsteidl293 Noted and agree with all of that John. I see that 5 years ago the designer himself commented on this video (below) and said nothing about your interpretation of the escort rule being inconsistent with his. Your videos are so clear and well explained (and the learning curve of the game so steep) that rightly or wrongly, people use them as a key training tool to learn and understand the subtleties of the rules of the game. This fact combined with the ambiguity in the printed rules and that fact that the designer's change in interpretation does not appear to have been accompanied by any significant marker or announcement or design note or clear change in the printed rules makes it extremely difficult for someone new learning the game to appreciate what the actual rules now are! Specifically - the printed rules do not make this "no escort" rule as explicit as they might, example 7.27 itself isn't clear and 8.21E as printed arguably allows escorting and more particularly if it does not allow it (which the designer states is now the correct interpretation), it makes no mention anywhere that Japanese organic naval transport into an unoccupied enemy hex (which is clearly intended to be legal) is an exception that otherwise breaches 8.21 I understand the designer has stated the text accompanying example 7.27 will be updated for the planned "4th edition" reprint and I have made a formal submission to the designer to clarify the language in 8.21

Mark's clarification on BGG seems to contradict the rules interpretation we used in the staff games on CSW for years. I'm sure there are other cases in this AAR where we "break" that rule, since Antero and I were used to playing it the other way - in many games with Mark. EDIT: Having looked at this further, as I recall, the interpretation was that the CV was moving to a hex in which it could (potentially) participate in a battle since the Japanese could roll an SR and declare Jolo as a battle hex. In this type of situation, the CV would have to escort the AA unit, because it could not move to the invasion hex first (8.21 example E) which means both units would have to start in the same port. If you want to play with Mark's new interpretation, just be aware that it will mean that the Japanese can leave undefended ports all over, and the allies will not be able to easily invade them as long as there are ZOIs covering the approaches. I think this will shift game balance significantly in a way that is not needed and seems ahistorical. But that's just one opinion.

@@johnsteidl293 Hi John, First up let me say how much I enjoy these videos and the tutorial series that you did. This is definitely an illegal move per Mark Herman's explanations on the forums (perhaps he changed his mind from how it used to be played in earlier editions?). I understand from those posts that the "4th Edition" printing will update the example in 7.27 in the "3rd edition" to make it more clear that the existing rule is that the Intrepid cannot escort the Marine unit in that way. According to Mark - the CV "needs a reason" to be in the SR hex and it does not have one unless you use it to attack another enemy unit outside of the SR hex. I am afraid, I don't know enough about the impact on game balance of this rule or whether it is ahistorical to express an opinion as to whether this rule is a good one. Of course everyone is free to agree with their opponent to play whatever variant on the official rules which they like!!

@@johnsteidl293 I agree that the current rule (at 7.27) makes quite a difference from the former rule/staff variant which you depict in this AAR - as it makes it more difficult to penetrate a ZOI screen to attack a potential SR hex without risking the loss of at least US 1 carrier.

Missed this one but see the comment from James S. Such a move was legal five years ago but the designer's interpretation of the rule in question (8.21 I think) has changed since those days. Note that there is some further elaboration in the latest version of the rules. There are certainly a few places in this game where Antero or I made moves that are not consistent with the current interpretation.

I confess I don't speak Kunming/Yunnan dialect, only Mandarin. Hence the pronunciation you heard. Cheers.

Hi Trevor. I poked around with Plan Orange but it has a very different feel. More oriented towards battleships than carriers, and air seemed much less important overall. It does a nice job of showing how much difference 5 years might have made in the conduct of the war. Check in at the CSW site to see if anyone is doing anything in that direction.

Welcome to a great game that has many levels. There is overall strategy; then there is turn-by-turn implementation of the strategy, which is really about how you choose to use the cards you've drawn - which may sometimes even cause you to change your strategy; and then there is the more operational side, i.e. how you actually execute a specific operation. The game is so different to anything you've played, that the best way to improve is to participate with more experienced players. The CSW staff game is a great place to do that.

@@johnsteidl293 I agree...playing an experienced player would be very helpful in learning all the different events and when they should be played or played as a FO or a OC. Each game is different and have to adjust strategies depending on what cards you're dealt. I'm having a good time with this game and actually like playing more on Vassal than on the table since it's easier to see ZOIs and HQ ranges.

Thanks, Jim. I had the pleasure of playing a really excellent player here in Antero Kuusi - and he deserves a huge share of the credit for whatever value these bring. It was fun trying to get inside his head and it also pushed me to think about my own strategy. The fact that I was recording these more or less as we went, and not at the end of everything, also made it easier to remember and include some of the strategic thinking.

Hi Jim - an air/naval attack can never eliminate the last ground step in a hex and the Dutch regiment is only a one-step unit.

John Steidl Wow, didn’t catch that!

in the latest version of the rules (v3.1) it's section 9.4B5 "9.4 Ground Combat Procedure B. How to Apply Hits 5. Offensive ground units that conducted amphibious assault..." note this only applies to offensive units, not ground units reacting amphibiously

Cheers, and welcome to EotS. Start at about 13:35 and follow from there. Truk has no air and is under the ZOI of Bunker Hill, which puts the HQ out of supply thus unable to react. If there were an air unit in Truk, that HQ could be used to react. Correct placement of carrier forces to cut supply and prevent reactions is a critical strategy for the allies during late game operations.

@@johnsteidl293 Bingo - that's right. Supply may not be traced through enemy ZOI-controlled hex sides. The same way that the McArthur HQ could not trace supply out of Manila earlier in the game. Thank you for responding to a comment on a three-year old video. Just got the game (3rd edition) a week ago and a friend of mine and I are gearing up to play. Thank you to both you and Antero Kuusi for these play throughs. Both of you exhibited remarkable insight and resourceful strategies. I am sure my friend's and my first game is going to be a mess - but less of a mess because of your generous vids. Many thanks.

@@fmfetish If your first game is a bit of a mess, you will be in good company. I think that was the case for all of us. Just have fun and make a note of your questions. The BGG and CSW boards are very active and you'll get quick responses. The CSW board is also a great way to start to understand the nuances. I learned absolutely everything I know about the game there, from Antero and some other really great players. The ongoing staff games there are a pretty special thing.

@@johnsteidl293 Thanks again John. BGG has gone to a sign-in-only policy and I can't get the website to accept my attempts to create a sign-in. I will look for CSW and see what it has to offer. My war gamer pal and I are not entirely helpless - we both go back to at least the 70s and 80s and I play tested several titles for SPI, and was on one of the play test teams for the re-issue of Flat Top for AH in 1982. I played Harmon's Pacific War twice when it first came out - and loved it, except that it took so long to play - just the operation planning phase between turns could easily take an hour. WWII Pac Theater is a favorite of mine so looking into this "new" game by Mark Harmon that looks a lot like Pac War and seems to be much shorter is a great development. Your vids on specific topics have been amazingly helpful: "Running an Offensive", "Hit Allocation", Amphibious Assaults, etc. And the 11-turn campaign videos were fantastic. Can't wait to get the game on the table. Great stuff - Thank you very much.

@@johnsteidl293 Hey John - if you don't mind one more question (that has been driving me nuts) ... Case 11.33 Naval Replacements says: " The Allied player gains one or two US naval replacements per turn (except on turn 1) if they control Oahu (5808)." Well, which is it? One or two? How do I determine whether it is one or two? (this could be crucial in the early game) Thanks in advance!

I never got around to it and, as is probably obvious in looking at my failure to respond to questions, I haven't looked at this closely in 2+ years. By way of quick commentary for someone starting this now, the game itself was pretty unusual in that certain low probability events happened in combination. On the other hand, the game is very probabilistic, and some improbable events will normally happen in some combination. No two games of EotS are much alike, and playing well is about being able to respond to whatever the dice, and especially the cards, throw at you. The AP ended up winning here, ultimately, because Antero (JP) gave me a mulligan at a key point, and the last improbable event also went in my favor on the last turn. It could easily have gone the other way. Hopefully there is enough detailed commentary throughout the AAR to help new players develop a better sense of some of the nuances involved in playing the game well enough to enjoy it. It's so different from anything most of us have played before that it can seem overwhelming, but it's also hugely rewarding if you invest the time to learn it, and you enjoy the kinds of puzzles it presents. Thanks for watching, and for taking the time to ask good questions.

General mid-game strategy for the Allies is covered in "Playing the Allies: Pt 2". As far as hand strategy for the Allies, you'll find that scattered through the AAR of my game with Antero.

At that point I'm discussing the General Adachi card being used by the Japanese and comparing it to Reno for the Allies, the point being that the Allies have an easier time getting intercept than the Japanese. So Adachi, a typical Japanese OC3 card, is 5/7, where Reno (shown here) is only 3/5.

John Steidl Ah, right. I thought I was going blind. Thanks for the clarification and all these great videos!

No worries. When I listened to it again, I found it a little confusing myself! Cheers.

Jusuf - If you have never tried Vassal, you're in for a pleasant surprise. You will need to download the Vassal engine, as well as the module for EotS. There are hundreds of other wargame modules available as well. You can either send files back and forth, or play in real time via the Vassal server. To play in real time, you'll want something like Skype for voice. Almost as good as being face to face!

That might be a retirement project! It would be better done on the reprint edition, given the amount of development work (thus potential rule changes) that Nuts! are talking about.

Got it, John! Thanks for the great EotS video's and info about PW II. Any word on that release? (no updates on the Nuts! site in weeks).

For the benefit of others, I have answered my own question. The single HQ was used for activation, but supply may come for other sources. This is probably most common with Kunming.

Yes, that's correct! And you're right, it does not happen that often.

BGG is usually the best place to see the range of what's out there. Mark Herman has several on his youtube channel, and there is a fairly recent set in spanish, which is great to see. Other than that, I'm afraid you're pretty much stuck with these.

The unit was already reduced. You don't eliminate a unit unless it's not within the command range of any HQ.