EotS Campaign AAR: Turn 8
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ย. 2024
- I finally get out of ISR and move WiE into positive territory, while Antero sets his defenses in preparation for the end game. We also look at the operational implications of getting back into an India in revolt, and offer a couple examples of amphibious assault.
Thanks for these videos. I have learned a great deal from them. The are making the first read of the rules easier to take in.
Clarifying the invasion of Jolo that starts around 22:00, the designer's interpretation of the naval movement rules has changed since these videos were created.
These videos (and the game portrayed in 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. Even then, I'm not clear whether the CV could actually escort. It might actually need to move first, per 8.21. 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 James has done below. 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. For example, the Jolo operation here would be quite different - and perhaps impossible, I haven't looked carefully - with the current rules interpretation.
I also 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 at the strategic level.
I am apparently unable to reply directly to your post, John, so trying here - about the naval Oahu replacements question I asked.
Confirmed. Page 49 under Game Turn Two, Replacement Phase. "The Allies receive 2 ground, 5 air, and two US naval replacements (one plus the standard one US naval if they hold Oahu)." Many thanks!
Thanks a lot for this video series John, it has been a great resource to learn this game!
I’d like to add another question regarding the amphibious assault at Jolo (24:30). I wonder why that move with the Intripid is legal? My understanding is that since there is no enemy unit in the hex, the intripid should either move after the ground unit (to support AA) or it should make a valid attack at the time of its move. It seems the only legal way to move naval and ground units together in an empty hex without attack is Japanese organic transport. Mark Herman has clarified the intent in this post for instance: boardgamegeek.com/thread/2525598/article/36097632#36097632
Just want to check if I am missing something else that made your move legal? Thanks, Didier
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.
I'm not sure what that whole thing you did in Jolo with the Franklin and the 8-8 Marine unit. I understand the need to neutralize Japanese AZOI to bring your Marine 12-12 unit in. That's why it was escorted by the Intrepid (I think). But I didn't catch why you had to have the Franklin where it was and why the 8-8 unit then had to follow. Couldn't it just have gone with the 12-12?
The 8-8 can't go in with the 12-12 because they are starting from different locations. The 8-8 needs air coverage to penetrate the JP ZOIs. This could have been provided by one of the reduced CVLs it was stacked with, but the Franklin provides more combat power to improve the odds of success if we do have to fight. To provide coverage for the 8-8 move, the Franklin has to move before the 8-8, and to move the Franklin in a way that allows it to support the invasion force, the invasion force has to be in the invasion hex first. In this case, the move sequence is totally determined by the rules that determine legal movement.
@@johnsteidl293 Again being careful to note that in this game you are not playing the rules that determine legal movement - instead you are playing an agreed variant.
Perhaps it would be better to say that:
"the move sequence is totally determined by the rules - or any variant on those rules which have been agreed with your opponent will be used - to determine legal movement."
@@jamess6097 Hi James, the rules we played in this game were the official interpretation established on the CSW site and played in many staff games over the years - games in which Mark nearly always participated.
I have seen some comments recently to the effect that carriers cannot (in someone's interpretation) escort assaulting troops with which they begin the operation. They always could when Antero and I played with Mark. If "no escort" is Mark's current interpretation, well, he's the designer. I have made no effort to verify with him so I can't comment
If you choose to play no escort, be aware that some odd behavior might result. If carriers can't escort and need something else to attack near the invasion hex, the best Japanese strategy will be to have a screen of air ZOIs at their defensive perimeter and no units at all near any ports behind the perimeter. That way the carriers will not be able to penetrate behind the outer ZOI screen because there won't be anything for them to attack.
A game played that way would indeed look very different from this one.
@@johnsteidl293 Hi John,
I agree that is a strange result - but the outcome you describe is based on the designer's clear explanation of the written rule in 7.27 and 8.21E (noting here Mark H stating that there is errata in the Kauai example in 7.27 that will be fixed in the 4th edition printing - boardgamegeek.com/thread/2435541/article/35266490#35266490)
It sounds as though you take issue with the "no carrier escort rule" as Mark H now states it applies - which is of course your absolute prerogative.
I note in your superb EoTS basics videos (planning an offensive 2 ) - you refer to 8.21E as allowing escort carriers - which according to Mark H 8.21E does not allow.
My concern with that (which I also posted on the video itself) is that - like it or not - almost everyone uses those videos to learn the game and you make no reference to the fact that this is not the "official" version of that rule. In fact you explicitly refer to 8.21 and state that it is "really important" to understand that rule when planning offensives.
New to the game, I was confused at first about the invasion of Jolo at minute 22, but Jolo probably should have had a Japanese control marker on it since it probably fell as part of the Philippines. If not Japanese controlled it wouldn't trigger a Special Reaction.
Yes, there are quite a few places where we were not using control markers, I think mostly in situations where it was obvious. Jolo is definitely JP controlled here.
Something you said seems wrong. You said that with your PW at 2, if Antero plays the Tojo card, you lose immediately. Not so! You don't check victory until the End Turn phase so you have some time to kick you PW up. Unless he plays the Tojo card as his last card and if you're still at PW 2 then....well, lights out, party's over.
Not sure where that bit is, but it's certainly possible I misspoke. Correct that you check PW for victory at the end of the turn.
Noob Question: Is the Chinese unit by Kunming supplied but unable to activate due to no HQ in range and therefore dead in the water?
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.
At 14:33. Okay - "Truk is not within control of the HQ in Tokyo and can't react" but doesn't Truk have an HQ in it as well? And doesn't that give Truk the ability to react? I don't get it.
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!