Game: Fire in the Sky: The Great Pacific War 1941-1945

Thread: Re: Allied VP for Capture of unoccupied Lae?

jeliason — 2008-08-14T15:36:00+00:00

The Allies do not get a VP for occupying an "uncontrolled" Lae or Hollandia. Lae has an Australian flag on it, and Hollandia is Dutch at the start. "Uncontrolled" here just means that there were not enough facilities there at the start of the war to be of use as a base. The only really neutral base at the start is Bangkok. If the Allies were to capture it first (yeah, right) then they would get a VP for it.

Thread: Re: "ZOC vs supply line" and "air attack" questions

noelberrier — 2008-08-12T00:49:45+00:00

OK this seems clear now.

Thank you very much !

Thread: Re: "ZOC vs supply line" and "air attack" questions

VonEpp — 2008-08-11T15:21:15+00:00

MY ANSWERS WOULD BE:

QUESTION 1:

a) By tracing a supply line into an enemy ZOC hex, the supply line stops there (1st hex). Unless you have a friendly air unit in a base that is occupied by an enemy air unit, where you are attempting to determine supply status, your base would be in supply.

b) If you are attempting to trace a supply line to a base and through an adjacent enemy air unit ZOC which is influencing the hexes you need to use in this supply chain, your base would be out of supply. RULE: Air ZOCs can hinder enemy sea movement and cut Supply Lines.

c) Enemy Sea Control in a hex prevents friendly land units to be in supply in this hex, unless it is a Home Base. Therefore, no matter how many air units you have in the base, if the sea around that hex is enemy controlled, your base is out of supply.

QUESTION 2:

a) YES Committed air units can attack enemy naval and air units on their own or support land combats (note that they cannot attack enemy land units on their own). That means yes they can attack adjacent (or same hex) air/naval units.

I hope these are correct and understandable.

Epp

Thread: "ZOC vs supply line" and "air attack" questions

noelberrier — 2008-08-11T10:32:20+00:00

Here are two questions I have to ask as I cannot figure it out :

1. Supply line (2.2.3.2 3th point) does raise doubt (for me) about the last hex reached by the supply line in an ennemy ZOC : does the supply line stops in the first ennemy ZOC hex encountered, or does the supply line reaches any hex in the first ennemy ZOC encountered ? (Does a japanes air unit in japanese held Rangoon put the counterattacking british units there OoS ?)
Second clarification I need is about friendly air unit cancelling ennemy ZOC. It is written that the friendly unit allows supply line in the hex it is. I assume friendly air ZOC does not allow supply line in the hex it exists (for instance a british air unit in Calcutta does not allow british units in Rangoon to be supplied, but allows those in Calcutta to be supplied).

2. air attack : 1.0 says that air units can attack ennemy air units on their own OR support ground combat. 12.3 says that combat occurs in hex where there are oppoosing forces.
Question is : can long range air units commited to an ennemy base hex attack air units or ship in port in that hex with no other combat there (can air units in Rabaul and Lae attack Port Moresby each turn in order to destroy air units there) ?

Sorry for the long (and poor) writting of those questions ... Answers would be thanksfully appreciated as I really enjoy the game and want to play it the right way.

Thread: Re: New USA/JAPANES Reinforcement Schedules Posted in File Section!

VonEpp — 2008-08-07T01:37:01+00:00

Correction has been made to the Allied Fleet card and planning map was corrected and colors toned down.

Thread: Re: Is land combat compulsory ?

citizen k — 2008-08-04T04:09:50+00:00

I agree Doug, and that's indicative of how seemingly straight forward, yet subtle the rules are. You don't realise exactly what the rules aren't saying until you ask the questions during your first couple plays.

Not my favorite style of rules. I prefer things a bit more explicit and the occasional heads up (like this game's famous "you're going to miss the second deployment if you play by these rules" comment).

I suppose ground support attacks need to actually be supporting an infantry ground attack, and can't independently attack the invading infantry. You'd think strategic bombing - tac air ... but apparently not.

Regardless, I'm really enjoying the game, and the questions are becoming fewer and further between.

So many things to do ... so little transport!

Thanks again everyone!

Thread: Re: Is land combat compulsory ?

rod3556lhs — 2008-08-04T04:06:42+00:00

citizen k wrote:

My question is simple ... Is land combat compulsory?

According to my understanding of the rule (12.3.4.5) Land combat would not be compulsory. It states that "the non-Phasing Player cannot declare a combat." Therefore only the Phasing Player can declare combat and only if he has at least one unbracketed land unit in the hex. The fact that it says "declare" seems to me that it is a choice to "declare" or not "declare". However, since the Attacker cannot lose any combat strength during such a battle it would always be advisable to "declare" a combat when allowed to do so. The only reason you would not need to bother is if the attacker had equal or fewer combat points to allocate to a battle than the defender had Air Steps in his Land/Air at base box (which achieve automatic hits) making it impossible for the attaker to score more hits than the defender.

Thread: Re: Is land combat compulsory ?

VonEpp — 2008-08-04T02:09:20+00:00

I would say no.

The Following Rule States:

11.0 Air Commitment Phase
The Phasing Player must declare which hexes his air units will be
committed to in the Combat Phase. Committed air units can attack
enemy naval and air units on their own or support land combats
(note that they cannot attack enemy land units on their own).

Since the depleted infantry cannot attack, I would say the air unit cannot support a none-attack.

Thread: Re: Is land combat compulsory ?

citizen k — 2008-08-03T21:15:06+00:00

MMPgamer wrote:

If the Japanese unit moved into Rangoon and didn't reduce the British land unit, then the British unit would be forced to counterattack in its next turn.

OK, your answer makes sense and I appreciate it.

Let's take my question a step further. There is a British 2 step air unit in the Base hex with the depleted British infantry and the Japanese infantry. No other units enter the hex, through operational movement or reaction movement. Can the British air unit attack the Japanese infantry unit? If such an attack is permitted, is it voluntary or required?

I'm guessing that they can't as the comparison necessary to determine infantry losses implies both infantry units were involved in the battle.

Thread: Re: Is land combat compulsory ?

MMPgamer — 2008-08-03T20:52:04+00:00

I've been playing the game for over a year now, with multiple face to face, VASSAL, and solo plays.

Section 12.3 for the rules says "Some steps may not occur, due to the opposing forces' composition." So in your example, the British unit would not be able to counterattack the Japanese unit. If the British unit recieves replacements and is flipped back onto its full strength side, then it would be able to counterattack the Japanese unit.

If the Japanese unit moved into Rangoon and didn't reduce the British land unit, then the British unit would be forced to counterattack in its next turn.

Thread: Re: Is land combat compulsory ?

citizen k — 2008-08-03T13:01:36+00:00

tomster wrote:
It wouldn't make any difference anyway as they cannot take any losses in their own phase (13.4)

True, but in a way that only reinforces my question. So it would seem an attacker can never take losses unless the original defender counterattacks, but the defender needs to be reinforced to do so ... if they can't be reinforced, and they are not compelled or even allowed to counterattack on their own phase, then inevitably they will loose - and the attacker will never take a loss in the whole operation.

That seems an odd simplification. If island hoping warfare was nothing else, it was horrifically costly in terms of human life, attackers even more so than defenders.

I appreciate the answers guys, but I need to hear from more experienced players than ourselves

Thread: Re: Is land combat compulsory ?

Gurantsu — 2008-08-03T12:23:01+00:00

I actually have this set up on my table now, also trying to learn it for the first time.

In my opinion, there would be no combat, because the British unit cannot initiate combat. They are in sort of a "defensive mode" due to their depleted status, and are sitting back waiting for the Japanese to attack them.

Thats how I plan on playing it anyway!

Thread: Re: Is land combat compulsory ?

tomster — 2008-08-03T12:13:07+00:00

Hi Iain,

From my understanding as you've pointed out it is up to the phasing
player and a depleted unit cannot attack. It wouldn't make any difference anyway as they cannot take any losses in their own phase (13.4)

I'm just learning and have had a very kind Vassal Opponent who has taught me the ropes. Adam is very quick to answer as well.

I have found the rule book very straight forward. Just read everything literally and if it says it... great. If it doesn't then it doesn't.

Good luck and enjoy the game. It is amazingly deep and complex considering how small (rules and pieces) it is.

Thread: Is land combat compulsory ?

citizen k — 2008-08-03T04:52:39+00:00

I'm starting my second solo game of this intriguing title. Like other members of the IGS, its a fascinating view outside of the conventional board wargame box. Unfortunately, its rulebook isn't up to the task of explaining the game's unique approach.

I'll be honest, I've never given a rule set so much slack, so much of my time. If the game wasn't so damn intriguing, so interesting, I'd have tossed it to the trade heap days ago, just because of the rulebook.

Slowly but surely, I'm absorbing the rules. I've been doing a pretty good job of sorting them out with the aide of the expanded turn order summary here on BGG.

But a fundamental question remains:

Is land combat compulsory?

Consider the following. It's the Allied player phase of turn two. In Ragoon there is a depleted British (2) infantry unit and a Japanesse 8 infantry unit, and nothing else. No ships, no aircraft, no other counters at all.

Now a unit whose strength is bracketed, as the British unit's is in this case, can't "initiate combat" (ref illustration for 2.1.1.3 page 3).

Rule 12.1 tells us that the combat phase has "one or more Battle segments, in which battles occur in any hex containing opposing forces".

But later, rule 12.3.4.5 says "Only the phasing player may initiate land combat and only if he has at least one unit with a non-bracketed Combat Strength in the hex."

So we've got rules implying things, saying other things ... it's a nutty rulebook.

But my question is simple. Is land combat compulsory?

In my Ragoon example, does combat take place on the British player's turn regardless of what the British player desires?

Once initiated, does combat occur turn after turn, in both players combat phases until one player or the other withdraws from the hex or is eliminated?

I'm positive a unit can't enter an enemy occupied hex without initiating combat that turn ... but I'm damned if I can find exactly where the rules say that.

But I'm getting ahead of myself - and this game punishes such behavior more than most.

My question is simple ... Is land combat compulsory? Must the weakened British unit in this example do battle during its combat phase or can it just sit there and do nothing.

Thanks in advance.

Thread: Re: New USA/JAPANES Reinforcement Schedules Posted in File Section!

VonEpp — 2008-07-28T15:44:53+00:00

Posted today . . .

I printed my sets on "Card Stock" paper and they came out Great!
(Bought paper at Walmart 110 weight / 50 sheets for $5.49)

Examples here:

]]>
Japanese Card

]]>
Allied Card

and a close up of the counter on the card (top row)
]]>

Thread: Re: New USA/JAPANES Reinforcement Schedules Posted in File Section!

rod3556lhs — 2008-07-28T03:55:30+00:00

Wow! I am impressed that this topic has 7 "thumbs up" already and we have not yet seen the file! There is no file with more than 3 "thumbs up" in the entire file section -- and just the "idea" of this has a slew of recommendations. I am not sure what everyone is recommending, but I am quite intriqued!

Thread: Re: New USA/JAPANES Reinforcement Schedules Posted in File Section!

VonEpp — 2008-07-28T00:47:11+00:00

Sorry for taking so long...

Have have to correct a few items tomorrow and I will resubmit. I've used them today in a test run and they work great!

I hope BBG Admin can get them up soon after I post tomorrow (Monday).

I have also included Combat / Transport Cost charts to boot!

Epp

Thread: New USA/JAPANES Reinforcement Schedules Posted in File Section!

VonEpp — 2008-07-25T20:15:25+00:00

Greetings Captains,

I have posted the USA and Japanese reinforcement schedules to the game file section. These are in color and contain large squares to place your game units on. This will keep the turn tracking clear of your arms from dislodging these piles upon piles of units.

Enjoy when the BBG Gods post them to the files section!

EPP

Thread: Re: Australian pride - rule 2.2.3.1

tomster — 2008-07-16T08:38:25+00:00

Surely the Ozzie ships would have been repaired in Oz?

Thread: New FiTS PBEM Tourney

jeliason — 2008-07-15T22:29:59+00:00

I'd like to start up a new PBEM tournament for this game. I'm looking to get it going in late August 2008. I expect it to be AREA rated, single elimination, eliminator (no byes), short campaign (turn 2 to end). Hopefully it will get sanction from the Boardgame Players Assn, but this will require that we get 16 players. I'm hoping for about a 4-5 month limit per round, but that will depend on feedback. If interested, send me an email at vulcanphile@iw.net.

Thread: Re: Australian pride - rule 2.2.3.1

jeliason — 2008-07-15T22:20:16+00:00

Adam wasn't joking. "Home base" isn't really where a ship returns to, it's where its supplies come from. To be usable, it needs fuel, etc. The Aussies really should use the USA as a home base. The Aussies have a beef that their navy is being underrated though. Australia and Canberra were respectable heavy cruisers. The Australian unit should be a CA, not a CL.

Thread: Re: Espiritu Santo cutting supply to Australia?

jeliason — 2008-07-15T22:07:29+00:00

I agree. If Port Moresby falls, the supply line to Australia is very vulnerable since Japanese air in Espiritu Santu cuts the line, and capturing Brisbane does the same. The Allies have to defend both bases strongly to avoid losing 3-5 VP.

Thread: Re: Lae VP

jeliason — 2008-07-15T21:44:58+00:00

Lae has an Australian flag on it, and Hollandia is Dutch. They are "uncontrolled" just to indicate they don't have base capabilities. Occupying an "uncontrolled" base by the Allies is not a capture and doesn't give a VP, though it does confer full base status on the hex. One could argue that Bangkok starts really uncontrolled, but I can't imagine the Allies occupying it before the Japanese.

Thread: Re: Is there ever any reason to put an air unit in a task force?

squonk — 2008-07-15T21:08:44+00:00

Oh, excellent answer. I don't see this being an issue too often, but it could happen. I definitely missed the fact that there could be other battles between the Administrative step of one battle and the Base Control Changes step of the RTB phase, and that those battles could be affected by the Occupied Base marker.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Is there ever any reason to put an air unit in a task force?

jeliason — 2008-07-15T20:55:54+00:00

One reason for the Occupied Base markers is supply. A base can be supplied (unless the enemy has established sea control) if it can trace a chain of bases back to a home base. Occupied bases don't change hands till all combats have been resolved to allow them to supply other attacked bases throughout the combat phase.

Image

Greywing — 2008-06-27T18:05:53+00:00

The Dutch counters (front & back). Note the artwork on the front of the ships -- pretty elaborate for use on only two counters.

Thread: Calcutta 2 Step

Scoobysnacks — 2008-06-24T12:34:06+00:00

I have never seen Calcutta on the first turn but I've seen the quick strike programmed Japanese Victory be successful on at least 2 occasions now. My last opponent did it to me after he had it done to him. Basically you start with the turn 2 campaign. The Japanese bait the British navy with an invasion of Rangoon on turn's 2 and 3 and it opens up Calcutta for turn 4. As long as the Japanese take the typical US sites on turn 2 and 3 they will get the quick VP win.

Thread: First turn invasion of India (refuted)

luckydogwilson — 2008-06-24T09:08:33+00:00

The suggestion of a first turn invasion of Calcutta has given me much pause for thought. I would absaloutely have to agree that it surely violates the spirit of the rule, if not not the letter.

But after some consideration, I think that, even if allowed, it is a weak play, and unlikely to be used.

The proposal of invading Calcutta using the Saigon army has a number of serious flaws.

To be effective this can only work if it eliminates the defenders on the invasion turn. If the Indian army is only reduced by a step, the Brits will simply create a 4 point replacement counter, bring it on as a reinforcement in Bomaby, one hex deploy to the plains (as it's not under any first turn restriction) and immediately repair the army to full strength (and probably attack the Japs, as he can take no loss on the offensive).

To eliminate the army requires doing 8 more hits than those received, a likely 1.3 from an out of supply army.
So the Japs must produce 9.3 hits.
The invading army should give 2.6 hits on average, but the only force which could reasonably produce the remaining 6.6 hits is the Pearl Harbour carriers (all 5 Japanese battleships- even if they could get there - average less than 4 hits!).

The carrier fleet, with its first turn bonuses, should produce about 7.3 hits, which gives a (very slight) margin, but NO guarantee of success.

The carrier fleet however, is in Japan and would need to be redeployed to reach Calcutta (even sailing full range). That's an additional 6 Transport points, and of course at least one destroyer must go with the army to establish sea superiority (another 0.5 TP).

Since 8 TP are required for the invasion itself, it becomes clear that at least one of the Philipines or Singapore must be left uninvaded on turn one. Even a perfect invasion of Calcutta, would not repay the failure to take either of these by turn three, and the victory point cost that would be incurred. Singapore particularly becomes more dangerous as the greatly increased British fleet, released by the invasion of India, would be available to defend or reinforce it, if it fails to fall in a single assault.

Even if Singapore and Calcutta are both assaulted on turn 1 (and the Philipines airforce bombed), the demands on transport remain very high.
If Brunai is not taken, no oil will be available on turn 2 (minimum 2 TP, plus 2-3 to transport the oil). An aggressive Japanese player could gamble on picking up oil on turn 3, but the US can counter by rebasing to Port Morseby, or even Surabya (legal?), which vastly complicates the Japanese turn 2.

The loss of the carriers to attack Pearl, may be seen as minor against the 3 VP gained for Calcutta, but the redeployment cost will mean that at least a couple of turn 1 "soft targets" will have to go uninvaded, which reduces the immediate value of the move. Additionally the US will also be guaranteed to have the 4 air points from Pearl (usually a bigger loss than the BB's), to redeploy. This can potentailly restrict turn 2 moves (by ZOC) and of course makes other targets harder to conquer.

Given that the actual attack is by no means a certainty, and that even if successful, would still have to contend with a sizeable RN presence supporting the attempt to take it back , and in a theatre where multiple Japanese redployements will be constantly required to amass any force, it is hard to see that the Allies have much to fear from this opening gambit.

It may well be a "legal move", but there is little in it to attract the Japanese from a more traditional strategy.

Thread: Re: Allied VP for Capture of unoccupied Lae?

luckydogwilson — 2008-06-24T07:58:07+00:00

I noted at the end of my article on grabbing Lae, that it was historically questionable. I was slightly surprised that it didn't draw any more comment at the time, but I assumed that perhaps it was simply a well known and accepted situation.

I am far from being a Pacific war buff, but my own reading suggests that neither side started the war with the least intention of attempting to make the land crossing from Lae to Port Morsby, or even any thought that it was possible (for an army). The Japanese only went overland after their invasion attempt failed, and the Allies really only went back north in response to the Japanese attack.

However the same argument could be advanced for virtually all the land connections (except those in India), in that pre-war thinking had written off most of these as impractical for (modern)army movement.

I personally concur with your sentiment that only the Japanese should score the victory point for occupying such a base.

Thread: Re: Allied VP for Capture of unoccupied Lae?

rod3556lhs — 2008-06-20T01:27:45+00:00

kenlee18657 wrote:
In an earlier strategy post Tony Wilson recommended the tactic of having the Allies occupy Lae early in the game in order to deny the Japanese a victory point. (Under the rules as written, either side gets a victory point for occupying an unoccupied base. Thus if the allies get to Lae before the Japanese they get a VP. Then if and when the Japanese take Lae, the net effect is 0 rather than +1 for the Japanese). Although Tony's suggestion is insightful, my question is whether this is the actual intent of the rule or should the rule instead read that only the Japanese gets a VP for occupying an unoccupied base. This later approach seems like the logical one from both a game and an historical point of view.

I think the early grabbing of Lae by the allies in order to later deny the Japanese the VP is a loophole in the rules. So I play it like you suggest in your last two sentences. I believe that is the best approach.

Thread: Allied VP for Capture of unoccupied Lae?

kenlee18657 — 2008-06-19T16:58:12+00:00

In an earlier strategy post Tony Wilson recommended the tactic of having the Allies occupy Lae early in the game in order to deny the Japanese a victory point. (Under the rules as written, either side gets a victory point for occupying an unoccupied base. Thus if the allies get to Lae before the Japanese they get a VP. Then if and when the Japanese take Lae, the net effect is 0 rather than +1 for the Japanese). Although Tony's suggestion is insightful, my question is whether this is the actual intent of the rule or should the rule instead read that only the Japanese gets a VP for occupying an unoccupied base. This later approach seems like the logical one from both a game and an historical point of view.

Thread: Re: Is there ever any reason to put an air unit in a task force?

rod3556lhs — 2008-06-06T01:25:37+00:00

squonk wrote:

Yes, that seems like the obvious way to do it. I'm just wondering if "obvious" and "correct" happen to be the same in this case. I've been wrong enough times about the rules to this game that I don't make that assumption anymore.

I would say that since that is not how it is described in the rules that it is not literally the "correct" way, but I don't believe it changes anything about how the game is played. The only time "correct" should be considered, is if by doing it some "other way" it would change the play of the game as to distort the outcome of a given action. I don't believe in this case that it would be a problem. But if you want to be sure to do it the "correct" way just use the "Occupied Base" marker the way the rules say, and explain it that way when you teach it to others. Then if they question the purpose or value of that marker, as you did in your original post, just say, "This is the correct way the rules explain the use of this marker."

Thread: Re: Is there ever any reason to put an air unit in a task force?

squonk — 2008-06-06T00:57:57+00:00

Yes, that seems like the obvious way to do it. I'm just wondering if "obvious" and "correct" happen to be the same in this case. I've been wrong enough times about the rules to this game that I don't make that assumption anymore.

Thread: Re: Is there ever any reason to put an air unit in a task force?

rod3556lhs — 2008-06-06T00:00:17+00:00

In a somewhat related point, I don't see any purpose to the "Occupied Base" markers, explained in rule 12.3.5. Basically, it says that an enemy base which is cleared of enemy ground units does not change control yet -- however, the very next step is the Return to Base phase, when they DO change control.
I must admit that I don't really use the "Occupied Base" marker. Basically after each battle is resolved I do the "return to base" phase as that battle is completed before going on to the next battle. If there are air and/or naval units left in the base when it changes hands due to "Land Combat", I simply eliminate all those air and naval units at that time. Then go on to the next battle, so never bother with the "Occupied Base" marker.

Thread: Re: Is there ever any reason to put an air unit in a task force?

squonk — 2008-06-05T17:33:19+00:00

Ok, that's the answer. Thanks. I find myself having a lot of trouble figuring out how things work when both players have units in a base.

Anyone want to take a crack at the purpose of the Occupied Base markers?

Thread: Re: Is there ever any reason to put an air unit in a task force?

rod3556lhs — 2008-06-05T15:13:11+00:00

="squonk"]Air units in task forces can't participate in combat, and can't land unless the base is friendly or clear of enemy ground units at the end of combat. They're just targets for subs or air strikes. And in any case where they could land, they could do so during the second deployment phase instead for half the cost in transport points.
During "Operational Movement" air units in a task force CAN land in a friendly base even though there are enemy land units still in that hex, as long as Sea Control has been established. Because air units cannot use "sea deployment" to move into a friendly base that has enemy land units present, it might be valuable to try to land air units during the "operational movement" phase by having them in a task force. That way, if on your opponents subsequent turn your friendly base is subject to attack, you will have air units in place to help fend off such an attack.

Thread: Is there ever any reason to put an air unit in a task force?

squonk — 2008-06-04T00:25:40+00:00

Air units in task forces can't participate in combat, and can't land unless the base is friendly or clear of enemy ground units at the end of combat. They're just targets for subs or air strikes. And in any case where they could land, they could do so during the second deployment phase instead for half the cost in transport points.

In a somewhat related point, I don't see any purpose to the "Occupied Base" markers, explained in rule 12.3.5. Basically, it says that an enemy base which is cleared of enemy ground units does not change control yet -- however, the very next step is the Return to Base phase, when they DO change control. It just seems like a step has been added (14.2 Base Control Changes) for no purpose.

There is an optional rule (18.1.8) that refers to the Occupied Base markers, but if the only purpose of these markers is for the optional rule, then the procedure for placing them probably should have been included in the optional rule, not in the main rules.

The main reason I bring up these points is that I'm imagining trying to teach this game -- I can't imagine why I would explain to someone that it is legal to put an air unit in a task force, but that you would never do it. Why not just say you can only put naval and land units in task forces (and no land units in carrier TFs for that matter).

Thread: Re: Drat, sunk again!

kostek — 2008-05-25T22:50:05+00:00

Great review.

Probably the key confusing point about learning the game is the difference between air steps and air points. Most other things seemed fairly straightforward.

The only other thing I'll add is that WWII in the Pacific was a war of logistics, and the game reflects that. Painfully. You need to spend serious thought planning your moves for the next turn so that on this turn you can position your guys. You need to be aware of this point. To me this feels a bit like work. Maybe with repeated plays it would get a little easier.

Finally, I love the way battles are resolved. It's like a mini-game w/i the larger game. Great fun.

Thread: Re: Question on Ground Support, AA, and friendly bases

cfarrell — 2008-05-24T21:04:13+00:00

Got it.

I would definitely say the rules are not totally clear on this point, though, even in 1.1. I think most people will intuitively play it correctly, but 12.3.2.3 does not seem to cover everything.

It does seem a little strange in some cases that the attacker has to get through a base's AA while a defender faces no AA. In an overland army attack into Rangoon, for example, that battle is presumably taking place a ways away from the actual base and its AA. In most cases (the island battles) though it does make sense.

Thread: Re: Question on Ground Support, AA, and friendly bases

ChrisCooper — 2008-05-24T20:17:50+00:00

I too was confused about this. Some answers are given in reply to my 2008-02-05 post. Let me know if this kaes it clearer.

Thread: Question on Ground Support, AA, and friendly bases

cfarrell — 2008-05-24T17:19:23+00:00

OK, I've got a question on air points used for ground support. The specific example here is a combat in Port Morseby where the Japanese ground unit one-hex deployed from Lae (most of this detail is not particularly relevant). Both the Japanese and the Allies have air points remaining after the air combat, and they want to use them for ground support.

The question is: who, if anyone, takes AA fire from the base?

13.3.2.2 you can choose to strike the enemy base or TF. In this case, for the Allies, there is no enemy base (and no enemy TF, either), but surely you can support your own guys?

12.3.2.3, section 2), says if you strike the base, you weather the AA fire, and then you can target various ground targets or installations, or be held back for ground support, which happens at a later time.

It seems like the case of supporting your own land units in ground combat at a friendly base is not explicitly covered. I assume you don't have to take AA fire from your own base. Am I missing something, or is there an official ruling on this?

Thread: Re: No Dice

desertfox2004 — 2008-04-30T13:51:17+00:00

IMHO, this suggestion just seems to run counter to the general approach of wargames, which tend to acknowledge the role of luck in war. Even the best laid plans can go awry in the midst of battle. I would be hesitant to eliminate the chance element in any wargame.

Thread: No Dice

Art Kibbe — 2008-04-30T13:35:41+00:00

I have played Fire in the Sky several times and was wondering if people thought that eleiminating the dice would work.
Example : If you have three die rols just accept one hit if looking for 5 or 6. Or with 4 die looking for 4, 5 or 6 just accept two hits.

Odd dice would be rolled. 5 dice looking for 4, 5, or 6 would be two hits plus one roll.

This ensures a move that has a high chance of winning will not fail due to dice or a risky move will not change the game due to lucky rolls.

Attacking a fleet with 9 air points might miss completely or get all hiits (I did not calculat the odds) but you could opt for one hit out of three as a sure thing.

Thread: Re: Cutting the US supply line

rod3556lhs — 2008-04-30T02:36:43+00:00

As the Japanese are the only ones occupying the Brisbane hex and, in fact, establish control of Brisbane, the Allies no longer have a supply line linking Brisbane with a U.S. homebase. So the Japanese would get the victory points.

Tony, I believe what your qoute: "The final destination hex need not be a friendly base", refers to is if you are tracing a supply line to Land Units that are fighting in a hex with enemy units, even though that hex is not a "friendly base." Then supply could be traced to those Land units that are locked in combat in that hex (unless of course the other side established "Sea Control" thus putting their enemy out of supply, "regardless of their [enemy's] ability to trace a supply line.") (Rule 12.3.3.3)

Thread: Cutting the US supply line

luckydogwilson — 2008-04-29T08:20:02+00:00

Seeeking clarification on this siuation:

Japanese hold Port Morseby, and successfully invade Brisbane, destroying all Allied units there (surprise move!). No Japanese aircraft are deployed to Brisbane.

Under rule 16.0 the Japs might expect to score 2 points for having cut the supply line between US and Brisbane.

However under 2.2.3.2 we see that the supply line is traced from the US(home base) to Brisbane and that explicitly "The final destination hex need not be a friendly base"(point 1, last line).

This would suggest that the 2 points are NOT scored (supply still running to rest of Australia?), and would not be scored until a Japanese air point is deployed to Brisbane (would then cut supply under 2.2.3.3 - 3rd point).

Any thoughts on this?

Thread: Re: Optional rule selection

luckydogwilson — 2008-04-23T10:45:53+00:00

Deleted post due to faulty table display. Will redo and resubmit.

Thread: Re: Question about amphibious landing range

rod3556lhs — 2008-04-20T16:02:41+00:00

MMPgamer wrote:
Well, you can trace a supply line from Hainan to Rangoon. Section 2.2.3.2 Number 2, "A Supply Line can cross any hexside, even an impassable one."

Thanks for pointing this out. I had not noticed that. If this is correct then it seems it would be allowable for a first turn invasion of Calcutta from a land unit in Saigon and using Hainan as 2 hex distance from Calcutta. This doesn‘t make a whole lot of historical sense to me. If the purpose of the "2 hex limit" is not to provide a "jumping off" point for launching an amphibious invasion, I'm not sure about the purpose of the rule. It would seem to me that the 2 hex rule means that within 2 movement hexes. It does not say this, it is how I have been iterpreting it.

As I have played this game many times over, I have marveled at how well it simulates the decisions available to the commanders at the time. There is such a great logic to everything, and whenever I study the history of the War in the Pacific, I continually see the limits and opportunities that each side had and how well Fire in The Sky reflects this. If a first turn invasion of Calcutta from Saigon, using Hainan/Calcutta 2 hex relationship to allow such a thing, is within the framework of the game rules there seems to be a sudden departure from historical reality. This seems to be a "game" quirk rather than reflecting any logical historical sense. I guess I wonder why supply can be traced across impassible hex-sides, but land units cannot cross that same hex-side.

I have gone under the assumption that the "2 hex rule" was intended to keep the game players from doing something totally a-historical, but rather to channel them into reality of the limits of amphibious operations during the war. A step by step advance establishing bases as jumping off points and/or supply lines for the logistics of further expansion. It seems to me that a controlled base within two hexes would do one of three things (or maybe all three): (1) provide access to supplies to sustain the operation, (2)establish a chain or supply line, or (3) be used as a logistical base of operations or a jump off point for a future advance. A proposed first turn Japanese amphibious landing at Calcutta seems to go against this rationale.

Thread: Re: Question about amphibious landing range

MMPgamer — 2008-04-20T15:00:24+00:00

Well, you can trace a supply line from Hainan to Rangoon. Section 2.2.3.2 Number 2, "A Supply Line can cross any hexside, even an impassable one."

Thread: Re: Question about amphibious landing range

rod3556lhs — 2008-04-20T04:34:08+00:00

Mustafa may be correct here, but I don't believe so. I think that if using Hainan as the base within 2 hexes of Calcutta, that it violates the spirit of the rules. It does not seem to me to be a reasonable thing to be able to do. You cannot move a Land unit along a connected land route from Hainan to Calcutta, so I believe that you cannot consider Hainan to be within 2 hexes of Calcutta. I consider it to be within 6 hexes, because the only route from Hainan to Calcutta would be by sea 6 hexes away. I guess I always assumed that when the rules stated that a landing could only be made if the destination was within two hexes of a friendly base, that it meant that you could trace a supply line within two hexes of the friendly base. The supply line rule clearly states that for Land units the supply line had to be a connected line. Rule 2.2.3.2 says, "A supply line is traced from any friendly-controlled Home Base to the destination hex, along a string of friendly bases each within 2 hexes of the previous one." Surely to have the spirit of the rules maintain a consistent logic the "2 Hex" distance would have to be determined the same way the Supply Line rule is stated. We have to ask ourselves, what is purpose of the 2 hex limit on amphibious invasions in first place, if not supply line related?

Thread: Re: Question about amphibious landing range

camustafa — 2008-04-20T01:38:03+00:00

I recall reading somewhere that the two-hex range requirement is absolute, not path-dependent. So yes, it seems that you could invade Calcutta if you hold Hainan - subject to two restrictions: your invading forces only move four and that's a path-dependent range, and you have to somehow get rid of Allied Air ZOCs. I don't have rules handy - do the Allies not start with air units in Singapore? If yes, then a Turn 1 invasion of Calcutta should be impossible.

Thread: Question about amphibious landing range

morgand — 2008-04-19T23:24:29+00:00

Section 9.2.1 of the rules regarding operational movement of land units states that "...landings may occur in any land hexes within 2 hexes of any friendly base(even a base in which the land unit did not start it's move) and where sea movement is allowed."

So, can Japanese land units start their operational move in Saigon or Singapore and invade Calcutta (assuming no air ZOCs) if Rangoon and Bangkok are still in Allied hands? Hainan is within two hexes of Calcutta (though on the other side of Indochina). Do the two hexes have to be counted by sea movement? Or can I immediately invade Calcutta on turn 1 (discounting for a moment how bad of an opener that is)?

Image

Fantas — 2008-03-06T17:42:19+00:00

This small note can be found in the box

Image

Devon Harmon — 2007-12-29T03:18:17+00:00

Comparing Chits: Fire in the Sky (large and pinkish) vs. Empire of the Sun (small and yellow-orange)

Image

Devon Harmon — 2007-12-28T21:58:52+00:00

Look at the size of that stack (US Fleet in Pearl Harbor at campaign game start). The counters for this game are 1" x 1". Tape measure and glass bead used to denote US control are not included in the game.

Image

Devon Harmon — 2007-12-28T21:47:49+00:00

Campaign Game depolyed for solo play. Note: glass beads used to denote control and dice boot are not included in the game.

Image

marticabre — 2007-12-11T23:09:07+00:00

Using wooden blue and red counters to determine base control. And it looks neat!

Image

Orcoteuthis — 2007-09-28T15:06:25+00:00

Detail of map: India

Image

Xookliba — 2007-07-18T02:56:49+00:00

my homemade control markers

Image

mrbeankc — 2007-05-20T10:01:13+00:00

Game logo on map.

Image

mrbeankc — 2007-05-20T10:00:39+00:00

Close up detail of map.