Scenario 1942 - January, right?
Why have the Brits given Abyssinia back to italy?
If that Brit inf in Peking isn’t an opiium salesman, what is he? And where are the Japanese?
What are all those British units doing in Eire?
Those rules modules; have they been removed or am I looking in the wrong place?
your right IL. :lol: :lol: i thought you were exgagrating. central us looks elongated but other than that everything looks perfect on the war game’s map. flahman’s map is looks very hand drawn.
Thank you, oh Imperious Leader, for not answering any of my questions. Except one. Wrongly:
So no Brits in Eire? This chart is wrong, then:
http://www.thewargame.com/SetupCharts/SetupCharts1942.htm
as are the setup photos, so please ask Jeff to remove them from the site; they are very confusing.
Same thing regarding Italian units still in East Africa long after the last one surrendered.
I’m aware the map is 1939, apart from no Japanese yellow in “Peking”, Inner Mongolia, Shanghai and south Sakhalin. Doesn’t effect any of my questions.
Anytime from January to June 1942; still no sign of an Italian comback in Somalia…
As to the general topography, I still think the point of having a map this big is defeated if Europe is so small you still need to use those hated blow-up boxes we all thought we’d seen the last of. The central strip of the map running from Karelia downwards is too compressed, leadng to European Russia being too small to accomodate those extra territories even you admit are needed to stop the German-Soviet conflict being more than a simple slogging match. Also makes the middle east too small; probably prompting the addition of Sinai to Jordan that looks so wrong.
As I’ve said before, my maps are schematic; they are drawn simply to illustrate a lot of information. I’ve never said they’d actually be printed out as I’ve shown them.
Good job I downloaded those modules already, then! :wink:
And Spain is worth whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? :-o
You two should work things out lol.
Be clear extra clear about wording.
And one question at a time.
Maybe.
OK, lets give it a try:
Why do the setup photos and unit sheets have British units in Eire when the Irish leader De Valera refused to allow the Allies to use even Irish port facilities, despite Churchill’s offer to hand over control of Northern Ireland after the war?
Why do the setup photos and unit sheets have British units in Eire when the Irish leader De Valera refused to allow the Allies to use even Irish port facilities, despite Churchill’s offer to hand over control of Northern Ireland after the war?
Allied mechanics were allowed to retrieve crash landed Allied aircraft. That infantry unit represents this. And since an infantry unit has no set military designation ( division, brigade, corps etc).
Besides northern Ireland and Dublin were bombed twice by Germany.
…… :-o …WOW!!! Yea I know I’m late on the subject…but Wow! This is like a dream come true of a board, the perfect gift. My birthday is this wensday and I got a $185 PSP, I MUCH rather of goten this monster of game! That is if I can find an unused table/tables in my house that it would fit on… :-o :-D
I feel like a kid in a candy shop…with only a penny to buy anything.
Had a browse of the website.
If there are misprints should quickly add some side notes.
Hope he makes back his investment soon and continue to do what he had planned for the project.
I think some small improvements to the website would help. Say it would be nice to add yet further photos.
Imagine photos of a HUGE dinning table with everything setup and all manuals etc laid down…with players dressed up in army hats :mrgreen:
I’lll have to look at my charts when I get home, I don’t remember any troops in Erie. There were troops in East Africa, but if yo udon’t like them don’t put them there. As I said before the map is worth the cost of this game. And I’ve played it, Europe gets crowded, but there is enough room for everything.
Europe always gets crouded, atleast whenever I play AAR.
The Republic of Ireland was adamantly neutral and the “mechanics” you mention are hardly equivalent to a corps.
I already told you the infantry don’t represent any specific label of military organization. In the case of Eire its just those Mechanics and potential volunteers.
So I hardly think Eire can be considered less neutral than for example Spain
nobody said anything about their neutrality.
I see on ebay you can already buy just the pieces for “The War Game”. A pity because you should buy the game, if you have the money, to support the guy who put out an awesome product.
Here’s a link:
Seems land/air, and naval pieces sold separately.
Presumably the lists reflect the actual breakdown of units in the game.
There you go… now you can no longer complain about Chinese battleships because they don’t have any. Too bad for you.
Mr Anderson…sorry, Imperious Leader: if YOU actually review the thread (and those elsewhere on this subject) I think you’ll find that, while I sometimes try to do so humorously, I do always make valid points and ask relevant questions. Yes, I am a stickler for historical accuracy but only because for me this enhances the gameplaying experience.
You sometimes give the impression that you’d rather play A&A on a life-sized picture of Tera Patrick than an accurate and well researched map of the world. While this idea may have some merit, it’s hardly something we can discuss intelligently on these forums.
I know you feel some duty to defend your friend Jeff from my criticisms, but I’ve recently read on another forum your own comment that games are rarely played with OOTB rules by experienced players and groups. Yet becasue you had some input into The War Game you go balistic when anyone suggests that it could be improved upon. We all have our own priorities as to how we like to customise games; for me this is always going to focus on the map. I’ve been studying and drawing maps and boards for many, many years and like to think that I know pretty much where maps can go wrong. What really, really bugs me about Axis and Allies is that so many people keep repeating the same errors over and over again because they can’t seem able to get over the official maps being some sort of sacred text which cannot be altered, e.g. the unhistorical and nonesensical insistence on tearing the Sinai penninsular away from Egypt and placing it in Trans-Jordan. Sinai was never in Trans-Jordan, so making access to Suez dependant on control of T-J is just plain wrong. So why do so many people drive me nuts by doing it?
Though sometimes a bit abrasive with his criticism – I must say that Flashman has added a bit of witty energy to the variant board and some good constructive feedback. I can take offense a lot quicker than many – but he has some good comments mixed in with the barbs. . .I am waiting for the next Axis & Allies variant – the Rio de Oro Civil War game – I get to play the Palisario!
I love the Mad Max guy in the middle of Australia by the way – I laughed out loud when I got to that part of the map. . .
becasue you had some input into The War Game you go balistic when anyone suggests that it could be improved upon.
I only worked on the map and did a few things. All decisions were not mine to make. Whatever you feel is necessary will not change the map because i tried the same thing and was rejected. The map is what it is. Its not 100% perfect but its better than most maps. Also, you fail to see the point that was necessary sometimes and that is the map can only be accurate to the extent where the game does not become effected so it either: becomes less balanced, becomes less playable, or is prone to tricks.
Their is a higher purpose in the Revised map where is Moscow was in its correct place then their would not be enough space ( territories or a simple area to have units to stack in) and the game would suffer. Larry Harris, myself and scores of other who make these maps reflect for hours on specific objectives on how to improve playability. We don’t just make a map in a day randomly. Historical bull crap is going to take a backseat when it interferes with the balance or playability.
AARHE is only based on the actual Revised AA map. It offers minor improvements because it was intended to be playable for normal Revised AA.
OK i have restored the vitality of this thread and removed anything that could be considered to impede the threads progress.
From now on Flashman:
No more questions with your sence of humor thrown in. If you comment on it only do so with the context of what you deem a valid question rather than a “disagreement” of some subjective nature ( the Soviet icon is round and it “SHOULD” be this and such)
I will not indulge you with any further taunts to the extent that your answer will include something more than its answer.
Craig:
Stay away from any threads unless you want to add to the discussion.
ok now get back to discussion-
I gave Craig the boot. I don’t let people just “show up and crash parties anymore” Craig didn’t bother to post anything about what he thinks about the game but rather to facilitate problems akin to adding salt to wounds. The party was as much yours as it was mine and everybody who posts in it. I don’t think our differences really meant much anyway. I just grow a little tired of some of these “questions”
Craig added nothing but additional baggage and problems to an otherwise decent thread.
don’t worry and lets move forward. 8-)
BTW: If i was you id get rid of having my name below your picture.
@Imperious:
I gave Craig the boot. I don’t let people just “show up and crash parties anymore” The party was as much yours as it was mine. I dont think our differences really meant much anyway. I just grow a little tired of some of these “questions”
Craig added nothing but additional baggage and problems to an otherwise decent thread.
don’t worry and lets move forward. 8-)
BTW: If i was you id get rid of having my name below your picture.
thats a bit abusive of your powers isn’t it?
