Posts made by 655321

Mods, if this is in the wrong subforum please move it.

I noticed that HBG has various GW1936 expansions that are AAG40 compatible. I just bought several. Specifically I bought the Going Nuclear, US Marines, Super Yamato, and BV P170 Fast Bomber expansions.

Has anyone else tried these or other expansions with their AAG40 games? What are your thoughts on them? Are there any expansions you’d recommend that I didn’t mention above?

One expansion I’d like to figure out how to include in an AAG40 game is the HBG Atlantis expansion. That one just looks like a lot of fun! Sadly the Atlantis expansion doesn’t come with AAG40 compatible rules so if I were to incorporate it I’d have to adapt the rules myself somehow.

I’ll report back on the expansions once I receive them and play a game or two with them. One concern I have is that the Going Nuclear rules require 4 turns of successful tech rolls to develop the bombs. I don’t tend to have lucky dice rolls so I’m worried that I’ll even be able to develop the nukes before the game ends. We will see how that goes. I might consider either shortening the development cycle or lowering the tech roll requirements if I am unable to build the weapons in time using the HBG rules.

I gotta say that discovering the Axis and Allies dot org forum has caused me to bleed a lot of money into AA games. I already had AA Classic and AA50, but since finding this place I’ve bought 2 sets of AAZ, bought AAG40, and bought a ton of addons and upgrades, including extra pieces, extra chips, 3D printed factories, acrylic markers, casino dice, dice trays and dice cups, and play money. I’m not exactly complaining, I mean if I didn’t want to spend the money I wouldn’t. It’s just funny… I thought wargaming would be a cheaper hobby than my car racing but I might have been wrong on that prediction!

My set of 19mm precision serialized casino dice arrived a couple days ago and I’ve been playing with them. They do seem to roll more randomly than the cheap 16mm dice (not oob) I was using previously. They are also quite beautiful. I got a set of red and a set of blue. The red is a strong ruby and the blue is a deep sapphire. I’m thinking of getting a yellow set next.

I have a good quality felt board and dice cups to roll with. I get good rolls with these tools but the sharp edged 19mm casino dice definitely don’t roll as readily as the round edged 16mm dice do. So you gotta give them an assertive shake and throw.

I wouldn’t recommend using sharp edged 19mm casino dice directly on a printed gameboard because the sharp corners really could cause damage. A dedicated rolling surface and large dice cup help get a confident and satisfying roll with these babies.

I think I’m going to demote my 16mm cheap dice to nonwargaming duties. I’m going to stock up on more 19mm casino dice so that I can roll big stack battles for my AA games all at once. This will allow me to retain the fun of a tactile, physical dice roll (no computer number generators) and feel confident that I’m getting random results.

@CWO-Marc said in My trouble with dice - and are casino dice the answer?:

I don’t use casino precision dice, but in case this option might be useful to you note that there’s another type of precision dice which might be more suitable for A&A: precision backgammon dice. They’re smaller and they have rounded edges/corners, which makes them less destructive if they land on the game map (which can happen even when you’re using a dice tray, if you get a bad bounce).

I looked at backgammon precision dice, and they look good, but they cost even more than the casino dice. I might give the backgammon dice a try though if I end up not liking the sharp edged casino dice.

@djensen Yeah I looked carefully and couldn’t find a better place to post this than in this room. And I agree computer dice are no fun when doing physical boardgaming. I don’t mind computer dice when playing computer games :relaxed:

AA games don’t come with enough dice to roll epic sized battles in one throw. So I bought one of those 100 packs of 16mm dice on Ebay, 10 colors of 10 dice each. After a bunch of games and a bunch of throws I got the feeling that these dice aren’t so random. I have a felt-lined dice rolling tray and these dice seem to be very favorable to landing on 4, 5, and 6. After noticing this, I did a bunch of rolls comparing my Ebay dice to the oob AA dice and found the AA dice to be marginally better.

To resolve this problem I first considered using computer dice on my phone or laptop but it wasn’t as satisfying. I tried it but quickly decided I didn’t like it, because it doesn’t have that tactile, visceral feel that draws me to physical boardgames in the first place.

So tonight I resigned to buying some 19mm foil-wrapped and serialized casino dice from GSE. They should arrive in a few days. I’m hoping for a more random performance from these casino dice. They are much more expensive and come in packs of 5 so I bought a couple packs and if they work well then I guess I’ll get some more.

What does everyone here use?

I see lots of oob dice usage in AA games on YouTube. Are you satisfied with the performance of the oob dice? Do you source dice from other places?

Does anyone here use casino dice, and what are your thoughts on their performance?

Does anyone here prefer to use computer dice when doing IRL physical AA boardgames?

So am I correct in assuming that 1/500 is the best scale to use on AA boardgames for fighter size airplanes? Should I be looking at 1/600 scale if, for example, I want to get something bigger like a B-36 Peacemaker and fit it on my AA50 board?

How’d you get the arrows and roundels looking so sharp? Is this all freehand or did you use decals?

I always thought the big white arrows painted on Corsairs were amusing, as if they are instructions, “This side up” or “It goes in this direction.”

Looks like the HBG Marines expansion set is sold out, but they still have sets of dark green Corsairs. Decisions decisions…

Oh man, RIP my wallet.

OK let me clarify, the fighter CAN defend against the other ships. You just cannot select the submarine as a casualty of any hit the fighter makes unless the fighter has a friendly destroyer in the battle.

Your opponent is right that the fighter cannot defend, but wrong as to the reason why. The reason the fighter cannot defend is because it has no friendly destroyer in the battle.

But the fighter doesn’t die with the carrier immediately. If a viable landing spot is 1 space away or less, then the fighter can land there during the noncombat move phase. If the fighter however has no place to land at the end of the battle, then it is lost.

That kind of translation would best be done by a paid translating service or from a very fluent writer of both languages, especially because the rules are technical and detailed.

Cantonese and Mandarin use the same written language so you’d only have to translate it once.

It’s a good idea to do IMO if you want to sell some AA copies, because China has a quickly expanding middle class that is educated and loves wargames as much as we do.

First off, the submarine cannot attack air units, ever. And air units (fighters, tac bombers, strat bombers) can only attack submarines if they have a friendly destroyer fighting alongside them. You can see these rules on page 33 of the Europe 1940 2nd Ed rulebook under the Submarines section.

So, assuming the fighter doesn’t have a friendly destroyer in the battle with it, then no it cannot defend against the sub.

Nice paint jobs! Where’d ya get the F4Us?

@DoManMacgee I’ve noticed too how the zombies can slow down play. At least, they slow down play until a player gets a tech or two. Simplifying other aspects of the rulebook obviously helps speed things up and mitigate the zombie slowdown, but yes the slowdown is apparent. I’ve found that ZIBRA Suits and Chainsaw Tanks especially help to “mow the lawn” more quickly and with less attrition when it comes to zombie infestation.

I’ve played enough games now and am comfortable enough with the rules to get through a game of AAZ in about 3 to 4 hours, which I think is on the shorter side of playtimes in the AA universe.

A bid is when, before the game starts, you and your opponent negotiate an extra injection of cash for purchase of units during initial setup. The intent is to help balance the game. Since Axis is generally considered the stronger side, the Allies are the side that usually gets a bid or a cash injection.

You begin with a bidding war to assign humans to sides. So if you are willing to play Allies for a bid of $20, but your opponent is willing to play Allies for a bid of only $19, and you refuse to go lower, then he wins the bid and he plays the Allies with a $19 injection to be spent on initial unit setup.

The general rule with spending bid money is that you can only purchase 1 additional unit per territory, and you can only place the extra units in territories where you already have a unit. You don’t have to spend the whole bid but can keep some or all of it for use in later rounds, and can divvy it up between your nations as you see fit.

Looking forward to seeing GW1936 stuff adapted to AAG1940. The GW1936 tech chart always looked like a pain in the ass with very tall hurdles to overcome. Are you going to bring D12 to AAG1940, or are you going to adapt the GW1936 stuff to D6?

Being able to add exclusions to the casualty select rules (for example, “always kill defending bombers first”) would be helpful.

@Striker I like how you describe the cards and techs having such a big effect on the strength of a country. This mechanic is a lot of fun for me due to the fact that it keeps a player on their toes and makes the game less predictable.

@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

I disagree with your balance assessments based on games I’ve played, but I’ve only played about 15 games so far (and two of those were before I had a 100% grasp on the rules). That’s far from enough to make an assertion one way or the other.

In that case you’re probably more informed on balance than I am. I’ve played less than 10 games yet.

Good questions, I’m going to give them a shot.

@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

• Did WOTC know/care/acknowledge that releasing AAZ has caused a rift in the community?

I didn’t see any acknowledgement of this in the interview. I’m speculating that they knew and didn’t care.

• Did the game actually sell well (I doubt we’ll ever get a true answer to this)?

The closest thing I can find is on Amazon dot com, where as of today 2/9/19, AAZ is rated #616 in the top selling board games category. By comparison, here are rankings for other AA games:

AA50 reissue is currently ranked #314 in the top selling board games category.
AA Europe 1940 2nd edition is #1,059.
AA 1942 2nd edition is #1,102.

So Zombies seems to be about the middle of the pack right now. It was probably selling faster when it was first released. I’m not surprised AA50 reissue is still selling more, that one’s the best.

• Did WOTC just make the Zombie theme to be trendy?

Totally yes, and to sell more copies. They seem proud of it, and I think they should be. Having a variety of options within a franchise is a good strategy to maximize market penetration and of course revenue.

Zombies are hot right now and consumers want zombie content. Also, you can attract more people into the wargame genre this way. Personally I think it was a good move. AAZ renewed my interest in the AA franchise, and after receiving and enjoying AAZ, I decided to purchase my first AAG 1940 2nd edition set. I even started spending money at HBG for the first time ever, so my money bled all the way from casual AAZ to HBG upgrades and addons. Even HBG made zombie and Atlantis fantasy expansions for Global War 1939, so the hardcore developers seem to want a piece of the pie, too.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the release of AAZ pumped up the sales of other AA sets, particularly AA50 reissue. I can’t be the only one who got sucked in.

• Is A&A dead?

I bet sales are up right now across the entire AA franchise thanks to AAZ. More importantly, wargaming in general seems to be alive and kicking. The hardcore wargaming crowd has more options than ever from what I can see. The internet is making niche and deep wargames more available to the hardcore consumer. Even 3D printed sets are now available that are compatible across multiple games, including AAG 1940.

• Is A&A condemned to exist only in the form gimmick-laden and/or “casual-friendly” editions forever?

Remember that AA50 reissue is the hottest selling AA game right now, and that’s hardly a gimmicky/casual version.

I doubt Avalon Hill will try to compete with the depth and complexity of Global War 1939, But after releasing AAZ they will probably revisit a more complex/traditional game in the lineup, maybe do an AA1942 3rd edition, or maybe an AAG 1940 3rd edition.

I also read somewhere that Avalon Hill wants to publish a new AA console/computer video game. I’m guessing it would be simpler than AAG 1940. Would an AA game on the Xbox/PS be embraced or rejected by the hardcore wargamer crowd? Would it be popular with the casual console gamer crowd and maybe bring some of them deeper into the wargaming scene?

• How did WOTC balance the game?

They claim to have done lots of playtesting but I think the Axis have an advantage thanks to the rule that only 1 capital needs to be captured to win.

The rules say that 1 captured capital ends the game, and Moscow is usually captured easily. I quickly implemented a house rule that says 2 capitals need to be captured to win. This gives more balance and the allies are more likely to win this way (it also gives the zombies a bigger chance to win), but it increases the game time by at least a few hours. I think Avalon Hill did the 1 capital wins rule to keep it light, short, and accessible. The AAZ rulebook invites bringing in rules from other games in the AA franchise so I think a 2 capitals wins house rule is a good way for more experienced players to go.