Posts made by Admiral T

@italiansarecoming:

small democracy spot

One of the most bizarre requests for game changes I have seen amongst these posts… I agree with IL, Stalin would NEVER relinquish any sort of territory or military command to foreigners to help fight the Germans- especially foreigners of the filthy capitalist lot! haha. The most that the Western Allies could do to help the Russians was by sending war materials and foodstuffs into the Soviet Union up through Iran. Sorry italiansarecoming, ‘small democracy spot’ isn’t going to happen.

@Rakeman:

If Historical requirements were needed, I would say that America’s income should start low, but they get a bonus for every round that passes.  That would simulate that the Axis must either crush Russia and the pacific fast, or let America bail the allies out.  But I’m fine with how it is.

Yeah, that is kind of what I was getting at with an ‘80-100 IPC America,’ Rakeman. Starting them off with something low (like 20-30), then increasing by a given amount for a given number of turns. It would still give the  Axis a chance, but at the same time, grounding the game in reality somewhat. The United States massively out-produced everyone on the planet during WWII. I just wish A&A would reflect that a bit more.  :-(

@Imperious:

I want to see a Axis and Allies: Korea game by June 2010 because it will be 60th anniversary of that war.

Axis of Evil & Allies… ? lol

Just a nitpicky question here…

I was under the impression that the true fighter jet technology developed by the British and the Germans during WWII was applied to defensive interceptor craft. The Brits used their jet fighters to intercept V1’s, and the Germans used theirs to intercept Allied bomber squadrons. In addition, these jet fighters could only fly for a few minutes before running out of fuel. So, with all this in mind, why has the AA50 jet fighter technology raised the attack value of fighters to 4, essentially making them cheap bombers? The AAR version of this technology seems much more appropriate given the history of these early rocket propelled aircraft (raise the defense value of fighters to 5).

Perhaps a more appropriate name for this technology would be something along the lines of ‘advanced tactical fighter bombers’?

I really like these house rules on stealth submarines Bluestroke. Thanks. I can really only see two problems that could come from them…

First, all the players must be very diligent in their order writing. How tragic would it be to incorrectly write an order, or forget, thereby causing your whole plan to fail. Although this kind of adds an exciting flavor to the game which simulates a failure of communication lines. I really like this! On the flip side however, what happens to a sub if a series of movements culminating in some sort of combat situation are discovered to be based off of an incorrect, or impossible movement made much earlier in the units lifetime? Does this negate that particular submarines activity since that incorrect order? Does that submarine have to withdraw from that combat situation, or is it played out regardless of that earlier error?

Second, all the players must be completely honest with each other when a submarine is found by a destroyer, whether it be by accident or on purpose. If one player isn’t completely honest, then the game could become very frustrating and a source of bitter arguments.  What type of repercussions do you use to deter those from committing such deceit ? Perhaps eliminating that submarine from play would be appropriate?

Hopefully all the people I play with have enough brains to avoid screwing things up, and have enough dignity to not cheat.  :lol:

@Black_Elk:

Fricken subs are everywhere.  Which means you better have destroyers. 
Note: we use the hidden rule-where subs orders are written down on paper and you only see them when a destroyer finds em or you attack out of the blue… and at 6 IPC there are a lot of subs(add improved ship yards Tech at 5 IPC the wolf pack is back.)

I’ve never heard of this house rule before, but I’m greatly intrigued. At what point do the subs ‘disapear’ after they’ve been built? And with combat, do they ‘disapear’ immediately following combat phase? Those of you who’ve tried it with other A&A games, does this rule make subs overpowered?  I can see that this rule can cause some real headaches for the Allies, which is always entertaining. In anycase, I’m definitely going to try this one.

I for one wish that the game is fairly unbalanced! This game should run in favor of the Allies, as per history. The strategic and tactical difficulties the Axis must work against are the challenges that I relish whenever playing either Germany or Japan (and now Italy!).  Unfortunately, it seems that the Axis nations have relatively high incomes when compared to the Allies, which could lead to this game running as more of a prolonged war of attrition rather than having the Axis nations ‘race against the clock,’ before the Allied war machine gets into gear. Also, the extra comparative income could possibly make the game rather forgiving to an Axis player who makes a few purchasing or tactical mistakes- a privilege that has traditionally been held by the Allies, most notably the USA, who should in my opinion, have an income somewhere in the range of 80-100… but that is entirely beside the point.

In any case, I probably shouldn’t be griping about this game- it probably rocks hard. I can’t wait until October.

Any Axis win is one too many!

I see! I wasn’t exactly sure on the dates of the British campaigns in Ethiopia, but with those now in mind it makes sense that it doesn’t belong to Italy considering the start date for the 41 scenario.

I wasn’t expecting much in the way of Italian forces there anyways- one piece of infantry at most! Poor Mussolini. His hard earned place in the sun didn’t stand much of a chance…

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know whether or not Ethiopia belongs to Italy in the 1941 setup? If so, how will if affect strategy/ movement in Africa?