That’s really gay, if only because I have armies already set up, and I don’t wanna have to revise them for something like this.
I’m more in favor of the rule in which the number of elite infantry is limited. In my US/UK army, there are only 2 Rangers. Sure, in my German army, there are 5 SSPGs, but who’s counting…
My buddy and I have noticed that there seems to be less and less of a window between one A&A game’s premier, and the next.
My question is: What other theatre or battle specific games would you guys like to see?
I agree that there hasn’t yet been enough Pacific action yet, but one I would definitely like to see is a North Africa based game. :-)
Even if depot units DO get the bonus, in the case of the Fuel Depot and the Ammo Dump, there is a chance it will get destroyed, regardless of its defense.
But for the sake of the HQ, how awesome would it be to have it sitting in a pillbox, completely surrounded by sandbags…
+1/+1 defense, AND +1 on cover rolls! :-)
I just think Sandbagged MGs should not get the bonus because they are already sandbagged. I don’t know if you can enhance something’s defense that much just by stacking more rows of sandbags in front of it.
Elite units, however, are not already sandbagged, so it’s OK if they get the bonus. And I also think that the “Dug-in” SA shouldn’t be the deciding factor, because depot units should benefit from it too.
Since we’ve gone that route, I think that either side should be able to switch from a sandbagged MG team to a non-sandbagged MG team, and vice versa. 'Cuz if the Allies don’t have the ability to sandbag their MGs, then the Germans could have an MG team with 6/6 defense! (Factoring in the same aforementioned rule, of course)
I think it would be a good idea, but I don’t know if armor should get any sort of bonus from it.
Also, unlike pillboxes, I don’t think units behind a sandbag should get +1 to cover rolls either.
Other than that, I agree that it would make your scenario pretty interesting!
Very true; our games DO tend to last quite a bit longer.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like 100 points is never enough for a truly satisfying game? I ask because this is how I feel, and War at Sea is no exception…
I’m in the middle of a game of WaS, and we’re using 200 points. For regular minis, I have my nations set up into 600 point armies. I just like the action to be BIG, I guess…
Honestly, I have definitely been looking for something like this. But I’m not sure if you’re talking about the same thing as me; could you possibly provide a link that shows the finished product?
I think you’re right Jermo: Ashigaru refers to something of a lower caste, whereas the swordsmen and bowmen are, of course, part of the Samurai class.
Don’t quote me on this one dude, but I think I’m still missing a USS Enterprise, an HMS Hood, and the rare French ship. (Richelieu?)
Anyway, lemme know what pieces for land-based minis you’re looking for, and I’ll see what I got…
… and sorry, but to reply to Gamer’s point, it is best, in my opinion, to keep your armies mobile. The ONLY way for them to gain that experience is to get into combat, so just go for it!
As I recall, (and it’s been AWHILE since I last played) I would build fortifications on turn 1, definitely. (Probably even on turn 2) The location would of course be where my forces had their natural stronghold.
As far as units, I would always make it a point to max out my imperial armies (the ones with the little ensign guy holding a flag) with bowmen. Then, they would be prime for kicking a$$ with the whole first-strike ability. Gunners are key too, for the same reason.
And Ronin are also useful, because as I recall, you would purchase X amount, place them on one of your face-down territory cards, and reveal them when that territory is attacked. X surprise swordsmen popping outta nowhere to slice n’ dice your enemies is nothing less than awesome. (especially when you see the look on their face when you announce the Ronin coming out of hiding) :wink:
Sorry to downplay the sh**tinessof your pull, but what’s this about a deal where you get 2 boosters from each set?
Who do you trust the testimony of more?
The person who has an ideology in complete opposition to your own, but cites sources for any factual claims they make, and distinguishes between their commentary and the truth?
or
The person whose ideology is compatible with your own, but cites nothing that they claim, and interweaves commentary and truth?
Now switch the ideologies.
How about this one, who do you trust more:
The person who makes claims at odds with the general “consensus”, or generalized knowledge base, but cites sources for their argument, and backs up their claims with facts?
or
The person who makes claims in keeping with the general “consensus” or generalized knowledge base, but doesn’t cite anything?
Now switch the claimants.
Starting to understand why people ask you to cite sources?
If you are asked to cite a source, people aren’t saying you are wrong, they are telling you that what you just said does not fit in with their knowledge of the topic. Since no one here knows you personally (I assume) and can attest to your credibility or credentials (I’m not accusing you of posting false education credentials, but you easily could have, just as anyone else could), they have only two things to rely on to judge whether to accept your testimony: their knowledge, and your credibility. When what you say goes against their knowledge, they have to consider how credible you are. Many of us don’t consider you that credible, not in a small way due to the fact that you rarely cite your sources. When you cite your sources, you give people more information with which to consider your testimony and judge its credibility.
Word. :mrgreen:
That’s why it’s just better to come up with your own sh*t. If you HAVE to quote someone else, make sure to give them credit after all is said and done. Like, when I repeat a joke my roommate told me to some other friends of mine, and they all laugh, I feel obligated to let them know who told me. (Now, I doubt that my roommate would SUE me for not crediting him here, the concept is still the same… :wink:)
Unless he thinks I will be defencive, but if he realises I think he’s thinking I’m thinking defencive he might set up an ambush thinking I’m thinking offencive. Unless he’s thinking that I’m thinking that he’s thinking I’m thinking offence, then I should start thinking about what he’s thinking I’m thinking about for an attack.
Hmmm I need to think about this some more…
Uhhh… that’s the ticket! (A certain scene from the Princess Bride comes to mind…)
I know I already said it on this thread, but I NEED to czech to see if the game is available at my shop…
I just go generic and call 'em “my crew” or “my people”. Since this IS A&A.org, I figured it would be self-explanatory… :-P
Historically, that doesn’t make much sense. I’m pretty sure that the traditional ninja would’ve committed hari-kiri upon failing his mission.