Posts made by Atlantikwall

@Corbeau:

Cruiser: Shore bombard
Cost: 12
A=3
D=3

Destroyer: detect subs
Cost: 8
A=2
d=2

@ Krieghund: Do cruisers also have the anti-sub abilities (ASW) of destroyers? I find that if a 3/3 unit already costs 12 and a 2/2 unit only 8, then the cruiser should have shore bombardement as an extra. Actually shore bombardement is now limited to the numer of participating infs which siginificantly decreases the value of this ability. Even if cruisers should have ASW, they are still too expencive compared to the destroyer and should be priced at 10 or 11. Btw, the 3/4 unit that also can be used on both land and sea (I mean the fighter) is 10 so why should a 3/3 naval unit cost 12?

@Imperious:

I saw another picture were the japanese have 3 more ships and 3 more infantry

What are these 3 ships? 2 Trn and a destroyer or is it 3 trn?

@squirecam:

China gets 1 INf for every 2 territories. That 9 IPC worth of units. China is benefitting heavily by this system.

Other advantages are: no IC that can be captured, free placement in any chinese territory and immediate placement of units after turn, i.e. no income saved so that units can only be placed next round.

@Imperious:

1941 scenario:

UK:

1 BB

1 Cruiser
3 Transports
5 Destroyers

I find it`s not quite obvious to figure out what ships are found on the map as still they all look imho too equal. UK is just an exemple.

Could you be please so kind and post the units per sea zone, so e.g. Bb, Trn (sz1), etc…

So are these Cru, Des in sz12 (AZO)?

P.S.: And I also count 11 UK-ships, so that`s propably one more trn I think

@Flying:

I can’t see the name of the territory to the north of France.

North-Western Europe (representing BEL, NED, Northwest Germany & DAN)

@Imperious:

So Atlantikwall what kind of bid you think the game needs

Give me the rules you seem to have, than I`ll test it a little bit anf only than I can tell you any opinion about the bid.

My proposal by now is that the game is as balanced as Revised is (i.e. almost balanced with small allied advantage). But this has nothing to do with the (partial) info I have. Both 2nd-edition and Revised have an allied advantage, propably because the game is produced in the USA and they don`t like to loose (which actually gets along with the historic background of the game). But they had playtesters and sure tried to blalance the game as far as possible. So why should I assume that Larry is “not capable” of balancing the game he created?

We have no rules. They are some “bonuses” we don`t know yet. Yes, the map has changed much in favour of the allies and the introduction of Italy is most likely as disadvantage for the axis as income is split and another capital has to be held. On the other side, the unit setup and even the new turn order (axis first) is much in favour of the axis. Same with all the new VCs in the Pacific.

But talking about bids is much too early!

I read e.g. that the destroyer now is at 8 IPC with both a 2 attack and defence value. The cruiser is said to have 3/3 and costs 12 IPC. So why ever buy a cruiser if there was no other ability? 50% increase in cost at “only” an increase of 50% in hits means much less units for the some money. I.e. 2 cruisers = 3 destroyers (with 6/6), but they are one more unit!

Do cruisers therefore have “shore-bombardement” (with or without opening-fire)?

Subs (at 6$) with only defence value of 1 makes sence.

Of course, 1942 is more like Revised. But on the cover of the map it is written “Spring 1941” and the territories on the map relate to 1941. So what I mean it that the “standard” game of the anniversary edition will be 1941.

1941 is new and it`s the “standard” setup on the map, at least concerning the flags. I.e. you simly add control markers to several countries in the 42 setup.

Actually there are two different scenarios and even two differnt turn orders. So one could say that these are “two games”. Therefore I would call them AA41 and AA42.

@variant:

I get the feeling that they have really hurt the Axis through all the changes they have made.

Concerning the map, sure yes. But consider the turn sequence. Axis is always first. As Japan is (most likely) before UK in both scenarios, their units have much more impact and second: they have tons of naval units and 9 fighters in the 1941 scenario! I.e. you can balance everything by just adding enough (extra) units!

How does China recieve units? Do they get an extra inf for every country they control and have to place it in this country or can they all place in one territory (Szechuan)?

Can they fight together with US units, i.e. use US-airforce for attacks?

Your russian purchases and attacks depend first on the bid. Then your russian ncm may depend on the dice results. Now the german purchases may depend on all that happened before. UK-purchases are even more dependant on where german navy and air force is. Even Japan may not be able to build trn because of too many UK-fleet and airforce around sz60 and sz61.

What I wanted to say is that you can serioiusly answer this question only for Russia, everything else depends!

other G-1 ncm-“decision”: placement of how many german fighters in WEU or LIB (or anywhere else like sz5 and EEU)? I.e. where do you put priority with your german airforce? On the norther sea zones (sz3 or 4) and/or AZO or on southern territories (for eventual attack on RED-trn and/or UK-fgt and UK-bmb in CNG?

@Infantry:

What do you mean by important? Important to actually do or impotant to not get unlucky.

Interesting question. By “important” I meant the “key battles” of the game, so both the “impact” of the dice result and the importance to do this battle. Of course, everybody will attack WRU. So it would be of 100% importance to do, so is imho EGY, WMD and CHI. But thats it, all other battles are "optional". The question then is, if bad dice in WRU will have a "big" influence on the game. And bad dice does not mean to loose a battle. Youll almost always win in WRU, the question is, does it have a “big” influence on the game if you get a little unlucky there (e.g. loosing 5 infs instead of average 3)? I say yes, others will say that it does not matter more than it would anywhere else. If a above attack is of no big “impotance” to do (i.e. you have alternatives that you`ll play in some games), then potential bad dice there will will not affect many games (simply because the attack does not occur so often)! So take both aspects into consideration.

@ncscswitch:

Egypt and China have to be the 2 biggies.  If one or both of those fail, or go far worse than expected, it puts the Axis in a MASSIVE hole to start, a hole they are not likely to dig out of.

Failling in China will take 2-3 turns for Japan to re-group and re-position to go after again, and a US IC in Sinkiang being built if China fails will play total havoc with Japan advances in Asia, also killing Japan income.

I`m of little different opions: the “big” ones are definitely R1-UKR and G1-EGY where the first even has a little influence on the next one (does german fgt survive or not) so being propably the “most” important. Next is WRU, EMD (because of risk to loose the loaded trn which influences EGY severely) and then EPO, I would say. Africa is definitely important, but even more important is the front between Germany and Russia and LEN, WRU and UKR are the key countries (later my be CAU, too). Keeping Germany out of LEN in round 1 (I mean the whole eastern army, not the single inf that takes it) would put a lot of pressure away from Russia. And wheather you can do that or not depends on your russian purchase and heavyly on the result of the R1 attack on WRU.

China is sure important, but a bad battle in EPO and may be even a successfull US-counterattack would hurt you very badly!

What`s your experience?