Posts made by Black Fox

@GCar:

@Black:

When I was in the Navy and served aboard the USS Midway, there was no question about it.  I was Carrier Vessel.

If the above statement is true, I’m sure it’s original meaning disappeared a long time ago.  My guess is because the Navy didn’t want to use a French word.  We know how the French fight.

For reference vessel was originally a french word. It comes from the latin vāscellum.

Just like 30 % of the english vocabulary which comes directly from french.

A gift from a couple centuries ago when British aristocracy was french speaking :)

What are you talking about?  It’s an English word that the British made the French think it was a French word so they could infiltrate the French :wink:

Alright, were starting to drift from the original topic.  I’ll leave it alone now.

@Imperious:

I have to dig up the rules on that…its been years since they were made.

I would appreciate that IL.

Thanks

@Herr:

There’s some debate about the meaning of the “V” in “CV”, actually. Quoting an explanation from http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm:

The following is taken from “United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16:  US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations”:

On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type “Z” and heavier-than air craft by the letter “V”.  The reference also speculates that:  “The use of the “V” designation has been a question since the 1920s.  However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter “V” was chosen.  It is generally believed the “V” was in reference to the French word volplane.  As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by “Z”) used.  The same case may be regarding the use of “Z”.  It is generally believed the “Z” was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin.  However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption.”

When I was in the Navy and served aboard the USS Midway, there was no question about it.  I was Carrier Vessel.

If the above statement is true, I’m sure it’s original meaning disappeared a long time ago.  My guess is because the Navy didn’t want to use a French word.  We know how the French fight.

Being a resident in California, this is becoming a hot issue.

For now, I wouldn’t really be concerned with the new California law.  The law was intended to collect taxes from big online businesses like Amazon.  California was claiming that big online businesses like Amazon that have no sales tax have an unfair advantage over brick and mortar stores in California and this law was intended to level the playing field.

Under current CA law, if an online store has a physical presence in CA and sells a product that is shipped to a CA address, then CA can collect sales tax on that transaction.

Now Federal law clearly states that one state can not tax an item that comes from another state.  However, what California is trying to claim is that even though Amazon’s physical corporate address is in another state, because they have a partnerships with businesses in California that sell through Amazon, this constitutes a physical presence in the state and therefore CA is claiming it has the right to collect sales tax on those items that are sold in California.  However, there is a lot of debate whether this violates Federal law and/or constitutional.

In the mean time, Amazon decided to ban all California businesses from selling on Amazon.  So, now CA can’t claim any right to collect sales tax and Amazon is giving CA the middle finger.  Needless to say, a lot of CA businesses that sold through Amazon are a bit pissed right now.

Now the only thing I see the A&A is actually selling is T-shirts.  If the A&A web site is listed with a California address, you should be paying sales tax anyway.  (Out of curiosity, what state is this web site listed in?)  Now let say that you’re not in CA but you sell a a T-shirt to me and it’s shipped from a CA address.  CA might claim they have the right to collect sales tax from you.  But if you want to be a prick, you can give the T-shirt away for free but charge $28 for shipping :-D  Sales tax are based on the price of the sale and not shipping.

Now I see the Amazon link at the top of the web site.  As far as I’m concerned, this is advertisement.  Amazon is paying you to advertise on your sight.  You are not involved in the sales transaction.  So I don’t think will affect your revenue.

I also discovered that CA law only requires online stores to collect sales tax if  they have an annual sales of $10,000 or more.

So as I said in the beginning, I wouldn’t be too concern with this new law.  I have a feeling that this will end up going to the Supreme Court.  So sit back and watch the show.

Here’s the link to the law.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx1_28_bill_20110628_enrolled.pdf

@Speusippus:

Sorry, what’s a CV?

CV = Carrier Vessel.  CV is the abbreviation the Navy uses for Aircraft Carriers.

Just for educational purpose, here are some other CV designations.  Most are no longer in use.

CV: Fleet Aircraft Carrier (1921–1975), Multi-purpose Aircraft Carrier (1975–present)
CVA: Attack Aircraft Carrier (category merged into CV, 30 June 1975) (Conventional-Propulsion)
CVAN: Attack Aircraft Carrier, nuclear (category merged into CVN, 30 June 1975)
CVB: Large Aircraft Carrier (category merged into CVA, 1952)
CVE: Escort aircraft carrier (retired)
CVHA: Assault Helicopter Aircraft Carrier (retired in favor of several LH-series amphibious assault ship hull codes)
CVHE: Escort Helicopter Aircraft Carrier (retired)
CVL: Light aircraft carrier (retired)
CV(N): Night-Operating Fleet Aircraft Carrier (Used only by the former USS Enterprise (CV-6)[5][6])
CVN: Multi-purpose Aircraft Carrier (Nuclear-Propulsion)
CVS: Antisubmarine Aircraft Carrier (retired)
CVT: Training Aircraft Carrier (changed to AVT (Auxiliary))
CVU: Utility Aircraft Carrier (Formerly CVEs) (retired)

I made a large Spring 1942 map using IL’s Neutral map.  On this map it list most neutral countries as either pro Axis or Allies.  Spain for example is listed as Pro Axis.  So my understanding is that if the allies invade Spain, essentially German infantry would pop up to defend against the Allies.  But what happens if Germany moves into Spain?  Do they become Allied troops or German troop or do they fight as neutral troops?

Also, I assume that when ever a neutral is invaded.  The number of troops that pop-up to defend equal the value of the IPC.  Since Spain is worth 3 IPC, I assume 3 infantry defenders pop-up.

Any clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks

@Tigerman77:

When adding units like mech inf and medium bombers you run into either making other units obsolete or making the new units worthless. This is keeping with a D6 combat system. You go to a D12 and you make room for expansion.

Inf-          2/4/1. Cost 3
moble inf- 2/4/2  Cost 4 can blitz with armor
mech inf-  3/4/2. Cost 5 can blitz by itself

armor-      6/6/2. Cost 6

artillery-    3/4/1  Cost 4 can be towed with moble and blitz with mech.

D12 just opens the door to so many mote options for newer units while keeping the original units worth buying!

After playing a few games I don’t believe new units make others obsolete or worthless but it may hold true a little bit when it comes to artillery & mech-infantry.  In most cases the majority prefer the mech-inf. over the artillery.  Still I found both have their usefulness.

However, I do agree that expanding to a larger dice 1d8, 1d10 or 1d12 can be useful

what will? differnt colour chips for unit stacking? cuz i need some blue and yellow ones. (10, 20)

Do I see a future project for FMG or HBG?

@Imperious:

You have to use the maximum thickness for printing on that material about 24-32 weight.

You can also print on a mouse-pad material which is really thick

look up AAA dot flag and banner dot com for info

I went to 5 different print shops in my area to check out the printing material and I thought the decolit was the best.  Thicker material was available but it would have to be a custom order and at higher cost.  I also found similar material that was thicker but thought the surface material was a little bit more coarse.

Over all I’m very please with what I got.  I would have like something more thicker but as long as I use it on a table it’s just fine.

By the way, is this what you were talking about? http://www.aaaflag.com/

Gents

I recently made a large Spring 1942 (with neutrals) using IL’s Supreme map file.  All I can say is that it turned out very, very nice!

I had it printed on a 54x27 inch map.  The material I had it printed on is generally called a “Trade Show Retractable Print” material.  This is the kind that you pull out of a retractable roller similar to the white screens you use for movies or projectors.  There are several variations of this material.  The one that was used for my map is called “Decolit”.

Pros
The print comes out very clean.  It also has an anti-curl feature.  So it lays very flat on the table even when it has been rolled up after a while.  In fact The Decolit also has a slight rubbery feel to it.  So pieces tend not to slide around if you bump the table.  This also makes it resistant to liquids.  If you spill something on it, it wipes off very easily and without staining (at least with cherry coke :-D) if you wipe it quickly.  But the biggest Pro for this material is that mat finish.  You get virtually no glare from it, even in direct sun light.

Cons
The only real cons with this material is that it is a bit on the thin side.  So you must use this on a smooth flat surface.  However, I assume this really isn’t a problem for most people.  The only other con is that Decolit is a bit more expensive compared to other materials.  I was told that the anti-curling feature was the main reason for the added expense.  This map set me back about $140 plus $13 tax.  I could have had this made on banner material for almost half the price but there would have been glare issues.  I’m glad I went the Decolit.

One thing I would have changes if I was able to modify the map would be to chance the color of the IPC numbers in the neutral countries from white to grey to give to show a little bit more clearly that they are neutral.

Hey FMG

Don’t you feel like a dad driving his kids to Disneyland for the first time? lol

@knp7765:

These look like some pretty good ideas.
Mech Infantry = I like that you bump their attack up to 2.  A couple of things I would suggest adding:  1 - can no longer be supported by artillery.  2 - can ‘blitz’ by themselves, do not have to be paired with a tank.

Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind.  Kind of thought this was a given.  Thanks for bringing it up.

Medium Bombers = I think you have these set just right (3-1-6-10).  I don’t think the range should be decreased because you have already reduced their damage potential compared to heavy bombers by lowering the attack to 3 and halving the damage done to facilities in SBRs.

Thanks

Light or Escort Carriers = This is also a very good idea and I think you just about have the stats right;  1-1-2-10.  Personally, I think the attack should be lowered to 0, the defense raised to 2, and takes only ONE hit to sink.  After all, even the fleet carriers have no attack value now.  I think a Light or Escort carrier would still have a decent defensive capability but you lose the extra hit provided by the fleet carriers.  As for cost, I was thinking in the range of 10-12.  Perhaps you could go 0-2-2-11, one hit to sink, carrys 1 fighter or tac.

In Spring 1942, carriers have Att-1, Def-2, Mov-2 Cost-14.  Late war carriers had so many guns that they could easily out gun destroyers and I feel would qualify for an attack value of 2 but we’ll leave that alone. So I feel pretty happy with the stats I gave.

The Jeep Carrier is a general term for both the CVL and CVE but they were slightly different.  CVLs were designed to travel with warships.  They were fast and had heavier armament.  CVE were generally built off on modified freighter hull.  They were slower but still carried decent armament.  They were primarily to escort, convoys, anti-sub warfare, support amphibious landings and supply aircraft for fleet carriers and land bases.  If I were to be more technical about it I would rate the CVL at 1-1-2-10/CVE 0-1-2-8 or 9 but I think the 1-1-2-10 offers a little better balance for game play.

@Col.:

I also believe that if you are suggesting a light carrier that it defend on a one. Seems more realistic that a smaller, lighter carrier would take less damage to sink and be less fortified.

Yes, Att-1, Def-1, Mov-2.  Sinks on one hit

I do think the medium bombers could be useful, but may need a movement reduced (less room to carry fuel maybe?) or something else tweaked.

If you try to give it range between a heavy bomber and a fighter it would be “5” but that doesn’t work well in the game.  If you give it a range of fighter, then there wouldn’t really be an incentive to use them. Anyway, range is very subjective to many factors.  Generally most bombers were rated how far they could fly by with the heaviest load.  In general, medium bomber had an average range of 1,500~2,000lb with a 4,000lb bomb load.  Heavy bombers had about the same range but could carry about double the payload.

@FieldMarshalGames:

Thank you all for your support and your patience.

No my good man.  We thank you!

@FieldMarshalGames:

Thanks Doug.

We are doing two different sets, using two different factories…  it would be impossible to match 100%.  Our “aim” is to make products that can be used together.

Having dealt with plastics in the past I can back up FMGs claim.  Even if you both uses the exact same color Pantone codes, the colors still might be different if you are using different kind of plastics.  You might get lucky if the guy who mixes the color at the factory really knows his job.  Otherwise you would have to use the exact same pantone color codes and the same plastic from the same manufacture to get a perfect match.

Mech Infantry
2/2/2 4-IPC

I’m wondering if this would compete too much with artillery but arty still had the advantage of giving +1 to inf.

Yeah, I’m betting you’re meaning to put Mech infantry at 4 IPC, with 2 attack, 2 defense, 2 movement.  Rather than 6 IPC  Clearly 3 is too cheap, and 5 is too expensive, unless mech infantry has some special ability not described.

Opps, that was a typo. Error fixed.

The mechanized infantry has no advantage at all compared to a tank, which has 1 more attack, 1 more defense, and is 1 IPC cheaper. Why would anyone buy that instead of a tank?

Flin, you have to look at it as heavy infantry and not as armor.  It does have some usefulness.  The biggest one is that it can keep up with armor in movement.  The second one is that you can bring infantry to the front line quickly over long distance.  This can be very useful when making a final and/or critical push on a territory that is far way from the factory.

I also, considered trying motorized infantry.  Essentially you buy a truck for 1-IPC.  The truck can move one infantry up to 2 spaces.  The truck has no attack or defense value.  It is destroyed when the infantry it’s carrying is destroyed.  If caught alone, it’s automatically destroyed.

I originally made these for the other A&A when a bomber cost 15 IPC.  In these games the medium bomber cost 12 IPC.  I found medium bomber to be more useful for the axis.  Now that a bomber cost 12 IPC in 1942 I’ve decided to make the cost 10 IPC.

For Germany, I would say 10 IPC is borderline too good for an air unit with attack 3, defense 1, and move of 6.  Medium bombers would be VERY useful to Germany.

I tend to agree with you.  Like I said, it worked well with A&A games where the cost of the bomber is 15 IPC.  I’m trying to adapt it to Spring 1942.  I toyed with the idea of making it 11 IPC since it should cost more than a fighter.  But if you can get a heavy bomber for 1 more IPC why bother.  In general I see the medium bomber more useful for the axis than the allies.

Nevertheless I’d propose you take a look at the Europe/Pacific 1940 games. They have mechanized infantry (Infantry with 2 movement), tactical bombers (sort of a flying artillery that can land on carriers),

I have these too.  I call them “Attack Aircraft”.  They essentially represent ground attack aircraft, dive/Torpedo bombers and tank busters.  Here are my stats for them.

Attack Aircraft
3/1/4 8-IPC

Jeep Carrier
1/1/2 10-IPC (Can carry only one plane) I don’t understand what this is.  It’s a naval unit?  That attacks and defends at 1, with 2 movement, costing 10 IPC, that carries . . . one fighter?  one bomber?  Carries infantry?  Mechanized infantry?

Jeep Carriers was a general term for Escort & Light Carriers (CVE/CVL) they would carry only a fighter or attack aircraft, no bombers or land units.

@WARRIOR888:

FMG and Coach, just do your best.  No One Company or Individual in the past 20 or so years has attempted to do what you are doing for our games.  If people do not like what you produce than maybe they need to buy GHQ, Herocis and Ross, NAVWAR and DAVCO SYKTREX Ships, planes, tanks on so on.  You should not take any FLAK from pontential purchasers on your projected and forth coming products.  I do like being asked my opinion on what I would like to see produced, but I know I am not the one producing the molds or laying down the cash to getem done.  Personally I really appreciate the effort, time and money you are investing in this and I will be purchasing what ever products you both produce so I have a greater AA Force pool to game with.  Keep up the excellent work.  I want to to remind everyone, that anything worth having takes time and a lot of energy and money to produce.  So in the end lets all support these gentlemen who have stepped up to the plate to give us the option of owning some excellent units that are more realistic than the AA OOB units to game with. :-D :-D :-D :-D

Ditto for me.

Gent

I’m planning you uses some additional game piece.  I’d like your thought on their values.  Do you think these units would be useful?

Mech Infantry
2/2/2 4-IPC

I’m wondering if this would compete too much with artillery but arty still had the advantage of giving +1 to inf.

Medium Bomber
3/1/6 10-IPC (strategic bombing - dice role divided by 2 & round up)

I originally made these for the other A&A when a bomber cost 15 IPC.  In these games the medium bomber cost 12 IPC.  I found medium bomber to be more useful for the axis.  Now that a bomber cost 12 IPC in 1942 I’ve decided to make the cost 10 IPC.

Jeep Carrier
1/1/2 10-IPC (Can carry only one plane)

What exactly is a KGF?  Does this mean you are going to try to kill off Germany first before Japan?

@ragnarok628:

well if we wanted to get tricky, we could always add an asymmetric information element.  let’s say subs are invisible except to destroyers or units being attacked by the sub.  call it a constant submerged state.  the position could be tracked by pen and paper in case of a dispute.  if a destroyer enters a sz occupied by an enemy sub, the owner of the sub must say so.  then simply allow planes to attack ‘unsubmerged’ subs at full attack value.

not TOO incredibly complicated, although it is probably inconvenient to use pen and paper in such a way.  sub buys are still announced, etc. etc.

also it feels wrong to have a ‘fog of war’ for subs exclusively.

Thanks for the suggestions.  It’s a creative solution and could work but I’m  looking for a more simplified solution.

The easiest one I can think of at this point it to allow aircraft to sink a sub on a role of 1 instead of 3.  The lower role would signify the difficulty of spotting and sinking the sub beforeit submerged.