I would give you 160 bid - on the condition that it’s all in battleships. and follows standard bid rules.
There is a precedent for this! From an XDAP pit fight:)
So could that be a US battleship in sz 9, 10, 11, 12, 26, 27, 28, 29? lol
British battleships are probably more effective since they’re at war from the start. IIRC the RN exists in 9 sea zones at the start of the game, so you can add a battleship to all but one. But perhaps Russia will fall quickly anyway.
Yes, but you should get E40 2nd Edition if you can for the shiny new sculpts!
I wonder if bids need to be higher for TripleA PBF games as opposed to FTF games, since the battle calculator allows the Axis to optimize all their attacks and make sure counterattacks are not possible.
@Caesar:
I don’t like the bid system anyways due to the logic being the Axis have the advantage on turn 4 because all three can ride non aggression and that is somehow not fair for the allies who already have a higher GDP than the Axis.
The Axis can make more money than the Allies after 5-6 turns without a bid.
Is AA50 the game that introduced escorts and interceptors for bombing raids?
I originally bought the 1st editions 8 years ago, but I finally decided to get the 2nd edition games, mainly for all the new sculpts. Unfortunately, I got a significantly damaged P40 box from Amazon:
In addition, it seems that the American and ANZAC infantry are differently colored compared to the other pieces. Has anyone else seen this?
Nevertheless, I really like the new sculpts. The ANZAC infantry is ginormous, and their Warpite and angled deck Majestic are glorious.
Is the Italian tank sculpt in the reprint a Fiat M13/40 or M14/41?
So just to clarify, War Room is intended for production to sell on a retail scale? FAQ on the Kickstarter page suggests this (second print run), but I just want to make sure that if I can’t back the Kickstarter I should have reasonable possibility to get at a local hobby retailer or on Amazon eventually.
Also assuming the Jumbo map will not be an option come retail sale time. Looks like you have to back now.
They will apparently sell games from their website in the first print run.
What? if that is reality then 1940 global A&A is a fantasy realm.
The fact that the Nazis can sink the entire Home Fleet and actually perform a Sea Lion already makes it a fantasy realm.
@SS:
Ordered the game 149 pledged but now I want the 99 map pledge. Can’t find the cancel pledge to go back to repledge if I need to. Plus the dam thing won’t let me pledge just the 99 Crap. Gettin pissed. I’ll just cancel the whole thing.
To add the 99, you need to pledge 149+99=248.
Wow! $94,000+ in 9 Hours. That’s pretty wicked; I wonder how high it will go - we’re only just getting started. Lots of interest!
Yep, it’s amazing! Can’t wait to see all the stretch goals.
I suspect Madagascar is similar to Algeria and Morocco which, even if never controlled by the Axis, the Allies invaded anyway. French West Africa is somewhat more questionable on that front though.
Also, maybe it somehow represents Germany “trading” with its Vichy puppet (aka, looting them for occupation costs).
@Caesar:
Unfortunately, some nations (mostly allies) rely on version of units they couldn’t have access to or they go at great lengths to give it under POSSIBLE. Example is how ANZAC, France, and USSR use UK aircraft carriers even though these factions had no will to build carriers, most of them couldn’t afford it. OR how ANZAC uses the AC1 Sentinel even though all of there tanks were UK or Lend Lease US and they never once deployed the AC1.
Well, the new ANZAC carrier is the Majestic class, and Australia did in fact operate two of them, though it was after the war.
@CWO:
Thanks! So in fact the British and ANZAC County Class cruisers are different…the British cruiser seems to have a very small 3rd funnel in your chart, but Wikipedia pictures of the Kent group cruisers look like they have 3 equally tall funnels?
From what I remember of the analysis I did when I put those charts together (which was a while ago), I looked into the fact that the UK and ANZAC versions of the cruiser sculpts had different stack configurations, and I tried to figure out how this could be explained based on the actual design / production history of the real ships. The overall class was called the County class. It consisted of three designs, which can be regarded either as classes in and of themselves, or as subclasses of the County class. (There’s no hard and fast rule on where a subclass becomes a distinct class; it can be a matter of opinion.) One of the three designs was the “Kent” design, which I treated as a group within the Country class. The two Australian County-class cruisers were very similar to the Royal Navy ships of the Kent design, but were slightly different from them, so I designated them as a group to distinguish them from the Kent group. But it would also be valid to use a different categorization – for instance by considering the Kent design to be a class, and by considering both the RN and Australian units to be part of that class. As I said, it’s partly a matter of opinion.
Yeah, I get that. My confusion is that when I looked at pictures of, say, HMS Kent vs HMAS Australia, they didn’t look as different as the A&A cruiser sculpts.
@CWO:
My unit identification charts over here…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31982.0
…indicate what I believe to be the correct name of the models and classes of the real-world weapons depicted by the sculpts. They correspond mostly to what the rulebook tables say, but with corrections made to the errors in the rulebooks. The rulebook errors are mainly of two different types. First, there are cases (the Yak being one example, and the German naval transport being another) in which the rulebooks have been inconsistent in their terminology over the years. Second, there are cases (the German naval transport “Hilfskreuzer” formar designation being an example) in which the rulebooks have sometimes been flat-out wrong. In addition to these errors, there have been cases of sub-optimal (but not incorrect, strictly speaking) terminology. One problem of this type usually involves ship classes: the sculpt will be named after a non-lead unit of a ship class, rather than the lead unit (example: “Ray” class rather than the correct “Gato” class for the US sub). A somewhat different problem involves generic terminology rather than specific one; for instance, the “Baltic Timber Ship” designation rather than the correct Volgoles designation for the Russian naval transport. And on the subject of ships, note that in some cases I’ve designated ships as being “types” rather then classes, based on what my recollection and/or my references sources indicate.
Thanks! So in fact the British and ANZAC County Class cruisers are different…the British cruiser seems to have a very small 3rd funnel in your chart, but Wikipedia pictures of the Kent group cruisers look like they have 3 equally tall funnels?
It’s a MiG 3 in AAE40 2nd edition and a Yak 3 everywhere else, except for AA41 where it’s a US P-40.
Thanks! What about the ANZAC tac bomber in 2nd edition? The rulebook says it’s a Handley Page Hampden, but HBG says it’s a Bristol Beaufort.
ANZAC can’t take the French territory over if it’s not occupied by Japan first. I think Japan moving into FIC voids the national objective even of ANZAC moved it, even if ANZAC made an unprovoked declaration of war.