Posts made by Charles de Gaulle

Very interesting, but I think this might favor the Axis a little too much.  Perhaps don’t give so much money to Germany from Vichy?

Base your weighting upon the cost.  For instance, if you buy one tank (6 IPCs) for every two infantry (6 IPCs), then you don’t really buy one more often the the other.  Of course, there is discrepancy depending upon the game, your opponent, your strategy, and most importantly, your nation, but this poll is more about your personal favorite.

One day SS…one day I am going to hire a Vichy assassin using American IPCs for a bribe, send him on a British submarine commanded by Cunningham, have him make a hop over to Africa and kill Giraud with the help of a German spy, head up the boot to have Mussolini for lunch, play cards with Mannerheim in Helsinki, then contact the Romanian Iron Guards to help him stage a coup in Moscow and subdue Stalin, and then finally–finally he will find your hiding place and will do something terrible to you–he’ll place you under house arrest so I can come over and coerce you into playing 1 on 1 to end this outrage caused by your disrespect to the flame of the French Resistance!!   My blues are coming for you coward, and Vichy will fall with you!

Okay, being serious, I agree with you about the units.  A really easy fix is making  the IPCs
Cruiser: 10
Tac.: 10
AA gun: 4
Battleship: 18

Which unit do you find to be the least purchased?  Why?  Is it too expensive?  Replaceable by better units?  Not effective enough?  You should base your answer on your purchases.

I personally think the cruiser is not bought enough, but the tactical bomber and AA gun also get ignored.

Which unit is your favorite to buy?  Why?  Is it cost-effective?  Good in battle?  Versatile?  You should base your answer(s) on your purchases.

My personal favorite is the fighter, but I also love the artillery and destroyer.

For several years, my team and I have been working on a 1945 setup called “The Game to End All Games.”  It follows what would have happened if Russia remained neutral and Great Britain fell.  China and India are considered to have signed a separate peace  The main Axis power is Germany which controls most of Western Europe (Eastern Europe, Russia, and mainland Asia are out of play), Iceland, French Equatorial Africa, Gibraltar, and Nigeria and Gold Coast.  Italy Controls Egypt and East Africa and is poised to march to South Africa with a German expedition to Free French Cameroon and Vichy (a new minor power) troops supporting.  South America has United and is a new playable ally.  German navies are ready to attack the Americas anywhere.  Meanwhile, Japan is planning to attack Australia and Hawaii and Alaska.

This has been a very fun project to work on, but we were never able to balance the game, and very few of my comrades are willing to play it.  I also considered making an historical 1945, but that always required advanced tech, a time limit, or too many house rules.  1944 is the same problem.  Actually, everyone on this site might be interested to know that my team is currently focusing on a 1943 (before the fall of Tunis and Kursk).  This new setup has zero has rules aside from setup and a lot of pieces (think Oz’s 1941 scale).  Once we get it decently balanced I might submit it for testing, but perhaps I will be forced to wait until we have a good solid foundation to release.

One final project that has received nothing more than consideration is a 1946 (could also be 1945) scenario in which the Allies and Soviets waste no time in starting a Hot War.  I like this idea because it almost gets rid of the need for nukes and advanced tech for a Cold War goes hot scenario.  (And Don’t Hiroshima me.)

One time I was messing around with the pieces while waiting for my buddy to come and play 1 vs 1 game.  I forgot that I had left a stack of French tanks in Algeria and my opponent asked, “What’s that suppossed to be?  A bid or de Gaulle’s dream?”

Can someone tell me how I have anything to do with this?  I must admit that Roosevelt and I never got along, but I would never advocate having a reign of tyranny descend upon those stupid Americans.

The most influential and my favorite is not limiting India but splitting the UK into two economies as in 1940.  I use ANZAC to represent the British and Commonwealth troops in Africa and Asia and IPCs generated there.  It gets rid of the anomaly of India and helps the Turks.

Another good one is neutral Italy turn one.

Another one I like just for history is making non-major power’s African colonies unconquerable by the Allies.  Belgian Congo and the Portuguese colonies never give the Allies income.  Furthermore, attacking Spanish Morocco activates Spain.

I thought each round represented one year.  That is why the U.S. joins on turn four (if turn one is 1914, turn four is 1917).

You can always add Mongolia as an independent infantry nation:

Scrap all the old rules regarding Mongolia. Mongolia is neutral but may join the Allies if any of the following occurs:
any Axis power invades a Mongolian territory
any Axis power passes between Russia and western China
Japan invades any Russian territory (granted that Russia has not attacked Japanese-controlled Chinese territories adjacent to Mongolia or Korea)
Moscow or Berlin has fallen
the Axis control 5 victory cities on the Pacific map

Mongolia does not use IPCs. Instead, when Mongolia is at war, it places one free infantry in any original Mongolian territory it controls. While neutral, Mongolia may freely move its starting forces within its borders.

Setup: Place the Mongolian infantry as indicated by the silhouettes on the map and then add 1 infantry each to Central Mongolia and Tsagaam-Olom.

@SS:

@Narvik:

*To all you Zombie haters out there, dont buy A&A Zombies if you dont want it.

To the rest of you, its Zombie time, man  :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Zombies are the future.

Also, and I cant stress this enough, if the Zombie pieces are grey, use them as infantry for neutral Zweden, they had grey uniforms at the time of WWII.  Man !

When I remembered that Narvik is Norwegian, I went through the roof with laughter.  Backstabbin’ Swedes.

I just want to call this now: once A&A Zombies comes out there is definitely going to be somebody who makes a Nazi Zombies only mod for it.

Veritas, thank you for reminding me of the only anime I watch. I still need to finish watching GuP.  Basically WoT animated ha.

Getting back to the topic, I find Axis to win about 60% of the time.  Interestingly, statictics repeatedly show that the Axis do better with reduced luck variants.  For some reason, it always seems that getting diced on an attack is worse than a poor defense (assuming the attacker is not purposely going against odds).  Theoretically, as long as the Axis don’t make any mistakes and the dice come out 100% as expected, the Allies will lose every time.  Now that is a long stretch because we are all liable to make mistakes, but the lower the luck, the more I see Axis winning.  A j1 attack that swings out of Japan’s favor is much more influential than a J1 attack that is overwhelming in Japan’s favor.

The Axis advantage is largely based on concentrated force and straightforward goals.  It takes a certain discipline and cool-headedness to play as the Axis.  It’s hard to ignore the same temptations that ruined those great powers.  We never use bids here but rather add house rules.  There is a pervasive mentality in my group that it is no fun to win with a typical Axis strategy.  This results in unique and interesting wars that aren’t as imbalanced as OOB.  Am I saying that the Axis purposely play poorly and that is how the game is balanced for me?  Well, yes.  The script for Axis victory is very precise, but the real fun is finding out how you can alter or (from the Allied perspective) halt this.

And then there is the dice—the gem that makes those georgous messes.

I have never been a fan of letting players add a unit of their choice (a bid).  I need to have a firm foundation to build strategy on, not just a reaction based upon a pre-game unit placement.  If you feel the game is out of balance, a very simple and easy way to fix that is by adjusting NOs, particularly the U.S.'s.

I should also note that alternate setups are the best thing you can consider.  There is only so much you can do with OOB.  Larry’s 1942 made Russia need an entirely new approach.

Hold on a minute there.  I take insult.  Move to a more densely populated country and you’ll find out that there are plenty of social A&A masters that don’t feel the need to express their love of the game by traveling across borders or starting zombie wars online.

It’s the quiet fans across the Americas, Europe, and Asia that generate the thousands of views this site gets.  We just provide the content.

And if you ever lose to a Canadian, you can always blame it on the fact that his cold environment deforms the dice and makes you role poorly.

The best AA gamer I ever met was born on Bermuda.
:|
really
I’m serious.

Actually, all French territories are treated the same.  French Indo-China does not get any special treatment other than that Japan is nearby and can take it.

In order for an Allied power to take control of a French territory, an Axis power must first take control.  If you move into a French territory with noncombat, you do not gain control or add the IPC value to your income.  You may only seize a French territory if the Axis take it first.  The same is true of all powers who have lost their capital.  For example, if Rome falls, Germany cannot just walk into Northern Italy and take it.  However, if the Allies conquer an Italian territory (and Rome has fallen) Germany can take it and use its factory, build facilities, or collect IPCs from it.

If you were to liberate Paris, all territories which the Allies had seized from France (because an Axis power overran them and then the Allies counterattacked) return to France.

@Narvik:

I guess the map designers made all this mistakes on purpose, just to start an extra conflict inside the original conflict, man. Dont tell me they made the map wrong seven times in a row just by accident, I dont buy that, man.

I love how Narvik says man after every sentence.  It carries with it an air of sincerity and character.
:-D

Even if only for the sake of new players, this is a great idea to implement.  Mongolian rules are too unnecessarily messy.

Sorry for taking so long.  The answer is yes.

Present wars:
UK/ANZAC/France vs. Germany
China vs. Japan

I guess it’s time to reconsider making a 1946 scenario for Global: East vs West.
Russian Commies > brainless zombies

Does anyone ever consider upgrading the minor IC on Rome to a major?  I usually find that it is not necessary until late in the game, and by that time I don’t want to do it or lack the IPCs.