Posts made by Commander JayVon

Haha, way to make me reconsider the idea! I can see the potential now, even puppet state control markers!

I wouldn’t restrict the building of units based on a nation’s historical choices, where rules are applicable, based the alternate scenarios which are bound to arise in the game.

Wow!

I am using these! Thank you so much!

Edit: This should added to the pinned topics.

@Gargantua:

the thing about supprise moves is that they are only something to use against bad players, I have always been one for meticulous planning and conservative gameplay.

My favourite style of play to SURPRISE!

I don’t think playing conservatively, plays well in Axis and Allies.

Conservative play doesn’t always work, yes. However, some players seem to confuse well planned attacks with over extension of forces. Their desire to try to end the game on a quick note, can be a costly one indeed.

@Rhey:

I always attack Japan in China on UK Pac 2. This reopens the burma route (as the Japanese have way too limited ground forces) and keeps china in play. China is really more important then most of the players think. I find them very strong, especially against those scattered Japanese forces. The only problem is their airforce but every japanese unit you can take out on the mainland, is a huge win.

Crazy thing about the Japanese air force and Chinese units is this, the latter just needs to keep those precious stacks out of their range. Pull back, retreat. Advance when the time is right. A smart Chinese players does this, and makes the Japanese player really invest their time in the Chinese hinterland, splitting their options.

I’ve had games where U.K India essentially tries to open the Burma Road, if the situation is favorable (, ie bad opening turns for Japan). Helps that it really can be a good sideshow with combined mechanized infantry and tank blitzing.

That really is a shame, I’m sorry Tall Paul.

Shit like this, put reputable clients and dealers on edge…

Any plans for an SPG?

The Somua SAu 40 would suffice, thought it may look a bit identical to the SAU 35.

Why would a tank destroyer cost more than a tank itself, let alone essentially become a heavy tank on the game board?

I like this idea, especially the one about securing oil resources to move units. I think the number of barrels per units needs to be adjusted, but I’m still working on the numbers myself, so its definitely not a criticism. With the inclusion of the IPC and Convoy economic systems, it’ll be a great addition.

The Chinese had technically one producing oilfield, in Yumen. Don’t know if you would want to add it, with some type of restriction or something…

The British also controlled another oilfield in Burma, at Yenangyaung.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/O/i/Oil.htm

Could surely add some flavor in the Pacific theater.

I actually like Guadalcanal, though I have yet to play Battle of the Bulge or D Day.

I haven’t had the pleasure of playing Europe 1940 yet, but I have no contempt for the French during the conflict. I would say there were significant reasons to the Third Republic’s ultimate downfall, one of the which was overall poor Allied strategy, which including the misusing of tank divisions and worst of all, not mounting a meaningful offensive into Germany in the opening days of the war.

As for the Soviet Union, which like the French, I have no contempt for, there were many reasons for its initial failure, the purges are one, whilst devastating they alone were not the cause of Soviet ineffectiveness. The main cause was Stalin himself, who was planning an offensive war sometime in 1942, after he thought Hitler would crush England. He made no preparations for defense, thinking that the Germans would never again fight on two fronts as they did over twenty years ago. Obviously, he was wrong. The man went as far to dismiss intelligence reports, which while varied in dates of attacks, came in like a torrent, from multiple sources.

The second was the nature of Red Army’s training and discipline coupled with the strategical and logistical support were in shambles during the first opening weeks on the Eastern Front.

I like the proposed new stats of defending at 2, makes them less of a liability on defense when under attack from other units.

However, I also would prefer to keep the Tank Hunter ability, and keep it at 1, so not to overpower the battle, but add a slight edge.

The target should still be allowed the chance to fire back with their tank(s), just like in the current 1940 rules for Shore Bombardment , before being removed from play. The fact that the tank is an automatic target is allowance enough.

I’m on the fence about the unassigned hits going to other SPA units or even mechanized infantry, but I could see an exception on the latter, since they are linked explicitly with the tank movement.

That is indeed a tough one to wrap around.

I think part of the problem is that on the Pacific side of the map, Japan has no pro-axis neutrals, or “activation” rules for units in the territories of Manchuria and Korea. These territories and defenses must be essentially built up and maintained, just like they were in the actual conflict(s). In short, the current set up prevents Japan from using all her forces, without the consideration that she would leave herself open to attack.

You could do two things: Hope for the best from the Bears in North, and if truly necessary, counter and attack when the time comes.

Or, perhaps house rule Japanese puppet states like Manchukuo aiding in the territories defense.

I personally don’t agree with the latter, but it is just a thought.

Thanks guys! I was honestly hoping they’d started with the Pacific first, but since Italy is goosestepping and using Panthers, I can see they obvious need, lol.

That leads me to imagine what they will do when get around China. Maybe special looking Chinese units to represent the highly trained and best equipped forces under the Sino-German argeement of the 1930’s? Or maybe artillery?

I have no idea what is going, I will have to wait until I can get to an actual PC to read through the posts.

I can only hope that the German units come out soon.

However, maybe a bit of friendly speculation and information till then?
Can anyone tell me the name/unit/class of FMG’s Italian and German pieces?

Also, which unit do you want to be next? Since they started with the European side of map, maybe Russia.

Lunarwolf, I really like the design for the Ki-100, and hope it is included.

Maybe both companies could split the task of fighters (Army and Navy) respectively. One could make the Ki-100 and the other could make J7W1 Shinden.

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/J7W-Shinden/J7W1-Shinden.htm

That would really give the Japanese an interesting, and unique unit. Of course, the latter is just my dream and I think it qualifies more as a interceptor than a fighter, but it could still work. Still, just my preference, though I’d love for someone to make it.

I like it, will probably buy it.

However,they should have the Russian with white units (Red, in the Tsar’s army?) and the Ottomans should have the red units, it would represent the flag of the dying empire.

So, I think that it may be better to have the one unit with multi roles. I agree that in no way should this SPG unit be more expensive than the Tank, which currently costs 6 in the 1940 & Global games. In terms of its combat capabilities I think it could possibly act like a Sub in that it gets a ‘first strike’ shot at 1, during the opening fire step, as suggested above. It then wouldn’t fire along with the rest of your units during their fire step. Hits scored by TDs could only be assigned to enemy Tanks. Hits scored by AGs can not be assigned to Tanks but perhaps they could function in some other way?

This would be our best option.

Since the “one-shot” ability would only take place during defensive step (though, some work can be done for the offensive step, possibly) at only the roll of 1, it wouldn’t overwhelm tanks per say, but it could add a chance to remove one from play, which is good.

As for the leftover hits? You could consider them just what happens when you overwhelm any enemy in normal, technically, let em’ go. There are no more applicable units to select in such a case.

Or, you could do a ratio basis. For example, if the attacking player has two tanks, and the defending player four assault guns, they may one select two to sally forth against the tanks.

I remember a few years back, I proposed a version of this on the WoTC forums, save for it was with pure artillery by a coastal zone. The problem then was that just because it is a coastal zone, doesn’t mean that ships will land where the guns are, the same with the naval base.

However, I like the idea still. Perhaps a seperate unit that depends on the operation of a naval base?