Topics created by cyanight

Nah, USA going first might not suck too much for Germany more than USA going at any other time.  Since I do not personally see Japan attacking the US round 1 very often, then I cannot imagine too much impact on Italy/Japan either.    But yea, Russia/England going first would REALLY suck for Germany.  Japan going first could be fun though!

@knp7765:

@Tralis:

Game mechanics and real life sometimes line up in ways that don’t correlate one-to-one. I see the UK moving into Brazil to activate it as representing Brazil entering the war on the side of the allies and working closely with the UK to participate in the war effort. Rather than the UK colonizing Brazil, they are sending in advisers, training Brazilian personnel, and working so closely with Brazilian formations that on the grand strategic scale Brazilian troops are represented as UK pieces.

Remember, in some variants of the game Chinese troops and territories are represented as American, as French colonies in Africa represented as British. For the smaller scale of, say, Spring 1942 this is appropriate. This doesn’t suggest China is an American colony or under direct command of America, just that their military is working  closely with the US.

Also, in the smaller versions of A&A like Revised and Spring 1942, Italy is simply represented by German units and control. Italy was still in the war in Spring 1942 but for game purposes, it is just easier to have Germany represent the Euro Axis.
Perhaps a somewhat different relationship than America/China or UK/France, but kind of the same thing.

For that same reason it’s kind of fun to use some Italian or French sculpts thrown in the mix strictly as a game esthetic when playing the smaller games.

So, you was more thinking about something like Fort Eben-Emael:
Fort Eben-Emael : Documentary on the Raid of Fort Eben Emael
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOCSQcj-sLc

Than the underground entrenchment in Iwo Jima?
Battle of Iwo Jima - Fierce Fighting Footage [Full Resolution]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rfsRNeiing

@Tall:

Gentlemen,

––I think ya’ll are doing really well as far as the Coastal Guns rules go,…Well Done

@Razor:

The only allied ships that got sunk during D-day were sunk by German destroyers, not coastal guns. Come to think about it, I guess KM Blucher was the only ship sunk by coastal guns during WWII.

**––I just thought for Historical Accuracy I’d remind you of the U.S. Marine defence of Wake where they damaged and sank ships with Coastal Guns.

Tall Paul**

One thing to keep in mind when designing house rules for coastal guns is that “coastal guns” (a.k.a. coastal artillery) is a term that can refer to two very different things.  In the broad sense, it refers to any gun situated on a coast and intended to engage targets at sea.  By that definition, coastal guns don’t have to be very powerful weapons.  The coastal guns at Guam which Tall Paul mentions were 5-inch guns, which by battleship standards are regarded as secondary armament.  The narrower definition of coastal guns refers to very heavy artillery pieces (guns that would qualify as primary armament on a battleship) that are situated on a coast, sometimes set in very elaborate fortifications and sometimes mounted on railroad-track turntables.  Actual naval guns with large calibers were often used for this purpose; one example was the Lindemann Battery, which used 16-inch guns originally earmarked for the H-class battleships.

Coastal guns, as far as I know, weren’t responsible for sinking very many ships.  Their basic problem was that they couldn’t move, that their locations were generally known to the enemy, and that the enemy would try as much as possible to bypass them in favour of easier points to attack.  Japan’s conquest of Singapore from the landward side (rather than from the sea side, which was covered by British 15-inch guns) is one example of this principle; another is the choice of Normandy for the D-Day landings, one of its advantages being that it bypassed the powerful German coastal artillery located in the Pas de Calais area, for instance at Cap Nez Gris.

Thank you sir.  That is what I thought but I wanted to be sure,  Thank you

Spain is also adjacent to 5 different seazones, so an airbase or port here will unbalance the game, so there is no doubt that Spain need to be cut in more territories, if only just for balace

Excellent point Razor.

The rule book and what is said by play testers trump what AAA says.

Everyone discussing Europe strategies please follow the link instead of hijacking this Japan IC thread… Thank you.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32940.0

So much fun but I need to find better opponents.  Last night I was playing USA and had Russia set to the Moore AI.  Russia built a destroyer in the Baltic Sea (sea Zone 100) on round 2.  It got worse… Later they built on turn 5 a complex in Caucasus and the following turn a Cruiser in the Caspian Sea!  Thought you guys might enjoy this. :)

I built a program in C++ of Axis and Allies for the original version back in 1993 but unfortunately never finished the program. I had the map completed and the pieces but never finished it.  I am very impressed with the latest accomplishments of TripleA.

Guys,

––Just to add to your answer a bit. ‘Kreighund’, the rules guy, basically said that in order to CONQUER an Allied teritory, there must be a ‘COMBAT’. What that in essence means is that the teritory must have been previously conquered by an Axis power.
----If the Allied territory still has the same ownership after having it’s Capital subjugated,…you are simply ‘Re-inforcing’ the territory for the current owner.

Tall Paul"