Posts made by d142

all the pieces should be new sculpt’s, the extra detail that would be used would be noticable, although most of the pieces from revised are detailed, with the exception of the airforce, the transport, the u.s. and u.k. armor,
for the project to be successful, the pieces should be as far removed from other readily available pieces that are at market,
there is also room for  highly detailed bigger battleships, new I.C. and AA gun, i think that the color for the models should be chosen by the color that show’s the greatest detail to the finished model

the I.C. at norway would have 2 advantages,

germany could build 13 unit’s,

norway would be easier to defend,

other that those 2 advantages, i see no reason to build a I.C. at norway,

if germany has lots of I.P.C. and could realistically gather 50 - 55 I.P.C. a round, a I.C. at norway would be a great advantage,

if the u.k. captures norway they get a free I.C. which can then be used to build unit’s to attack the eastern front or re-inforce russia

taking and holding the caucasus would be ideal, although with the possesion of the caucasus usuallly changing between italy, russia and germany from round to round, a  I.C. at the caucasus can be used to build units at the front and sustain the advance without the need to retreat and regroup, while deterring a russia advance toward italy,
it can make space for a move toward karelia, with russia keeping units at the caucasus

i think that norway would be a good place to build a I.C. if germany has the resources to defend it and advance at the same time,
it could be a traget for the u.k. and the u.k. player may focus their attention toward norway and away from france,
however, if germany can keep their navy there is no reason for a I.C. at norway, with transports loading and offloading from germany to norway,

the i.c. at france could be troublesome, with the extra moves needed to get to the eastern front,

ukraine could be a useful territory for a I.C. with a value of 2, and 1 move from russia, it could be used as a launch pad for attack’s against the u.k. I.C. at egypt, if italy are not doing well, and to re-inforce the eastern front,

poland is a good option, 3 I.P.C. value, 2 moves from russia, victory city

i would rather the king tiger tank,
i have a set of panzer IV from axis and allies revised

are there plan’s for france and poland forces,
i think that a set of sculpts of 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 armor, 1 fighter, 1 aircraft carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 transport for france, and 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 armor, 1 fighter, 1 destroyer, 1 transport for poland,
for later turns if france and poland are in play, the sculpts other national sculpts could be used for the larger ships and submarines,

france

15 infantry
7 artillery
7 armor
5 fighter
3 aircraft carrier
3 cruiser
5 destroyer
5 transport

poland

15 infantry
7 artillery
7 armor
5 fighter
5 destroyer
5 transport

the way to get the I.P.C. back is to retreat from a captured capital, let the player re-capture their capital and attack at the next round with all the I.P.C. that was captured

it is impossible to win at the eastern front with armor alone and no infantry and artillery,
and when building infantry for attack, artillery is nescessary to boost the attack,
if germany builds armor and infantry, russia can pile infantry to the front line and win battles at a fraction of the I.P.C. spend of germany,

if russia defend’s with 2 infantry, for each 1 armor 1 infantry that germany send’s to the front, the cost to build is 6 for russia and 8 for germany, with the hit ratio at 1/6 3/6 for germany, and 2/6/ 2/6/ for russia, with the I.P.C. saved by russia, russia can build armor and fighter’s to increase the defense,

this is where artillery is useful, at a cost of 30 I.P.C. germany can build 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 armor,
with a punch of /1/1/2/2/2/2/3/3/ against a russia defense of 5 infantry 3 armor the punch would be /2/2/2/2/2/3/3/3/

take artillery out of the equation and germany would have attack 6 armor, or 5 infantry, 3 armor

/3/3/3/3/3/3/ or /1/1/1/1/1/3/3/3/

the ideal attacking combination ratio would be, 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 armor, at a cost of 23, for a large scale attack,
2 -3 group’s would be needed, ideally supported by 2 -3 fighter and 1 -2 bomber,

when dug in defending, infantry are the best option for 1/2 to 2/3 of the build

if the defense is greater than the attack, the attack usually falter’s, because of high value big hitting units being lost to large infantry stacks defending at 2

build some bomber’s and fighter’s, move them with your starting bomber’s to stanovoj chrebet, keep around 7 russian infantry at stanovoj chrebet, and 1 -2 infantry at the soviet far east and buryatia, after 3 -4 round’s of S.B.R. the improved shipyard stuffing would be knocked out of japan, it is a good plan aswell if japan does not have improved shipyard’s, although the new bomber’s would not be needed to S.B.R. japan

i think that because the the rulebook states that a player can not collect income when a capital has been captured,
that the I.P.C. would be lost to all player’s, the only other option would be to have the I.P.C. stay at italy until either the U.K. has re-captured the u.k. or the italy re-captures italy,
by the way of the u.k. keeping the I.P.C. at a non declared territory, it is unfair because for the axis to re-capture the I.P.C. they would have to capture all of the u.k. territories, and if they capture some u.k. territories, and the u.k. re-capture the u.k. the u.k. would still have the italy I.P.C.
in the interest of fairness, the I.P.C. should be declared to another territory, which could contradict the rules,
should stay at a capital controlled by the u.k. / which in this situation would be germany, or tokyo
or should be lost to all players,
i think that there should be official rule clarification for this, because i do not believe that a player that does not have control of their capital can capture all other capitals, and keep the I.P.C. until they have re-captured their capital,

@Krieghund:

This may or may not make sense from a “realistic” perspective, but that’s the way it works.  If it makes you feel any better, you can justify it by saying that the US is keeping its ally’s IPCs safe.

the rulebook states that a player may not lend I.P.C. to another player,
by means of keeping the I.P.C. safe, may not be a technical lend because the u.s. could not spend that I.P.C.

i.e. if the u.k. get’s knocked out of thae game, and the u.s. keep’s the italy I.P.C. and the u.s. re-captures the u.k.
the u.k. are back in the game, with I.P.C. that should have been lost,

it handicaps the attacking player, in particular germany, because when germany captures the u.k. germany would not have the option to bank money at japan, and therefore if germany is captured at the u.s. turn, germany loses all the I.P.C. that it won at the capture of the u.k.

i do not like this idea of I.P.C. not being reachable by knocking out the capturing player,
in that scenario, if the u.s. has been knocked out, they could bank the I.P.C. off to russia,

this idea of banking would have to have a end point, otherwise the I.P.C. could be passed around from player to player, if the u.s. get’s knocked out, they bank the money to russia, if russia get’s knocked out, they could bank the money back to the u.s.

with no way for the axis to reclaim the I.P.C. the I.P.C. would be there until the u.k. get back in the game

it does matter because, if the u.k. are completely knocked out of the game, what player claims the captured italy I.P.C.

there is no treasury rule for AA50, the rulebook states that when a capital is captured all that players I.P.C. are captured by the attacking player,
if all I.P.C. are captured from a capital, that would suggest that all I.P.C. are stored at the capital,
if the u.k. capital is captured and all I.P.C. forefeited to the attacker, then if the u.k. captures italy,
how can the I.P.C. be stored at a non capital, if the u.k. captured germany the round after germany captured the u.k. where would germany have stored the captured u.k. I.P.C.
would the u.k. player have to declare where the I.P.C. has been stored, or is it a game of hide and seek,
i have read the rulebook several times, and there is no rule that states that I.P.C. can be moved from a capital to a non capital territory

@Krieghund:

@d142:

if italy recapture italy before the u.k. re-capture the u.k. italy would re-capture the I.P.C.

No, it wouldn’t.  Those IPCs would belong to the UK.  You can only take IPCs from a country by taking its capital.  As long as the UK’s capital remains in enemy hands, its IPCs can’t be taken again.

where would the u.k. store the I.P.C. with the capital of the u.k. not controlled by the u.k.

yeah, the u.k. would capture the I.P.C. and if italy recapture italy before the u.k. re-capture the u.k. italy would re-capture the I.P.C.
if the u.k. re-capture the capital the I.P.C. would be moved to the u.k.

the rulebook states that when a a capital is under the control of a opponent that player can not collect income or bonus income, however, the rulebook is not totally clear about this issue, my guess would be that the I.P.C. would stay at italy, until one of the following occurs, italy is re-captured by the axis, or the allies re-capture the u.k.
i would wait until there was more insight into this before continuing with he game,
although i could not determine another course of action that would comply with the rules

if germany are finding the eastern front a challenge, the obvious choice would be to attack at france with the u.k. and the u.s.
however if germany have load’s of I.P.C. and can easily fend off the allied attack i would attack italy capture the I.C. and start to build units there to drive toward the ultimate goal of capturing germany and knocking germany out of the game,
the I.C. at italy is tempting, especially for the u.s. because when captured the u.s. would have a I.C. at europe,
france is worth 16 I.P.C. to the allies, and a I.P.C. hungry allied player can build a mighty force if france is captured,
germany never has enough I.P.C. to build a fleet, and the italian fleet could be a deterrant to the allied attack at italy,
however, with the capture of france, all that extra I.P.C. flying around would leave germany as easy picking’s for the allies

i think that the way to have nukes tech is to have the cost that outrageous that they could not be used often,
or that the nukes tech is not easy to get, i.e. roll rockets twice, or heavy bombers twice,
i would have the nukes tech combined with high altitide or heavy bombers, and the cost 50 I.P.C.
that makes the nukes a big risk with the cost of a bomber 12 and a nuke 50

i would use the 50/50 split for small scale attacks, or to pick off territories along the way, for large scale attacks i would use 20% - 40% artillery, if i had a lot of hit at 3 or 4 units artillery would be less used,

building 1 infantry, 1 artillery is as good as 2 artillery, for 1 I.P.C. less, and if advanced artillery has been achieved, 2 infantry, 1 artillery is as good a s 3 artillery for 2 I.P.C. less

i would like all the units the same as the axis and allies scale, except the battleship, the battleship could be bigger,
there should be contrast between the different national artillery pieces

i am looking for a AA50 41’ scenario opponent that wants to play the axis