Posts made by dadler12

On my vote for other I would like to see a piece that represents a mine field, maybe a wooden sign, or barbed wire, I’m not sure what it would look like but I like the idea of a mine field.  Also I would like to see a sand bag piece as has been mentioned on here already.  This would allow house rules such as “digging in” where infantry units that have not moved the previous turn could “dig in” to get a higher defense value.

The new pictures are awesome coach

I would like all of them but if I had to pick one it’s gotta be the P-51.  Most iconic and best American fighter of the war.

You mean nation specific aa guns?  Great idea.  I would buy those.

Maybe a small runway and tower or hangar for the airbase, or just a tower.  A small drydock for a naval base or a dock with a crane or something like that.  Nothing major, just a little plastic piece to replace those pesky little cardboard ones.

If you’re going to make pieces representing facilities coach, please do Air and Naval Bases!

I think most people think the game is balanced Jennifer.  Adding 3-4 infantry (not 5-6) would make things a little easier for Japan in Asia without it making it too easy for Japan like it was OOB.  And an 18 bid is not what you had suggested, read your posts, you had suggested a bid for each Axis country totalling around 40 some IPC.  And there are not two camps, everything is not black and white.  Some people may find the Axis are at a slight (but not unplayable) disadvantage, some people may find the Allies at that slight disadvantage, some find it very balanced.  And in reality, doesn’t it all depend on who you play with, how their playing styles are, and how the dice land for you?

“If you’re complaining about the US just being too large and powerful in AAG40, I believe that was part of the game design, the US’s war NOs are the time bomb ticking behind the entire economic system that tip the balance over to the Allies as soon as the US enters the war.”

Great point Blitz, this really gets to the crux of the matter.  From a design standpoint America has to be the way it is, it is both historical and a game mechanism for controlling length and forcing the Axis to be aggressive early (historical as well).  I’m not saying the game should end up Allies winning every time because that is how it happened, but Axis and Allies is a WW2 game and it strives to create the atmosphere of that conflict.  Hence the Axis start with the units and positioning to attack but the Allies have the economic might to conquer them if they do not act accordingly.  As the game stands it is not impossible for the Axis to win, it is actually pretty well balanced.  There should be no major changes (bids over 12) or rule corrections.

I could deal with some more infantry in Asia for Japan, pretty sure I mentioned that idea in a previous post, what I was saying was that the proposed changes Cmdr Jennifer was making were outrageous game breakers that were not needed.

Thanks for the hints but I’ve been playing axis and allies for over 10 years now.  Don’t be condescending because based on my experience I disagree with you.

_Hints:  Destroyers are an AWESOME build for America.  America does not need more than 15 submarines.  7 Aircraft Carriers = “I Win Button” for America.  Stage from Hawaii (you can hit Japan, Carolines, Australia.)  Later stage from Philippines (You can hit EVERYTHING, except Hawaii/Alaska).  _

A smart Japanese player will position their fleet to wipe America’s out when it moves out of 10, I know I can and have.  If America has spent that much money on aircraft carriers and air, Germany should have London and be at the gates of Moscow.  Not to mention an Italian Africa.

Hints:  China can be conservative.

China should be wiped by round 4 barring bad dice, you can’t do it all as Japan obviously, but killing China going for Russia after usually works well for me.

Hints:  England does not have to wait til round 4 to attack Japan, but Japan pretty much has to wait until round 4 to attack England. (Or you lose the 10 IPC NO, bring America in early and essentially remove your foot with a chainsaw for no apparent reason.)

Exactly, so how is China not dead and Russia panicking about Japan’s position on the mainland…

The Jap fleet sat in 6 and simply got bigger and bigger.  The Americans were based in Hawaii and couldn’t leave it because it would split their fleet that they kept building in 10.  It was pretty uninspired, but that’s my point.  If the US goes all in on one board the Axis should be able to take advantage.

My group has played 3 games of alpha +2 now and we have all found it pretty balanced.  Some of the arguments (most are descended into chest thumping) make no sense in my opinion.  I’ve never seen Russia out produce Germany until the late game, Japan always does well in the games I’ve played (of course it can’t crush China, India, Russia, ANZAC, and US at once, but it really doesn’t need to…), and when the US in one of our games decided to go all in Pacific, the game ended in disaster since the Japanese refused to engage their navy and simply consolidated and kept building his fleet as the US fleet moved closer, resulting in the US wasting tons of IPC on a naval attack it never even attempted because it never was able to get odds.  Maybe Japan could have 3 or so more infantry on Asia, but it really does not need another NO (when does Japan declare war on the Allies in these games that have gone so badly, it gets money for sitting it out for a while) and definitely not all those planes again for OOB.  The US needs to make the money it does, it has to build at least 2 solid fleets and every land unit costs 3.5 IPC to move and takes about 1-2 turns to get where it needs to go.  I have to agree with the people who have said the Axis opponents must not have been up to par, or maybe they just werent being creative enough.

I think alpha +2 is a pretty well balanced game that is actually tilted slightly to the axis the way the victory conditions are set.  A good axis player will win on the other board if America goes all in on one.

@knp7765:

@coachofmany:

@knp7765:

I just don’t think that one of FMG’s tanks should duplicate the OOB Sherman.  We have tons of them already so both of FMGs tanks should be something different.

What about a “Grant” medium tank?

The Grant was the one with the 75mm gun mounted on the side and a turret mounted 37mm gun, right?  That would be cool for FMG to make along with some sort of SPG/TD for the second armor.  Of course, Dr Larsen is right that we would be taking a step backwards in that case.  Since you are making the M5 Stuart, I think a late war Sherman would still be the best bet, like the M4A3.  Didn’t some Shermans come out with something like an 85mm gun to try and match the Tiger’s firepower?  And the turrets on those were a little different from the earlier M4A1 Shermans with 75mm guns, I think.

I think you’re thinking of the Sherman M4A3’s equipped with 105 mm howitzers. These really didn’t see action until the US was already in Germany.

Agreed.  The Essex is hardly a tech piece.  There were more Essex class carriers used in WW2 than any other class.

@DrLarsen:

@dadler12:

I have to agree.  Tech units will come later.  The units that saw the most fighting should be the units in the standard set.  Between FMG’s regular sets, tech sets, and Coach’s supplement sets, I’m sure almost everyone will get every model they want.

But keep in mind that FMG is doing 2 tanks, so it still doesn’t strike me as a bad idea to have 2 units with significantly different capabilities.  Add in the fact that there is also a set of oob units, and it makes sense for FMG to be able to think outside the box a little for at least one of his tank molds.  Doing an early-war Sherman and an M10 TD is simply a missed opportunity.  Doing a late-war Sherman and either an M18 or an M36 or a Pershing opens up some interesting opportunities for house rules and/or interesting sculpts that distinguishes the units both from oob and from each other.  And we’re not talking “pie-in-the-sky” far-out technology here, like a Horton flying wing.  Like I’ve said before, even the Pershing, the least produced tank that has been seriously suggested for the US was produced in quantities over 2,000 DURING the war, #'s larger than all of the Tiger variants and versions combined.  And both the M18 and M36 came out even earlier and in even bigger #'s.  So none of these suggestions are even really “tech” units, much less far-fetched.

Even doing the M24 Chaffee would be a better choice than doing the oob-style early-war Sherman over, since it gives us the option of creating a light tank unit (and had the same cannon).  But the early war Sherman has been done oob ad nauseum, and given its very simple rounded shape I can’t imagine how FMG will be able to do much better with it to produce something “new and better.” If he does the Iowa and the Yamato over, I’m OK with that, because I have every confidence that he’ll be able to produce something much nicer with considerably more visual appeal.  He’s already produced the best battleship that Italy & Germany actually made, each one in turn the biggest baddest BB of its time, and since he’s only doing one BB per nation, I can see the logic in him doing the best and most famous BB from the US and Japan too.  I’m fine with that, and hope for Coach to do a wider range of naval options.  But in the tank category, with 2 slots per country, and with the early Sherman and M10 being such similar and mediocre vehicles with little visual appeal, I simply can’t grasp why someone would want him to not go with something really interesting for one of them and at least an upgraded Sherman for the other.

I’m the one who suggested the M36 in the first place, and I backed you up on the 76mm Sherman, those are the two units I want.  I just don’t want obvious tech units like heavy tank Pershings or Heavy Bomber B-29s.

@Fishmoto37:

@knp7765:

I just don’t think that one of FMG’s tanks should duplicate the OOB Sherman.  We have tons of them already so both of FMGs tanks should be something different.

Absolutly correct on that issue. We even have U.K. OOB Shermans. The two U.S. tanks should be the M3 Stuart and the M26 Pershing for upgrades to heavies. Some of these global games go clear into 1946 for heavens sake. Got to be able to purchase that heavy tank!

Coachofmany has already said he will be making a Stuart.  As has been previously discussed, the Pershing is an obvious choice for a tech set (which FMG has already said it will be doing) or for Coachofmany to do in his supplemental US set.  The Pershing should not be in the regular US set, there are other places it can fit in.  The regular US set should use the units that were used the most or most influential.  The Pershing saw combat for the last months of the war, which makes it hardly worth a spot in the regular US set.

I have to say after seeing FMG’s King Tiger I don’t think you really need to make one either Coach.  I’m curious as to how many vehicles/total units are you considering for this German Vehicle kit.

Sounds like an idea.  I think it would make more fiscal sense to just have 1 set of neutrals that you can make in different colors to cover all the possible variants people play, but that’s just me.

I like the list coach but I would rather have 4 Shermans or 2 LCM-3’s then the flamethrower Marine unit.  Regular Marine’s are fine with me.

I have to agree.  Tech units will come later.  The units that saw the most fighting should be the units in the standard set.  Between FMG’s regular sets, tech sets, and Coach’s supplement sets, I’m sure almost everyone will get every model they want.

Flamethrower Shermans would be awesome!  I cannot change my vote so let it be known I support the LCM!