Posts made by dadler12

Just curious, but is the sculptor connected in any way to Eduard or Mini-Art?  Those are two great Eastern European model companies.

I support FMG and am happy about the project, what I’m upset about is that this is at least the 3rd date given by FMG.  Don’t give dates if you’re not sure about them.  That’s all I’m saying.  You lead on your customers and it’s not a good way to do business.  That said, I am waiting as everyone else is and will be happy to get them.

This is ridiculous.  I paid for these figures back around Christmas when they were supposed to be done by  January, then February, then March, now what?  As a paying customer I must say I am very disappointed with how this is going.  My family runs a small business and if we behaved this way we would be out of business.

the tanks used by marines during ww2 were modified shermans.  there were amphibious models, flamethrower models, etc…

My ideas was all nations start with at least 1 commander and they only have to pay to buy more or replace ones lost in combat.  I like combined arms bonuses.  Expanding on your ideas…

1. A Carrier with a commander paired with a Cruiser while defending allows the cruiser to shoot an aa shot at each attacking fighter (rolled at 1, casualties taken immediately, only 1 cruiser may pair with carrier, aa shot only before 1st round of combat)

2. I think the artillery bonus should only be when the artillery is tied to (supporting) Inf, Mech Inf, and Armor.  Otherwise you may see commanders with giant stacks of $4 artillery attacking at 3 for 1 round whereas a defender has to pay $6 to defend at 3. Also by tying the artillery to another unit maybe the bonus can continue past 1 round?

3. Tank + fighter boosts tanks?  Is this in addition to tank + tactical boosts tactical?  Let’s keep it as tank + tactical (you can change it to boosting the tank if you want but I don’t see the difference), fighters have so many extra abilities already and are better suited for air to air uses like intercepting, escorting, scrambling, etc.  Instead why not do…

4. Heavy Tanks boost tanks +1 in combat

Questions.  I assume you’re also keeping the bonus fighters + tactical bombers right?  When you say “in combat” (which i decided to use as well for the tank + heavy tank) does that mean both attacking and defending?  If so, some of these bonuses may be too powerful.  If a commander battleship is bombarding the shore for an amphibious attack, does his preemptive fire allow the infantry to return fire if hit or is that piece immediately removed?  Finally, the ability for a commander to issue a retreat order after one round of combat while defending still stands correct?

I think the idea was to have a new facility to add a new level of strategy and flavor to the game.

Why should commanders be free?  No other unit in the game is free.  No facility is free except the ones you begin and when an MIC is captured you have to pay to replace it.  I think its silly to have this unit be a magical unit that costs nothing.  If you want a historical reason it could be the cost of equipping and transporting a new HQ and all its officers to the front.

On the other hand I really like your idea of tying the combined arms to a commander.  This is a great idea.  What new pairings were you thinking?  Maybe cruisers and carriers (aa escorts)?

I think most of the ideas run in two directions.  One is a bonus to attack or defense values of units.  The other confers special abilities to units (choosing units to attack or retreating).  Personally I prefer going the special abilities route as that is the least likely to break the math of the game.  The other debate has been should commanders be purchased or allocated automatically.  I think the obvious thing here is that they should be purchased as any other unit or facility in the game is. 
Here are my latest ideas.  Commander unit costs 10-15 IPC (expensive but not too expensive that only the big powers can replace a commander). Attaches itself to a unit (tank, fighter, carrier, etc.) and is destroyed if that unit is destroyed.  While attacking allows its unit (in the case of a carrier its cargo, the aircraft) to choose its hit(s) or allows all attacking units of the same type to choose their hit(s) on the 1st round of combat only.  While defending allows its unit and any other units in the territory the commander is in to retreat after one round of combat or allows its unit to choose its hit(s). 
Maybe allowing the commander to choose its targets is the KISS way of doing it since the defense and attack bonuses are identical. Ideas?

I think the point of the research facility is that you buy it once and get to roll for tech every turn for free.  I like that idea.  Why would you buy a facility for 15 IPC and a tech token for 5 IPC?  Seems redundant.  I was thinking of a way to get an additional roll, and the scientist/tech token idea works for me.  Im gonna play test the idea with the option to buy additional tech rolls for 5 IPC.

I think the card idea sounds fun but it seems a little too complicated and restrictive.  I enjoy playing axis and allies because it is a ww2 strategy game that allows you to try new strategies and see if you can change the outcome of the war.  The card idea seems like it would force commanders to be used in certain ways in order to mimic the way the war actually went.  I would like to see the commander unit have across the board rules depending on what type of unit it is tied to (air, sea, land), that way the player has more flexibility on how he uses his commanders.

A commander unit that allows all tanks to choose their targets each round is too powerful and will break the game.  It would make them practically invincible with a stack of tanks.  A cap seems better for gaming purposes and it would be more historical.  Or maybe the bonus should only last one round.

@Dijitz:

OR, you can keep the AA50 style (like we do) and use the research facilities to give you a -1 for one dice (rolled separately)… so like, breakthrough on a 5. When captured, opponent captures a scientist. When bombed to full damage in a single SBR (complete annihilation), or a 1 is rolled (lucky shot), loose one scientist. Scientists still cost 5 IPCs. Still roll amount of dice equal to amount of scientists, keeping dice enhanced by facilities separate from dice that are not.

so a scientist is the equivalent of a tech token?  are research facilities necessary for tech or do they simply give a bonus?  i dont understand what you’re referencing but it sounds interesting.

I doubt the US would buy the truck if all it did was transport units.  The US is constantly doing amphibious assaults from Africa to Italy, then into Europe, and all over in the pacific.  It has no need for a land transport.  Italy and Anzac would have no need for it either.  It’s only use would be on the eastern front and in getting Indians or South Africans to Egypt.  Also, it is unrealistic to use trucks in Asia due to the terrain. Jungles slow things down, and the logistic nightmares they create are one of the reasons Japan’s ground war eventually stalled and floundered in South East Asia.  Better to make it motorized infantry.  Maybe a 1/2/2 unit costing 4 IPC that can pair with artillery or tank for +1 attack?  Mech infantry would then change to the values DannyBoy2016 suggested.

I have an idea.  If a commander is in a territory adjacent to a territory being attacked the commander can move 1 of each type of unit in the territory to the territory under attack, arriving for the 2nd round of combat.  Similar to Patton in the battle of the bulge.  What do you think?

Question for IL.  If a land commander is attached to a tank do all the tanks that hit chose their targets or only the one the commander is attached to?  Also, does this last every round?  What if the commander targets only with his unit and any units paired with it the first round of combat (say a tank and a mech inf blitzing with it or an infantry supported by artillery) and an additional unit of the same type for every additional round of combat?  This way the bonus isn’t too overwhelming but it can grow as combat continues on.

Also, defending commanders should be able to target units.  A good commander will know how to counterattack as well as when to tactically retreat.  And perhaps the amount of units that can retreat should be capped at 1 of each type in the territory, or maybe 2 of each.  Otherwise I see the retreat ability as being too overpowered.  What do you think?

@dannyboy2016:

Personally I’d have it represent Motorized infantry.

Motorized infantry
Move: 2
Attack: 1 (2 when attached to an art)
defense: 2
Cost: 4ipcs
Special: each motorized infantry unit may be attached to a single infantry or artillery piece. Any infantry or artillery pieces attached to motorized infantry have their movement increased to 2.

Then I would revise Mechanized infantry
Mechanized Infantry
Move: 2
Attack: 2 (3 when you have the improved mechanized artillery tech and are attached to a tank )
defense: 2
cost: 5 ipcs
Special: the usual can blitz when attached to a tank rule.

Just my two cents

I like this.  I think if the truck unit is simply a land transport only Russia and Germany will buy them (maybe UK to move troops from South Africa and India to Africa).  Whereas if it has an attack and defense value other nations may use it.  Mechanized infantry would be bought more as well with their new stats.

@kcdzim:

@dadler12:

Why not have them cost 7 IPC but allow fighters and tactical bombers to intercept them as they do strategic bombers?  This would cause people to protect them with more expensive fighter units (similar to protecting transports with a surface navy).  Or how about tying the use of air transports to functional air bases?  Say, infantry can only be loaded onto an air transport from a functional air base?

A:  Tactical Bomber cannot intercept strategic bombers under current rules.  They can scramble, which is different.  I mention that just so it’s clear that you’re suggesting a rule change as well.

B:  Chances are if your territory is being attacked and you have fighters available, they’re likely to be far more useful to defend the territory (defend at 4) than they are to intercept (at 2).  So interception would probably NEVER be helpful, unless you’re talking even overflying a territory with planes (similar to the old AA rules), in which case it’ll never happen.

C:  I’d argue, if they’re going to be as cheap as a naval transport, then they can only end a turn in a territory with an airbase.  It wouldn’t matter if the airbase was functional (that would just give a bonus to movement).

Otherwise they absolutely should cost 10, because they’re FAR more flexible than a naval transport, even if it’s only one infantry (and especially if it’s 2 infantry NCM).  Aircraft movement flexibility and transport space should cost quite a bit.  Compared to a tank, it basically 3 ipcs more valuable for that movement OVER the ability to blitz (if you assume 1 ipc for the additional defense as a seperate line item).  If it moves more than 4 and can drop a unit in an empty enemy space (or 2 in NCM) they should absolutely cost 10.

Good points kcdzim, so how about this…

Let me begin by saying these ideas would apply to an 7 or 8 IPC 0/0/4 air transport which can carry 1 infantry

A & B. Air transports are defenseless, so if a fighter intercepts it without an escort it is immediately destroyed.  Also any air units that can scramble to defend can also scramble against an air transport/airborne assault (tac bomber and fighter) which would initiate an air battle similar to scrambling to defend against an amphibious assault.  The infantry on board would not be “dropped” until the air battle is resolved. This way since an air transport is defenseless if it is not escorted it is automatically destroyed.  Maybe this would work because air transports would require escort fighters to be used effectively. What do you think?

C.  My idea of tying air transports to air bases was to restrict their movement.  I like the idea of only being able to load an air transport in an air base because it restricts the movement of air transports to territories surrounding an air base.  But ending a turn in an air base is a good idea as well.  Maybe combining them is a good solution?  Air bases are required to load troops onto an air transport and all air transports must end their turn at an air base.  I like the idea of the air base being functional because that gives a way for an opponent to counter an air transport fleet with strategic bombardment.  Ideas?

@Imperious:

Yea light tanks should be: 3-2-2-5, Regular 3-3-2-6, and Heavy 4-3-2-8

another option is your heavy tank is a SPA or tank destroyer so allow it to ‘hunt’ enemy land units ( if it hits the targeted unit, it is removed)

You should be required to buy a number of tanks of each type before you go to a higher level. You start with light tanks, and if you build say 5, you can then build regular and after buying 5 more of these , can buy heavies. not tech dependent, just build dependent.

I like this idea, but what pieces are you using for light tanks?  I have both sets of 1940, 42, and I ordered FMG Italy and plan to buy all the nations but it looks like light tanks are not being produced for some nations.

I think we should all stick with simple ideas here, this is axis and allies not dungeons and dragons.  I like the idea of having the commander give a bonus to one type but I also like the idea of having the commander give a bonus to using units in combination with each other (mech inf and tanks for example) because it would allow a new dimension of strategy. Also commanders should be purchased instead of replaced automatically.  It takes a great deal of money to train, equip, and deploy a new commander or a new hq if you prefer to think of it that way.  Depending on the kind of bonus they give I think a cost of 10-15 IPC with a cap on total number of commanders allowed would suffice.  Maybe 1 commander per each branch of armed forces (land, sea, air)?

What about purchasing additional rolls for research facilities?  Maybe it could be done in a way similar to purchasing tech tokens?  Or maybe the amount of victory cities could be tied to the amount of researchers in the facility and controlling more vc’s allows you more rolls per functional research facility?  Just some ideas.  I’ve been working on some good house rules for tech since 1940 came out and I really like this idea of research working through a facility.  Thanks Gargantua.

Why not have them cost 7 IPC but allow fighters and tactical bombers to intercept them as they do strategic bombers?  This would cause people to protect them with more expensive fighter units (similar to protecting transports with a surface navy).  Or how about tying the use of air transports to functional air bases?  Say, infantry can only be loaded onto an air transport from a functional air base?