Topics created by Dylan the Canadian

Its happened with me already. I sold my AA50 and look forward to AA40. I can stll play AA50 as I have ILs large map on my game bench under plexiglass. Printed out the rules and setup cards and have lots of AA plastic units. I painted some classic pieces to use for my Italians. Will have Italian units with AAE1940 when it comes out. More from FMG if they ever get them listed for sale.

It’s a dumbed down version.  Personally, dumbed down isn’t my style.

Of course

@Dylan:

@oztea:

Where on earth did you get 10?

I got confused with a bomber

Bombers would move 9, 2 more than fighters

@Dylan:

@Octospire:

@Dylan:

@allboxcars:

@Dylan:

If the Battle of Britain went well for Germany, do you think the US and USSR could still win against Germany and Italy.

If Britain made peace with Germany in 1940 (on whatever terms take her out of the fight), US wouldn’t have been at war with Germany in 1941.

#607

Germany might still declare war on them.

On the U.S or on the British?
The Americans would of never gone to war with the Nazi’s had the British been defeated they would of had no place to refuel the American ships on the European side of the Atlantic, no place to land their aircraft for strategic bombing. Had Germany got a peace treaty from the British that would of been it, game over for the Americans even before the war started. Britain was the launching point for all the allied invasions of North Africa, Italy and France so without it reclaiming those areas from Nazi control would of been impossible. Also American isolationist policies would of not of been changed if Pearl Harbour wasnt attacked and I dont think the Japanese would be stupid enough to go to war with the U.S and the British empire all on their own.

Had Britian made peace with the Germans it would not of been a “surrender” as such it would of been considered the meeting of two equals to forge a peace and no doubt at Hitlers insistance an Anglo-Germanic alliance just like he had envisioned and pressed for in the 1930’s. Germany was now the equal of Britain and the Nazi’s would make sure they were treated in that way. The only reason there wasnt an alliance between Germany and Britain because Britain had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo while the Germans wanting to expand their empire had other ideas entirely. Its not that hard to imagine a joint German and British army formation with RAF and Luffwaffe planes roaring overhead attacking Moscow and mopping the floor with the Soviets.

Many people in Britain did not considered Hitler and the Nazi’s to be their enemy, yes they were the enemy of the continental european powers but not their enemy. At the time before the bombing of British citys in the “phoney war” Stalin and the USSR was seen as the much greater threat to British interests in the future. Hitler was very reasonable to the British he offered them peace as equals that allowed Britian to keep her empire and his only clause was that the Nazi’s have free reign in Europe.

But Germany might force the issue on the US.

I doubt it, going to war with the United States would require a foothold in the America’s and allies like Mexico and other Latin American countries. It would of taken probably at least a decade to pacify Europe under Nazi rule and then who knows, especially if Hitler got his Alliance with the British. With the industrial might of the France, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at their disposal, the British and Latin Americans as allies and the massive technological advantage they would of had over the U.S its possible that if they wanted to they could win a war against the United States.

Although I think its doubtful that the British if Allied with Germany against the Soviets would of turned on the Americans, If a Anglo-Germanic alliance had of happend following a ceasefire in 1940 and then crushed the Soviet Union I think that Hitler/British would of been happy to rule Eurasia and Africa. Like another poster said in another thread its much more likely that following a Nazi alliance victory in Europe that a facist party would come to power in the United States in order to drag their country out of the depression.

What has to be remembered is that the U.S was still in the economic doldrums right up until their involvement in WW2 without the war its possible that the economic stagnation may of continued for another decade possibly more its hard to tell, it depends on the party in power and the president at the times idea on how to deal with the crisis.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

First of all you need a mix in fleet and in land units.  Second, even at 20 a BB would be a sitting duck for 18 IPC of subs.  3 subs CRUSH a battleship with an average loss of a single sub costing 6 IPC.  If all you had were BBs I would flood the ocean with subs and pick and choose when i want to fight.  So you would need some DDs but still subs would kill you, so you need air units combined with DDs to project power.  In order to get in striking distance of subs, because you have to move up you have to put yourself in harms way, let the enemy decide to attack you or not.  You might need blocking DDs to get your fleet close enough to project power onto the subs and force a retreat as they can’t stand a few DDs with airpower.  In other words, you need combined arms to win.  That is one reason I hate to use a single bomber against an AA.  Going from 1 to zero is a 100% loss of the service of a bomber and the power it projects over a wide swath of area.  Think about it, a single bomber might cause you to defend against it in 6 different places.  Even by doing nothing, the power it projects influences the battlespace.

The subs cost 8 IPC in revised
7 if you posses  ˝War Economy˝ NA

@Dylan:

@221B:

Its certainly one way to try to slow Japan down.  The extra territories for you (and less for Japan) does a couple things, 1) it reduces Japans IPCs and increases yours which is a swing of a few infantry and 2) it forces Japan to take more territories before it can threaten Moscow. Its a gamble if this is a better way to play than simply stacking Russian infantry in Yakut, then backing up to Novo but I think the allies are better off attacking than defending.

What also sometimes happens is 1) Russia takes Manchuria, 2) UK takes Kwang via the transport from india.  Then on US1, the US takes FIC if possible after J1.  This results in Japan having nothing on the mainland after R1.  To counter this in a bid game (though I’m not really an expert on playing with bids), it is typical to add an inf or two to manchuria so that the odds of Russia taking this is slim.

So I’m too stupid.

What?!

I don’t think you are stupid.

I’m not saying that attacking later is the way to go (I think capturing India on turn 3 is unstoppable and the way to win), just saying that it was the intention.

With a bid, I would likely attack later.

The global game it would probably be an issue as well.  I would think the intention was to get rid of blockers.

I know a number of people take issue with Ottawa as a VC.
Here’s my two cents:

@calvinhobbesliker:

I don’t think the Axis need to invade North America to win.

IMTO as long as this statement remains true, I don’t have a problem with VCs being in North America.

Conversely, if a successful Axis lodgement in North American does not spell Axis victory then I think the game needs fixing… most likely by putting VCs in North America.

Personally, I cannot imagine FDR and Churchill shrugging off the Nazis taking Montreal as long as Warsaw or Hong Kong was in Allied hands.

#593

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I did not compare drunks to potheads, or at least did not intend to.

I would not think Richard Bransons life a waste nor that of Bill Maher.  You are free of course to disagree but would like to know the basis of your reasoning

I’d like to comment specifically on Bill Maher. While I’m not familiar with the majority of his work, I have seen his movie Religulous; as well as some of his television appearances. Nothing I’ve seen of him so far has made me want to see any more.

Intellectual discipline and intellectual rigor begins with the humility required to work hard. The attitude that, “I need to work as hard as possible here, because otherwise I’ll make a mistake or fall prey to intellectual shallowness. Only through this relentless hard work can I maximize my chances of being right.”

From everything I saw, Bill Maher utterly lacks this humility. He strikes me as being smug and condescending to those who disagree with him. He seems to believe that he’ll be right about things not due to effort on his part; but because he’s Bill Maher. I have no respect for the kind of person who thinks this way, or for any conclusions that result from that kind of thought process.

To return to the subject of the film he’d made. He managed to find a rabbi whose views would be considered far from mainstream, both in general American society and within the Jewish community. He interviewed this rabbi as part of his movie, and interrupted him in such a way that the rabbi was prevented from finishing very many of the points he’d tried to make. Maher then stated that the rabbi had attended a “Holocaust denial conference” in Iran. The rabbi agreed he’d attended the conference but denied Maher’s characterization of its nature.

But supposing, for the sake of argument, that Maher’s characterization of the conference was accurate, what could any of that possibly have to do with the theme of the movie? Am I really supposed to consider something like that relevant to whether God does or doesn’t exist? If Maher expects his audience to be persuaded by stuff like that, it’s obvious that he either a) has no respect for his audience, or b) is himself persuaded by this sort of technique. If the latter, we should have no respect for the rigor of his thought process. If the former, he is a mere propagandist who has chosen dishonest tactics to promulgate his views.

The movie did make one good point; which was to provide information about an Egyptian religion that had existed prior to Christianity. Something like that really is relevant to the movie’s theme. But that was an oasis in the midst of a desert; with the overwhelming majority of the movie being like the interview with the rabbi.

Because politics are off-limits on this board, I will not comment specifically on which of Maher’s views I agree with, and which I disagree with. But where his opinions overlap with mine, it is because I’ve reached my conclusions independently from him; and not because I have any respect for his thought process or his opinions.

@Yoper:

Actually, most people consider the 1998 computer version as the 3rd Edition.

Two versions for the original MB version.  The 1991 clarification sheet is more of a FAQ than an edition.  The Nova edition is considered a “0” edition.

You beat me to the punch.

Since there were 2 MBs before 3rd edition it cannot be 1nova-2MB-3revised or even 1 nova 2,3 MB 4revised

I remember doing paratroopers on the computer version and being annoyed at losing my capitals.

I agree krieghunds 3rd edition in that list was a little confusing since it was only released in the computer game.

@purplebaron:

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

Okay so I have some questions about the split income

First: what will Yukon Territory and BC be part of UK or India.
Second: what about West India, like it is on the Europe 40 bored, but like its part of India, though.

BC will be part of India, as will Yukon, but Yukon doesn’t matter unless you want to build an air base there.

West India will be part of UK

that seems silly

It’s worth a lot to have a rule that’s easy to specify, understand, and implement in an already complicated game.

I smell a house rule coming. Wow I can not believe I said I spell a house rule, wow I suck lol.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@finnman:

@Funcioneta:

New Zealand should continue the fight after Sydney falls, but capital sacking rules and that silly non-island ICs rule don’t allow that (as much, it should be “no ICs for Dutch East Indies”)

Its sounds like this an easy house rule fix.

I think the No Island IC is historical, since most islands don’t have enough resources to build a factory or the things within. Besided, ANZAC can’t afford an IC for NZ, it’s better spent on 3 artillery or mech.

But you could buy 4 Infantry then, instead of only 3 Artillery.

3 Artillery=12 die points
4 Infantry= 12 die points

But in the end you get more hits all together, and Australia do not need an extra Artillery.

You can’t buy 4 inf since ANZAC only has 1 minor factory

These new IC rules are confusing.

Dude, the IC chits HAVE THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU CAN MOBILIZE THERE PRINTED ON IT!

Grandpa you need a nap, your tired and cranky.

FYI … I have started a new thread on this subject. (Air-Naval Bases)

@Brain:

@Dylan:

@Brain:

Barbie loved G.I. Joe with Kung Fu grip.

Why? Was it more aggressive then Ken?

Barbie likes the bad boys.

XXXI

But they aren’t even anatomically correct!

@Dylan:

Turn Order: Russia, France, UK, Austria-Prussia.

Russia=Blue
Austro-Prussian Alliance=Yellow
France=Black
UK=Red

UK’s Setup
England= 3 Swordsmen, 1 Riflemen, 1 Calvary, 2 Cannon, 1 General.
Scotland= 1 Calvary
Ireland= 1 Swordsmen
Sweden= 3 Swordsmen
Portugal= 1 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
Gibraltar= 1 Swordsmen
Malta.

France Setup

Paris: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Rifleman, 2 Calvary, 1 Cannon, General
Southern France: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Rifleman, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
French Coastline: 2 Swordsmen, 2 Calvary, 1 Cannon
Central France: 1 Swordsman, 1 Rifleman
Holland.
United Netherlands.
Denmark: 3 Swordsmen
Norway: 1 Swordsman, 1 Calvary
Switzerland.
Italy: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
Naples: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
Etruria
Hanover
Warsaw: 1 Swordsman, 1 Rifleman, 1 Calvary
North Spain: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Rifleman, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
South Spain: 3 Swordsmen
North Germany: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Cannon
South Germany: 3 Swordsmen

Austria-Prussia Alliance Setup

East Austria: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon, 1 General
West Prussia: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
West Austria: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Cannon
Central Prussia: 2 Swordsmen
East Prussia
Central Austria

Russia Setup

Western Russia: 2 Swordsmen
Moscow: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary
Central Russia: 2 Swordsmen
Ukraine: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Cannon
Belarus: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary
St. Petersburg: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Rifleman, 2 Calvary, 1 Cannon, 1 General
Northern Finland: 2 Swordsmen
Southern Finland: 2 Swordsmen
Siberia: 2 Swordsmen

Well we know the color change, but the setup is different

England: 3 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 1 Calvary, 1 General
Scotland: 1 Calvary
Ireland: 1 Infantry
Sweden: 3 Infantry
Portugal: 1 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Gibraltar: 1 Infantry

Paris: 3 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 2 Calvary, 1 General
Southern France: 2 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 1 Calvary
French Coastline: 2 Infantry, 2 Calvary
Central France: 1 Infantry, 1 Cannon
Denmark: 3 Infantry
Norway: 1 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Italy: 3 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Naples: 3 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Warsaw: 1 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 1 Calvary
North Spain: 3 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 1 Calvary
South Spain: 3 Infantry
North Rhine: 2 Infantry
South Rhine: 3 Infantry

Austrian-Prussian Alliance
East Austria: 3 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 1 General
West Prussia: 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary
West Austria: 2 Infantry
East Prussia: 2 Infantry

Russia
Western Russia: 2 Infantry
Moscow: 3 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Central Russia: 2 Infantry
Ukraine: 2 Infantry
Belarus: 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary
St. Petersburg: 3 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 2 Calvary
Northern Finland: 2 Infantry
Southern Finland: 2 Infantry
Siberia: 2 Infantry

Very similar.

The pieces are risk

Infantry: 1 Unit (risk)
Cannon: 5 Units (risk)
Calvary: 3 Units (risk)
General: 10 Units (risk)

I’ll try to do a better map.

I’m also making a second game World War I.

Flick a bic and watch the plastic melt.

I don’t think it’s really plausible that any of the three major Axis powers would have been able to launch an invasion of mainland America large enough to actuallyhewould not have gained ground against the Americans fighting on their own turf. While the German army may have matched that of the United States, their navy was in no way ready to launch any amphibious invasion, especially one of the scale requited to attack the US. Italy… let’s just say I couldn’t see Mussolini walking into the white house.

Most likely, if the Axis were able to overhwelm all of the other allies, a cold war would develop between the US and Germany/Japan (and maybe even between the axis themselves) and all sides would race to develop defenses and nuclear weapons.

If any axis takeover of washington was to take place, it would be a result of either a revolution within the US or (less likely) an invasion by Mexico and other Central/South American countries supported by the Axis. Germany would likely send another Zimmerman letter, but this time would provide actual support. Although by this point, with the US in possession of nuclear weapons, i doubt and invasion would take place.

@UN:

@McMan:

If the game is fun and balanced, why add more rules for historical accuracy? It gets too complicated.

How is putting a French infantry in Britain complicated?

I think he was referring to the suggestions for Vichy France rules that were cropping up.

If French units were shuttled to England to save them from the blitzkrieg when France fell, and the game is starting before the fall of France, why would we assume that there would be a significant number of French units in England at the start of the game?

@maverick_76:

Am I wrong or does the game start right after Dunkirk? If it starts right before it then we would just probably transport them ourselves. If it doesn’t then I would say that for the sake of simplicity they should not start off with any units in the UK. But that is just me saying that for ease of setup.

I’m with maverick here, perhaps it will be advantageous for France to pull any surviving units it might have from the coastal or Vichy territory (assuming they also have a surviving transport in range) to Engalnd (or perhaps Africa).  This would match history, but I don’t see any basis for there being a significant number of French troops in Great Britain before the fall of France to expect any French units in Great Britain in the setup.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

What is the topic, who will pick strawberries or something?

That was a different thread.

1. USA
2. USSR
3. UK
4. Canada
5. China
6. France
7. Australia
8. Turkey
9. India
10. ???