Posts made by Flashman

Flashman · Jul 16, 2007, 5:54 PM

You keep saying “there’s no evidence”, but what evidence can there be in cases like this? Witnesses?

One of the main causes of the reformation was the sexual deviances of the Catholic priesthood. Men are sexual beings, priests or not, and allowing them to marry cured their deviances better than anything. And now the evidence from the dead sea scrolls suggests that Jesus was married, and there’s nothing in the Bible saying priests cannot marry, the best cure for this problem is to ditch the senseless insistence on celebacy in the priesthood.
If the problem was restricted to one country or one age there might be a case for the defence, but the problem is everywhere there are Catholic priests, and has gone on so long as there have been Catholic priests. That’s not to say that anything more than a small minority are involved, but that’s still far too many.

Flashman · Jul 16, 2007, 12:49 AM

But does IPC value represent soley GDP?

For example Romania was worth a lot more to Germany than these figures suggest because it was far and away the biggest supplier of fuel oil the Germans had access too.

This is another balancing factor; the Axis was always running out of fuel while the Allies had a surplus. This was a huge factor towards the end of the war as the Axis had intact aircraft and crews but no fuel to keep them in the air. Since A&A doesn’t feature fuel it doesn’t count, but if it were to be included the Axis would really suffer; not only would it be limited to fewer missions but it’s strategic moves would be obvious, e.g. Caucasus.

P.S. does the UK figure include Commonwealth? India was hugely important, despite being worth a measly 3 IPC in most A&A versions (remedied on my map of course).

Flashman · Jul 16, 2007, 12:15 AM

The big two for me are Britannia (I was a playtester) and Kingmaker (Unofficial Advanced Kingmaker)

I’m also doing a map for Blood Royal (which FF might be redoing at some point),

I’ve done a map for Wars of the Roses and have been trying to persuade the designer to correct a few little historical errors. Like putting Warwickshire where Worcestershire should be. Hmmm, at least he didn’t put Gloucester in Cumbria… :-D

Flashman · Jul 16, 2007, 12:10 AM

Hi Norseman.

I wonder about the accuracy of your information, for example does German income include any for conquered territory like Ukraine, Belarus and France, or any money for places that invited the Nazi in like Norway? :-o
Does Japan’s figure include the vast resources captured in Burma, Malaya and the East Indies, not to mention Manchuria and China? Remember also that to make a tank in the USA cost a lot more than making one in Russia. All these have to be factored in and I doubt if reliable figures are availabe anywhere.

Actually there are other ways to balance a game up by changing history. For example, codebreaking. The Allies knew virtually everything the Axis was going to do before they did it. Remove this and it becomes a lot harder for the Allies.

By the way, being from Yorkshire makes me half Danish. But even though our last King was a Norwegian I don’t think there’s much Norse blood in us, so we’re more cousins that brothers.

@Adlertag:

@Flashman:

Aldertag: you’ve criticised the IPC values on my maps too - do you have your own map or list of values to compare with others?

I don’t think convoy zones are relevant on a WORLD map, as they were introduced in E and P to represent income from areas off-board. This should be represented by the transportation of actual units and the ability of opponents to sink them.

Hi englishman

I got Mark Harrisons book about economics on WW II, and know presicely how much GDP income each had, and how much they used on military outlays, and how many guns they made etc. All I want is a game that reflects the historic facts. Before the release of Revised in 2004, AH had a series of articles where Mike Selinker said he would give the Axis something they did not have in real world, he would give them money. Now if I wantet a balanced game I would buy Attack ! from Eagle Games, there every player start with 10 inf, 6 tanks and 4 artillery, and can pick 4 territories each to start with. Its even more balanced than Risk.

As for convoy zones, in my head they represents “wet territories” that give the controller some economic advantages. They may represent international trade with neutrals, or the benefit of using ships instead of trucks to move resources. I think one of the first WiF editions had a very correct system where you moved every resource with a ship, but it booged down the game, so in the latest ed they used convoy zones.

Flashman · Jul 15, 2007, 4:43 PM

@Imperious:

they are not worrying about other new pieces and as i said if your waiting for them you will wait 10 years. It will take a number of 2,000 print runs to recoup costs and thats what they plan to do before breaking the bank, with 100 new molds just so you can totally change the game to suit your needs. They are going after real customers and not piece junkies to sell this game. Just buy it and play it and stop finding ways to change a game you never played before. The game is very good for what it does.

But the very fact that the extra semi-official pieces are listed in the rulebook demonstrates that the designer knows full well that his target audience (expereinced A&A players) very rarely play games “out of the box” for more than a few times before introducing their own rules and changes. This is not a criticism of the game, merely a recognition that it is clearly created with customisable rules and pieces in mind.

Aldertag: you’ve criticised the IPC values on my maps too - do you have your own map or list of values to compare with others?

I don’t think convoy zones are relevant on a WORLD map, as they were introduced in E and P to represent income from areas off-board. This should be represented by the transportation of actual units and the ability of opponents to sink them.

Flashman · Jul 15, 2007, 4:23 PM

This is one of the principle things that led to the LHTR; delaying the implementation of techs prevents the “Sealion” strategy.

Flashman · Jul 14, 2007, 9:41 PM

June 1941

June 1942

June 1943

June 1944

hELL, THEY DON’T WORK NOW.

Try Here:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1420

Flashman · Jul 14, 2007, 9:39 PM

Will the new national pieces have the equivalent of the 190 and Maus? Only the Maus is a terrible choice; a useless pet project of Hitler’s that never saw action.
Given that the game specifically encourages the development of new units, I think medium and heavy tanks would have been far better than Heavy and “Too heavy”. I want Panzer IVs!

Hoping the new units are not designed yet, hopefully feed back on the game will produce the new pieces people really want.

My choice would be tech units, even if tech is not officially part of the game:

SS inf - Australians, Indians, Romanians etc. rather than “elite” units

Nebelwefer - Heavy Artillery
FW 190 - Long range fighter
me262 - Jet fighter
Maus - medium/heavy tank (PIV, KV1, Pershing, Comet)
Heavy bombers - are the WWII pieces too big even for this?
The subs will do for long range subs

Rockets
Radar installations

Flashman · Jul 13, 2007, 11:55 PM

I was suggesting generals for the new national pieces. Have they been designed yet?

Peking should be Japanese to start with anyway, though I’m not sure it would qualify as industrialised in any case. I just think the map would look better with Szechan as the natural “centre” for China, as well as being authenticaly the capital of the KMT.

Flashman · Jul 13, 2007, 11:41 PM

I tend to see them as being as bad as each other.

In Britain Communist Union leaders organized strikes and urged members to help the German invasion if it came, because at the time the Germans and Soviets were allies. After Barbarossa began they critisised the British government for not doing enough to fight Hitler!

Flashman · Jul 13, 2007, 11:37 PM

Just found this article:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10131/Dirty-Little-Secrets-Of-World-War-II-by-James-F-Dunnigan-and-Albert-A-Nofi

Many interesting facts, especially for people divising National Advantages and such like.

Flashman · Jul 13, 2007, 8:23 PM

Thanks.
Wondering about which “General” figures will be included:

We have Rommel
I would expect:
Montgomery
Patton
Zhukov
Yamamoto (he’d look silly in yellow, but I always said Japan should be white…)
De Gaulle
Aosta? Was there an outstanding Italian general?
Stillwell? An American Chinese commander - well Chiang doesn’t seem to have gone too near the front line…

By the way, wouldn’t Chungking have been a better choice as Chinese capital, as Peking looks very vulnerable to Japanese attack?

Another thing - do we really still need blow-up boxes when the map is this big? Or are the pieces correspondingly big as well?

Flashman · Jul 12, 2007, 8:13 PM

I have a similar rule, but instead of opening fire the AT guns fight in every round and can be taken as casualties. They still only hit on 1, but each hit can be applied to an enemy tank.

@Emperor_Taiki:

When my firends and I play A&AR we use a house rule for anti-tank guns like yours, except we use AA guns.

At the beginning of a combat in a territory with an AA gun, instead of using it to fire at aircraft, you can instead chose to fire it against tanks
Roll one dice for every tank and on a 1 there hit.

You may want to take your original AT gun rules out to replace with this one, because it is more realistic,
The 88 was not deisigned as an artillery piece, but as a anti-aircraft gun, but later it was discovered that it was a good AT gun too.
so it is only logical that in an A&A Africa game, AA guns can also be used as AT guns.

Flashman · Jul 12, 2007, 8:09 PM

Not sure I can buy this concept. The most important factor in this battle was that of supplying the two armies by sea. Malta was crucial as a base for the Allies to sink Axis convoys, and the same applied to Axis air bases in Italy.
Even this assumes that the campaign was effectively over before Operation Torch brought in the Americans by amphibious assault, and the stiff Axis resistance in Tunisia suggests otherwise.
I think A&A Mediterranean would be more viable, but that’s clearly beyond the scope of your concept.

Flashman · Jul 12, 2007, 8:01 PM

I’ve dealt with the infantry recruitment dilemma by including a limited number of “recruitment depots” on the map. These reflect those areas where a power did assemble troops, or might have recruited troops if they held that area. Only one can be built per turn, and only by a specific power if it controls that territory.

For example Britain starts in control of Italian East Africa. But this only has an Italian infantry depot (native Askaris) so the UK cannot place a new infantry here. But if the Italians recapture the territory they can place a new inf here on their next turn supposing they still control it.
In some cases I had to speculate as to who would be able to recruit soldiers in which territories, as they never came under the appropriate control in history.
I don’t think this limited placement is unbalancing; it’s only one inf per turn and powers did recruit infantry units in colonies.

I also have the “Osttruppen” rule, whereby whenever Germany/Italy capture a territory from the Soviets they gain one free infantry to represent local anti-communists joining up. Germany had over 1 million Soviet citizens in it’s army at one point. Of course these were not front-line quality, but by occupying rear echelon roles they did free up better troops for the cutting edge battles, so this is not unrealistic.

Flashman · Jul 12, 2007, 7:37 PM

IL mentions a future version featuring nation specific pieces for all the powers. Two questions on this for those of us considering buying the game:

Does the future version (i.e. with ns pieces) depend on the success of the first run, or is that success already considered a certainty?

If we buy the first production, will it be possible to buy the new ns pieces as an addition rather than buying the whole game again to get them?

Of course I have certain issues with the board, which suffers heavily from “Pakistan syndrome”, but modifying boards is standard practice with me anyway. I like the principles behind the naval pass-through, though I’m not quite sure I fully grok it yet, and have suggested a similar rule for tank breakthroughs.

Another interesting rule is that of rail movement limited by IPC values of territories they pass through; how does this work in practice, and doesn’t it slow the game down as people try to work out their optimum timetables?

Flashman · Jul 12, 2007, 7:19 PM

My take on Italy, in reference to my map:

IPC Value totals

Each of three Allied powers and Japan each = 50
Germany = 45
Italy = 22
Vichy France = 13

The Italian player also controls Vichy, collecting it’s income and spending this how it sees fit.

However what I call the “Vichy Variable” allows different levels of Axis income to be brought to bear depending on how VF is treated.
At one extreme Vichy is treated as an integral part of Italy, much as Nationalist China is effectively part of the USA.
At the other Vichy is Neutral, adds no income to Italy, and will only fight by defending itself against allied attacks.
Which of the Vichy rules is adopted dictates the difficulty levels for the Axis, and could even be used as the basis of bidding.

http://66.125.84.108/web1/flashman/Complete1942jun.jpg

Flashman · Jul 12, 2007, 6:11 PM

June 1942

Rules file to follow

Flashman · Jul 12, 2007, 6:09 PM

Well anyway I’ll work on a mock-up of what the map might look like with heraldry added. I really think the idea of linking a province with it’s home produced troops is neat.
Anyone can doodle a Risk map; this could be rather more than glorified Risk with a little bit more authenticity. If you call Senegal “Rio de Oro” it DOES matter. If you call Cumbria Gloucestershire it DOES matter.
If you’re charging money for games I really think it’s important to get things right. After all there are no shortage of pedants out there who will delight in pointing out every little mistake… :-D

Flashman · Jul 11, 2007, 7:59 PM

Hi IL - only me.

You know what’s coming, don’t you?

But for the record, and the benefit of other members, I’ll do for dear old Blighty what Funcioneta did for Iberia.

I’d tend towards having just two Scottish regions, but those you have I’d rename:

Scotland = Highlands
South Scotland = Grampians
Westmoreland = Lowlands

For England:

Gloucester?! = Cumbria
Yorkshire = Northumbria
Lincoln = Mercia
Norfolk = East Anglia
Can’t see what you’ve called the southern region; Wessex would be the nearest thing

I’d divide it into Wessex, and Essex for the London territory
Add Lincolnshire to East Anglia (no coastline for Mercia)
Pleeeeeeeease redo the Yorkshire coastline - where I live is under the North Sea on your map!
Manchester was tiny before the industrial revolution, and should be in “Gloucestershire” anyway. Coventry would be a better bet, but Edinburgh and Dublin should be considered for cities.
Can’t see, but I assume Ireland is north & South?

Bessarabia is of course wrong (in essence Bessarabia is part of Moldavia, the modern country calls itself “Moldova”) but if you don’t like Bulgaria then Thrace would be accurate. Bukovina was tiny: this region is generally known as “Galicia and Lodomeria”, but as nobody seems to know which bit is Lodomeria usually just Galicia.

Not sure about where you’ve put Hungary

Belgium is a name invented in 1830, so Flanders would be more appropriate here.

If you have a link to a complete map with all labels visible I’m sure I could give you some more advice…

Additional: a thought about the look of the map:

You’ll have noticed all the extra national insignia I placed on my A&A map. As a student of heraldry I think you could do something similar with this map, i.e. have the coat of arms of each province printed on the board. This would add tremendous colour, and could be matched up with flagbearer pieces carrying the arms on their flag; perhaps units fight more fiercely for their own “home” province? Some compromises would have to be made, for example reviving the ancient anglo-Saxon Kingdoms to give the provinces I suggested for England, but in general the size of province you’ve featured would be ideal for this particular enhancement.

I made a whole series of cards for kingmaker based on my research into British Heraldry, so I’d be very willing to research this subject if you get round to a new version of Napoleonic Wars.

Posts made by Flashman

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

L24 PTV Max334 (Axis +12) vs Nikola

World War II on the Western Front

L25 PTV Peirce (X+8) vs Nikola1975 (L) Rematch

L25 PTV Stucifer (X+12) v Nikola1975 (L)

PTV 25 Nikola v 666 (axis +12)

L25 PTV ArtofWar (X+10) v Stucifer (L)

L25 OOB TSK23 (X) vs Martin (L+40)

L25 G40 OOB TSK23 (L+54) v Jacob16 (X)

65

17.7k

40.3k

1.8m