Still waiting for mine…
In mid december the vendor delayed the estimated shipping time to end of december
In the end of december the vendor delayed the estimated shipping time to mid january
In mid january the vendor delayed the estimated shipping time to end of january
Now the vendor delayed the estimated shipping time to mid february
:(
The game arrived on 17.Dec in good old Germany.
Payed 77 € (shipping included)
Where did you buy it?
I ordered from http://www.spiele-offensive.de/ and they still don’t have the game yet.
PS: WOW - there’s a snow storm right outside my window - everything’s white
I just got a message from my online shop that their release date has changed from “mid december” to “end of december” - so it’s still some waiting time for me.
:-(
I’m from Germany and I ordered it for €65 (that is $95) - but some german vendors offer it for up to €99 (that is $145).
thanks for the praise. :)
blush
I started a new topic with some more links and quotes on the topic:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15585.0
As my short link to a WW2 GDP list seemed to interest people, I will supply a few more links and quotes.
When thinking about how many IPC each nation should have for the game to be “historical accurate” this might prove useful.
But the GDP is only one aspect of the military production (A&A tt values are only used for military purposes). It also depends how much of the GDP is dedicated to the military.
Britain and the US switched immediately to a war economy while Germany started doing so only in the beginning of 1942 (Until then still believing in a rather short war).
Here are a few wikipedia quotes of the effect of these measures in Germany:
@Wikipedia:
In contrast, Germany started the war under the concept of Blitzkrieg. For example, women were not conscripted into the armed forces or allowed to work in factories. The Nazi party adhered to the policy that a woman’s place was in the home, and did not change this even as its opponents began moving women into important roles in production.
The commitment to the doctrine of the short war was a continuing handicap for the Germans; neither plans nor state of mind were adjusted to the idea of a long war until the failure of the operation Barbarossa. A major strategical defeat in the Battle of Moscow forced Albert Speer, who was appointed as Germany’s armament minister in early 1942, to nationalize German war production and eliminate the worst inefficiencies.
Under his direction a threefold increase in armament production occurred and did not reach its peak until late 1944. It was because the German economy through most of the war was substantially under-mobilized that it was resilient under air attack. Civilian consumption was high during the early years of the war and inventories both in industry and in consumers’ possession were high. These helped cushion the economy from the effects of bombing.
@Wikipedia:
At the time of Speer’s accession to the office, the German economy, unlike the British one, was not fully geared for war production. Consumer goods were still being produced at nearly as high a level as during peacetime. Few women were employed in the factories, which were running only one shift. One evening soon after his appointment, Speer went to visit a Berlin armament factory; he found no one on the premises. The Ministry of Economic Affairs, had declared in November 1941 that conditions did not permit an increase in armament production.
@Wikipedia:
]By 1943, the Allies had gained air superiority over Germany, and bombings of German cities and industry had become commonplace. However, the Allies in their strategic bombing campaign did not concentrate on industry, and Speer, with his improvisational skill, was able to overcome bombing losses. In spite of these losses, German production of tanks more than doubled in 1943, production of planes increased by 80 percent, and production time for submarines was reduced from one year to two months. Production would continue to increase until the second half of 1944, by which time enough equipment to supply 270 army divisions was being produced—although the Wehrmacht had only 150 divisions in the field.
According to http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html Germany still spent more than 40% of its steel production in 1939 and 1940 into civilian production.
It is therefore not only the GDP of a nation that determines its military production.
GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Gross_domestic_product_.28GDP.29
Here is a survey of World War II aircraft production:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
Here is a survey of World War II armored fighting vehicle production:
Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
Soviet Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
One can see that the military production numbers go up much more than the GDP because the economy was turned into a war economy (Germany in 1943 and US in 1942).
Some interesting facts seen in the numbers:
Here is a list of the production values during the course of the war of the main nations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
What do you guys think of this rule for land units:
Infantry and Artillery
just as usual.
Mechanized Infantry
1-2-2-4 Blitz, +1 if paired with Artillery
Tank
3-3-2-6 Blitz, +1 if paired with Dive Bomber
Blitz (for both Mech Inf and Tank)
In addition to the normal blitz, the unit may - after a victorious battle with the first movement point - spend the second movement point to either move to a friendly territory or attack another enemy territory. These second round of movements/battles are conducted only after all regular battles are completed.
I’m not sure about this idea.
On one hand it does not change the unit values (I don’t like changing them too much) and makes each unit still have its use and worth.
On the other hand it adds a whole new layer of complexity with a possible second round of combat.
But I do like the idea of fast Tank advances deep behind the enemy front. It will allow the attacker to seize weakly defended hinterland at the cost of exposing his precious and expansive armored/mechanized units to enemy counterattacks.
This topic was on my mind for a few days since I heard about AAP40 & AAE40 and read here and on on Larry’s Page about it.
I just wanted to start the topic and saw it was already here :)
Tanks as a 3-3-2-6 unit
I can see the rationale behind it with the new mech inf unit.
With mech inf a 1-2-2-4 unit the 5 IPC-tank would be the better buy (especially if art would not support mech inf)
For 20 IPC you would get:
mech Inf: 5/10 and 5 hits
tank: 12/12 and 4 hits
With art support it would depend on how many art would be on the board.
With the new 6 IPC-tank it will be different:
For 24 IPC you would get:
mech Inf: 6/12 and 6 hits
tank: 12/12 and 4 hits
BUT:
Now regular Inf will dominate the tank again (the reason tanks got beefed up in revised):
For 6 IPC you get:
inf: 2/4 and 2 hits
tank: 3/3 and 1 hit
Especially when you consider air support for the inf during attack (that has the tactical advantage of not having to stay in the frontline territory) the best choice would be Inf with aircraft and a few arts. Maybe in a few situation where speed matters more would tanks find their use.
If tanks stay at 3-3-5 they would be better than mech inf, if they will cost 6 IPC then inf will dominate the tanks.
My intuitive solution would be to use the OOB 3-3-2-6 tank and give him a better special ability. I would change Blitz so that if tanks after a batlle still had a movement point they could either stay (as they have to now), return to a friendly territory (like aircraft) or even attack a second time (be it empty enemy territory or a second battle).
That would definately give the tanks a new punch and would allow real fast Panzerblitz action.
On the other hand, this change would change traditional gameplay a lot.
Air unit situation
I fully agree with the actual situation not giving each air unit its special unique usefulness.
Right now fighter, F-B and Bomber are too similar, almost interchangeable - especially fighter and F-B.
I really like the introduction of F-B, but I would like to have each aircraft have its distinct usefulness:
Fighter: Strong in Air Combat, weak to medium in Ground Combat
F-B: Strong in Ground Combat, medium in Air Combat and weak to medium in Strategic Bombing
Bomber: Strong in Strategic Bombing, weak in Air Combat, medium in Ground Combat, Long Range
I will write my more detailed thoughts on aircraft in a different thread.
I will try asking local shops.
shipping costs to Germany with coolstuffinc.com are 70$, that’s more than the game costs
:(
Does anybody know where to pre-order AAP40 in Germany or at least Europe?
After reading the AARHE rules (btw.: you really should update the files in the House Rules section and on Boardgame Geeks) I got the impression that BBs are dominated by CAs.
The unit stats:
Battleship
Combat: 4/4
Cost: 20 IPC
Move: 2
Anti-Air: 2
ASW: no
Special: Fire in opening phase, shore bombardment, 2 hits, build in 2 turns
Cruiser
Combat: 3/3
Cost: 15 IPC
Move: 3
Anti-Air: 3
ASW: yes
Special: shore bombardment, 2 hits
To better compare the two ship classes we must see what we get for the same amount of IPC. For 60 IPC we get 4 CA or 3 BB.
4 Cruiser vs 3 Battleships
Combat: 12/12 vs 12/12
Hits: 8 vs 6
Move: 3 vs 2
Anti-Air: 12 vs 6
ASW: yes vs no
BB fire in opening but need 2 turns to be built.
Even with their opening fire ability the BBs lose against the CAs in combat. The CAs are faster, can attack subs, have better AA and can be built in the same turn.
This way CA dominate BB - it is always the better strategy to buy CA instead of BB and that is not good in game design.
Please tell me if I missed anything of importance.