Posts made by knp7765

I am VERY happy with the $29.99 price tag.  Heck, I would have paid the $39.99 they had up there so as far as I’m concerned, FMG just gave us a $10 off bonus.  As for all of you cheapies out there complaining that this is too high, you obviously fail to understand the immense investment FMG is making in this project just to get it going.  The cost of creating the detailed sculpts, making the molds to make these pieces and finding a factory that will work with you in creating all of this, not to mention having to go back on some pieces to fix them (like the Italian bomber), is simply enormous.  Plus, it isn’t like FMG is sitting back like Donald Trump, just raking in cash and laughing at all of us.  They are a small company that specializes in strategy games and accessories ran by people who like to play these games as much as the rest of us do.  Heck, it isn’t like they had the money just sitting around to start this.  They had to use money from combat dice and other A&A sales to fund the start up of this project.  All FMG is trying to do here is get back the money they spent for getting Italy going and to fund the Germans.  The more Italy sets they sell, the more able they will be able to fund Germany.  So, in a way, we are ALL investors in this project.  Do you want to see German units?  Do you want to see USA?  How about Russia, or France, or Canada?  Then you HAVE to get into this now!  Try thinking of it not as “Too much money for little plastic pieces” but more as helping to assure that future nations combat pieces see the light of day, maybe even ones that you personally would like to see.  Also, I’m sure the price will eventually decline.  This is a BRAND NEW item.  Almost everything that comes out is a little higher right at first then goes down after time when the factories get used to making them and the molds are already there.  For Example:  take DVD players.  When DVDs were still new, you had to pay $500+ to get a simple DVD player – no recording, no hi-def, no blue-ray – just simple DVD playing ability.  Now days, you can get a good quality DVD player for less than $100.  It just takes a little time.  So get on the bandwagon and pay what you consider “a little more” now so we can all keep this project funded and eventually see all the nations.

I am also mostly happy with the new line-up.  Personally, I would prefer 12 of each type of tank and I would have liked to see more transports, but overall it is a fine line-up.  By the way FMG, I come up with 150 piece count too.

What are “AAA Mini Maps”?

I agree that the USA IPC level before they are at war is too high.  If they stay neutral for the full 3 rounds, they can build up a heck of a lot of equipment and troops and really be ready to go on round 4, even if they split between two fronts.  If they put it all on one side or the other, that Axis power will be doomed.  I don’t think they should be able to build quite so much before they are even in the war.

I also have a problem with how the map is drawn for USA, specifically Sea Zone 101.  The US has 2 Major ICs that can service that sea zone.  So, they could use the Eastern US IC to build 5 transports plus warships for escort and the Central US IC for 10 land units and the whole force will be ready to move all together on the next turn.  I don’t think that is right for realism or gameplay.  I think an extra sea zone should be created in the Gulf of Mexico with a line drawn from the tip of Florida to the line that separates SZ 89 from SZ 101.

Okay, I get what you all are saying.  I sometimes forget the strategic nature of this game.  Also, I realize the idea of “island blitzing” isn’t totally fair either.  Usually what I would do is if an island or shore territory was guarded with a large force, the bombardment casualties would be immediately removed but if it was only guarded by a single unit, then the casualty would get a counter-fire at the landing forces.
I totally agree with limiting the bombarding ships to equal with the number of land units attacking.  I’ve never faced the idea of having more bombardment ships than attacking land units but I can see where that would be totally unfair.

Regarding the rules for bombardment, in most or all of the later versions, I think as far back as the Revised version, it states that any casualties resulting from the bombardment are moved behind the casualty strip and can counterattack the attacking land forces before being removed.  However, in the original version of A&A, bombardment casualties were removed immediately, getting no counter attack.  I personally think that this is the correct way to deal with bombardment casualties.  My thinking on this is such:  The naval bombardment happens before your troops are even on the shore.  Therefore, any units hit by the bombardment are destroyed BEFORE there are any of your troops to shoot at.  Thus, once your troops to come ashore, there is simply one less unit for them to fight.  It just seems unrealistic to me that, for example, a Japanese infantry unit that has been hit by a battleship or cruiser bombardment will stay alive long enough for your US troops to reach the shore and shoot at them after he’s been blasted to bits.

Does anyone else use the original bombardment rules?

I kind of agree that Technology Development can be a bad investment.  Especially early on in the game.  It’s hard to risk IPCs on a maybe chance of getting the tech you want when they could be better spent on units for an attack or defense.  Then you leave yourself open to an opponent’s attack, even if you did get the tech you wanted.  In most games I’ve played, usually the only time a nation tries for a tech breakthrough is when they are pretty much already winning anyway (like if Germany controls Europe and has taken Russia out, or if the USA and UK have smashed Germany and Italy and everyone is turning on Japan).
I also don’t like the randomness of it.  It really sucks if you need Heavy Bombers for a big air attack and end up getting Super Subs or Radar.  I like the Revised version better where you direct your research.  It’s still pretty much the same chance but at least you are trying for the research you want and don’t end up with one that is useless to you.  I also use the research tokens from the Anniversary game.  That was a fantastic idea I think.
One thing I DON’T like is the way they have changed Heavy Bombers.  You use 2 dice but only get to pick one of them?  To me, that totally negates the concept of “Heavy” Bombers.  A Heavy bomber carries a bigger bomb load and therefore can get more hits in combat or cause more damage to facilities.  You still have the chance of rolling a 5 or 6 with one or even both dice, (which could represent faulty bombsights, dud bombs, bad directing, etc.) but you still should be able to count BOTH dice.  Heck, on my most recent game, I had an attack with 2 heavy bombers and 1 fighter supported TAC bomber (5 dice) and ended up rolling just 1 hit out of all of that.  So, even heavy bombers aren’t a sure thing.  Plus, they are still vulnerable to AA fire and interceptors and still only take 1 hit to down.  In my games, we will always count BOTH dice for heavy bombers.

That was when he showed a picture of the production pieces, the off-white pieces that were sent from the factory for Jeremy’s approval and /or any last minute changes.  Once those were approved, they could start mass producing the Italian units in their proper color and figure out the pricing.  Not sure why that part is taking so long, but then again I have never tried to work with a factory to make gaming pieces either.  I’m sure it can’t be too much longer before we get to order them.

I’m with you guys, mojo33 and dadler12.  I keep checking at least once a day and each time it’s like “Dang!  They are STILL not ready?”

@reloader-1:

The best idea I’ve ever heard is to have building breakpoints:

i.e, once you build 8 light tanks, you can build med tanks
once you build 8 med tanks, you can build heavy tanks.

The only problem I see with that is if one nation, say Germany, builds a bunch of tanks, they could be up to heavies in just a couple of rounds yet another nation, say USA, can’t buy as many tanks because they also have to buy navy and air force to get across the ocean to take on Germany and they will be stuck with light tanks still.
Another idea would be to go by rounds.  After X number of rounds you can upgrade to medium, after Y rounds you can upgrade to heavy.  It seems to me like that would keep things a little better balanced.

Thanks for the pic Lozmoid.  Yeah, I know I could simply go and google the images, I’ve done that before.  I just wasn’t thinking, and maybe being a bit lazy.

Hey Dr Larsen,
I really like your ideas for all these units.  Very creative yet also historically accurate.  I have a few questions:
1> Armored Infantry is the same as Mechanized Infantry, right?  (With armored cars, half-tracks, etc.)
2> The Elite Infantry, would that be a tech?
3> The Light Tank and Medium Tank Dest./SPG is assuming FMG makes those pieces, right?  Same thing with the Heavy Tank?
4> The Heavy Artillery and Heavy Tank Dest./SPG, would those also be techs?

@Lozmoid:

The question has arisen before. I remember saying that FMG had produced a Tank and a Self Propelled Gun for Italy, and I was of the opinion that they should therefore follow this trend for all the nations they produce. However, I believe FMG stated somewhere in the long thread history that they chose the Italian Semovente (SPG) because of its iconic status, and because of the limited range of Italian tanks. That said, the Italians had at lest 3 or 4 different tank designs that I can think of:

L6/40  (Light)
M13/40 (Medium)
M15/42 (Improved medium)
P-40    (Heavy)

And those are just the tanks… If there was indeed a trend going on, I would love to see the medium/heavy tank combo. But I’m more than happy with the llight/heavy combo.

The M15/42 is one I’m not familiar with.  I don’t suppose you would have a picture handy?  Or a link to one?

This is a very interesting idea.  I never really thought of a war between Japan and China/Russia with Japan NOT attacking the Brits or ANZAC.  You make a good point about Britain ignoring the fall of French Indo-China to the Japanese.  Also, if Germany never attacks Russia but concentrates on smashing France and Britain, then India, and maybe even ANZAC, could come under direct threat from Italy.  In that case, the UK would definitely not want to enter war with Japan.  If Italy did manage to capture India, then the Chinese would lose the Burma Road NO thus hurting their attempts to fight the Japs even though Italy isn’t technically at war with China.  That’s a flaw in the idea of China being in league with the European Axis countries.

So when the US enters the war at the end of round 3, they DON’T mess with Japan but move all their might over to the Atlantic to fight Germany and Italy, is this right?  That’s another interesting idea.  One problem I have seen with the US is even though they do have much greater economy, they have to split it between the Pacific and the Atlantic, which kind of cuts down the effectiveness.  If they can use all of their might and economy on just one front, Germany would have a hard time holding them back.  If they decided to re-enter the Med and go after Italy, it would be even harder for Italy to survive I think.  That might be the best way for the US in this scenario.  If the US defeated Italy, they would have Italy’s income plus their own massive wealth and that would easily out do Germany’s economy, even if Germany had Britain, France and all the European Neutrals under their belt.  On the other hand, Germany wouldn’t have to worry about an Eastern Front and could focus all their attention on holding the Americans at bay.

This offers some interesting possibilities.  I would be anxious to try this out in my next game.  Thanks for the idea.

YES!  The T-26 for Soviet Light Tank and the KV-1 or IS-2 for Soviet Heavy Tank.

I just had another idea for the German Stategic bomber.  The Focke Wulfe FW 200 Condor.
I know it was never actually used in this role but it was a four engined/four nacelle long range bomber.  The Germans used them a lot to assist U-Boats in attacking merchant shipping.  While it may not be “historically” accurate to use the FW 200 as a strategic bomber, it would be a pretty cool four engined German bomber piece.  Plus, it would be kind of nice if at least one of the Axis countries had a four engined bomber.

@DrLarsen:

One caution I have is, if they use a double-engine plane, would it look too much like the “heavy bomber” and be harder to distinguish?  (Since, that is, most of the German strategic bombers were actually double-engine medium bombers?)  It’s one thing to use the double-engine Mosquito for the UK since their other bomber is a four-engine one, but if the “heavy” is a two-engine, I’m concerned that it will be too hard to quickly distinguish the tac bomber, especially from a distance on a gameboard…

I don’t think there would be a problem telling the Me 110 from the Ju 88.  The main difference is the tail fins.  The Ju 88 had a more “normal” type of 1 vertical tail plane with 2 horizontal planes on either side.  The Me 110 had a long horizontal tail plane with twin vertical planes on each end.  Also, the Me 110 was skinnier than the Ju 88 and the wing tips were squared while the Ju 88’s wing tips were rounded.  Finally, the Me 110 was physically smaller than the Ju 88.  At the scale these pieces will be, the Me 110 should be about the same size as the WOTC Stukas, which are a fair amount smaller than the current Ju 88s.  I think it would be easy to distinguish the two on the game board.

I vote for a Light Tank + Heavy Tank for each nation.  I know that for some nations, like USA and UK, their Heavy Tanks entered service too late in the war to really see a lot of action and I’m not sure if Japan even HAD a Heavy Tank, but these are just the pieces I would like to see made.

Love those French T-34 tanks.  If they would have had T-34’s the French would have stopped the Germans.

That’s not necessarily true.  Tactics played a big role in the Germans overrunning France.  The British and French actually had more tanks than the Germans and some of the French tanks were considered superior.  Unfortunately, they didn’t mass their tanks like the Germans did and were torn apart piecemeal.  Also, the British and French commanders used outdated strategies and couldn’t cope with the rapid moving Blitzkrieg style of war that the Germans employed.  So, even if the French had T-34s, I imagine the outcome would have been pretty much the same.

Hey everyone.  There has been a lot of talk on what tanks to use for Germany.  Does anyone have an idea for the FMG Tactical bomber?  Since WOTC came out with the Stuka, I would love to see FMG make the Me 110.  Is anyone with me on this?

Jeremy said in one of his posts that after Germany, he wants to do the USA next so they aren’t far off.  I think Japan will be after the USA.
As for what units they are making, there has been a lot of talk about fighters.  I think most people are voting for the F-4 Corsair or the P-51 Mustang.  There seems to be a lot of interest in the B-24 for the Strategic bomber.  There was also some talk about what tank models to use.  The M-26 Pershing and M-5 Stuart are possibilities there.  Also the M-7 Priest and/or the M-10 Hellcat if they decide to go with a SPG/Tank Destroyer.  Other than those, I haven’t seen a lot of suggestions for unit types.  Some have posted whole lists of ideas for all the different nations in the “FMG Game Pieces Project” thread, if you want to look through all 125 pages.
I’m sure that when Germany is near completion and they are getting ready to start sculpts for the US, there will be more discussion about what types to use, maybe even some polls.