Topics created by Krieghund

Black_Elk, you make a ver sound argument and I am behid you 100%. I will be introducing Artillery to the purchase new units phase of my 1941 games from now on. Whose stupid idea was it to remove this cheap and highly useful unit from the game?!

got-cha…

If you have no headway with that i could just go to a mates house and see if his connection lets me. NBD.

On page 5

Shouldn’t “fighter” be replaced with “cruiser” in the first line of the answer. The defender has a sub and cruiser, the attacker has the fighter.

Q. Assume there’s a sea zone that contains an enemy sub and cruiser, and that I attack it with a destroyer and a fighter. If the defender scores two hits in the first combat round, can I take the hit from the cruiser on my destroyer, saving my fighter, since the sub can’t hit it?
A. No. Because you have a destroyer, the defender’s sub rolls in Step 4 along with his or her fighter cruiser. Since both defending units roll in the same combat step and all dice are rolled in a step before applying casualties, the two hits are applied together. Therefore, you must apply both hits if possible. The only way to apply both hits is to take the cruiser hit on the fighter and the sub hit on the destroyer.

I got my pieces a month ago and they came in a huge envelope with bubble wrap.  The pieces were all fine and the battlestrip was perfect. All postage was paid

Well we definitely agree that neutrals should reply as a state or “entity” etc.  rather than disjointed tribes.

This is awesome news!

Will AAE40 & AAP40 have the same rules as AA50 in terms of:

transports

submarines

prices

Between A&A (MB), AAE, AAP and Revised, we had four different sets of rules for transports and likewise for submarines.  :?   
It was okay when I owned all four and used to play all the time.  But for people who don’t play that often or who won’t own all of AA50, AA42, AAP40, and AAE40, it would really help to comfortably go from one game to the next if the basic rules are standardized.

Here’s hoping.

@Sime:

I recently upgraded to a bigger board, but before that I was thinking about using those thin business card sized fridge magnets (the kind that some businesses give away for free) to hold the board in place.  I was going to cut 6 of them in half and glue them to the back of the boards like in this diagram (the black rectangles are the magnet halves in case it wasn’t obvious).

I was then going to use 6 more (uncut) magnets as joiners, connecting the boards.

I think would help stop warping at the edges where the magnets are so you can easily slide navies or armies over those sections without having to pick up the navies/armies and place them on the other side of the edge.

Although I didn’t have a pretty picture, I had essentially the same idea.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12827.15

I’m not exactly sure how refrigerator magnets work, but in general when you break a magnet with a north and south pole into two pieces you get two new magnets (each with their own north and south pole). This is because there are no magnetic monopoles as a result of one of Maxwell’s equations $\nabla\cdot\vec{B}=0$. If refrigerator magnets work like this, then only half of each magnet that is cut in half will be attracted to the un-cut magnet holding the board together; the other half will repel. However, I don’t think this is how refrigerator magnets work. I think they’re made up of a bunch of little dipoles and your idea should work fine. However, might a rigid, thin strip of a ferromagnetic metal such as iron or steel serve as a better spine(s)?

@murraymoto:

new can of worms, yeah–here’s a tangent that looking at historical map gave me.  the odds of getting the axis to repeat the same penetration in the game as history according to the pg 6 map would have to be astronomical.  Supplies would never make it along the road(s) without the allies dropping supply dumps all over that the axis swoop up.

True, and that’s probably the final (and biggest) nail in the coffin for this idea.  There’s only one good path for Axis Supplies through the middle of the board, and it would be very vulnerable to disruption.  Thanks for your input, guys!

Before I play my first game, I’ll be sure to read this!

Thanks

@a44bigdog:

Nerfing IFP REALLY screws the UK. Their normal location for an IC is S. Africa. Sometimes, Australian can be an option if things go right.

India?

LOL what a joke. Japan takes India way too easily.

And as far as repairing damage I don’t think I have ever seen damage to S. Africa. Kiangsu and Manchuria may have been damaged in one extremely funky game but so were the US ICs in Algeria and Libya that would be worthless with the new rules.

I think the best solution is to just ignore this change I know I will be.

I have to agree with you. Although I wouldn’t be opposed to limiting the 1 IPC territories to +1 build capability instead of +2.

BUMP

can we possibly sticky this, as it is helpful?

Why do I not enjoy ?  :oops:

no it does not.

your doing good work BTW.

@Krieghund:

I’ve posted a variant for Hidden Submarine Movement over at BGG.  Have a look, and let me know what you think.

Sounds good. I like it. :)
Now you can use your sub and sneak up enemy forces behind the “front line”. And only the possibility that a lonely destroyer could be escort by some subs can bring some confusion to the other player.

And if I had the chance to secretly deploy a newly build sub … perhaps with a secret stack of supply tokens? The other player knows that I have supply tokens in that stack and knows how much I have put inside, but don’t know whether I use these token for deploying or not …