Posts made by LincolnsTopHat

For a while, 1941 was the first and only game of A&A I owned, and I tried going deep into it with strategies, variant setups and all that stuff. It really doesn’t work with this game, the mechanics are just too small. Sure you can have basic stuff like “Russia should occupy West Russia and buy Infantry,” or “Germany shouldn’t do Sea Lion,” strategies, but if you play it for the chess like strategies, then you’ll quickly get bored. And once you figure out that Japan’s only purpose in the game is to maybe take Moscow, the Pacific becomes extraordinarily boring.

1941 is a fun game by its own terms; definitely offers a more realistic play time, and far easier to teach. However, if you’re looking for the type of game you can write strategy guides for, look into Anniversary Edition or 1942 Sec Edition if you haven’t already (or if you’re crazy like me, 1940 Global). 1942.2 is interesting because it’s a lot like this map (especially in Eastern Europe, the West Russia strategy holds true) except more detailed, but I’d say the Anniversary Edition is the superior of the two.

Also, I have no idea where I found it, but I stumbled across a 1942 variant for this game if you’re interested.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bjDZwCuQ04cONaGwlQsAqIKt8BkkrJ1quEerHfufaMs/edit?usp=sharing

I think people are overeacting to this.

At it’s worst, it’s a hilariously out of touch bid to increase the game’s fanbase by WOTC (seriously, the zombie theme is roughly a decade old). From what we’ve seen, it looks like an updated version of 1941 with more playability (the inclusion of cruisers and artillery is welcome), and the awkward addition of Zombies. Having played '41, I doubt the game itself will be that interesting, but it’s compatability with 1942 2nd Edition is definitely promising should the zombie thing actually work. I’m waiting on feedback before I invest.

As for it’s ‘disrespect towards ww2 veterans’, I’ll risk riling people up by saying that’s nonsense. It’s obviously not done in any air of disrespect, and will undoubtedly get some kids otherwise uninterested in history an unconventional, but still informative look at the war. I’ve taught a few history lectures, and I always try and find ways of packaging the material in a way that will resonate with the targeted audience, whether it be maps, videos, memes, etc. Heck, even the government during the war got it, look at their partnership with the rapidly growing comic book industry, which created some truly bizarre stories involving Superheroes and villains fighting on the front lines. If you think the zombies thing is new… well, check out DC Comic’s biography on Adolph Hitler’s fictional history, it basically implies he was tricked into starting the Second World War by a supervillain looking to create zombies.

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_(New_Earth)

That aside, I’m definitely hoping this is a one time thing, and the creative heads at WOTC look towards different time periods for variety instead. I mean, come on, I would play A&A: 1861 to death.

Hey Guys,

I don’t know how many of you guys are familiar with Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast, but it’s basically a lengthy series of episodes some 4-6 hours long describing historical events or subjects. He previously did a series devoted to the Eastern Front of ww2 (not currently available for free), and his series on the first World War _Blueprint For Armageddon_was what really got me hooked on that period.
Anyway, I came back from a vacation and found he’s just started a series on Japan in the Second World War called Supernova in the East. Started listening to the first episode, and so far would heavily recommend it. Yeah they’re long, but he’s an excellent storyteller and they’re pretty engaging, check it out.

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supernova-in-the-east-i/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oErYYBNCHh4

I was wondering if anyone’s ever tried creating a setup for war in 1945, or what it might look like.

So I’ve heard people talk about a strategy where Italy supports the Germans in Russia instead of focusing on it’s NO’s. I was wondering if someone could explain how exactly can openers work, and how and why they are useful.

In addition, there will be rules and a separate deck of cards you can use as an expansion for your Axis & Allies 1942 games.

Sounds interesting, though I guess that means I have to go buy 1942 SE. I wonder if there’ll be a way to put them in G40.

Happy to hear they have plans for more down the road, just hope we’ll see more 20th century (or better yet, 19th century) conflicts than undead horrors.

And for the record, nukes are cooler than chainsaw tanks.

60 to 180 minute runtime??  :x An insult to the brand

Still can’t believe this is a thing, but here goes:

What role will sea units play? Is there any way for Zombies to cross bodies of Water?

Will there be a Pacific Theatre, or just Europe?

Will there be nuclear weapons?

@Krieghund:

@djensen:

The upside is that a younger generation might see this game and become interested in the regular Axis & Allies game as well as WWII history.

Precisely.  This is the reason that Larry created A&A in the first place.

This may be controversial, but anything that gets new players interested is a good thing.

Speaking as a member of the “younger generation,” it doesn’t matter if you’re selling nazi’s, zombies, nazi zombies, star wars, or superheroes. A 6+ hour game is a 6+ hour game, and unless you dumb it down to the level of 1941, it’ll always be a game for hardcore gamers.

I mean, sure, why not, but I’d seriously rather have an American Civil War A&A, or maybe Korea/Vietnam games. I’m just saying this seems like they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel with this, while there are still plenty of good ideas out there. Still, looks intriguing.

@Trapslick:

Is there a limit to how many units any air craft carriers or transports can take?

Air Craft Carriers can carry 2 planes (Tactical Bombers or Fighters, Strategic Bombers cannot land on carriers. So the possible combinations are 2 fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, or 1 Fighter and 1 Tac Bomber). Transports can carry any 1 land unit + an infantry (so 1 infantry + tank, 1 infantry + artillery, 2 infantry, etc.)

Your basic strategy is correct (there really isn’t much Russia can do in this game but delay the inevitable and save as many troops as possible for Moscow), though I’d emphasize the UK’s immediate priority is dissuading a Sea Lion attack (easy) and establishing Naval supremacy in the Med (usually not that hard after the Taranto Raid).
I would also heavily recommend taking S. France on Germany’s first turn and looking to help the Italians in the Med. In order to win as the Axis, you need 8 Victory cities, which means you have to take either Cairo or London, and the easiest time to take these are early game before the America come’s barreling in. It’s tricky, but this game definitely isn’t friendly to the Axis powers.

If there are no troops occupying a territory, then it stays in the hands of whoever had it last (in this case Germany). America would need to send ground troops down to recapture Brazil.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LincolnsTopHat:

So it’s obvious that Sea Lion is suppose to be a possibility in game. I mean, if we’re going for historical accuracy, then the Germany’s occupation of Russia should not be as easy as it is either. Besides, Sea Lion makes the game much more interesting than the regular rush to Moscow. And if it’s clearly off the table, then there’s no reason why England can’t go 100% into Africa and crush Italy, which is also historically inaccurate (the primary reason Sea Lion wasn’t going to happen was because the British focused so much on defending the Island, while in game they can basically strip the Island and rely on Russia/US aid to keep Germany away).

Yes, it’s totally horrible that the UK can ahistorically crush Italy by spending everything in Africa. The ahistorical ability of the Axis to conquer London, Cairo, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Calcutta, and China are fine though. After all, we can’t give the historical victors a chance to win the game.

Let me get this straight, Sea Lion shouldn’t be an option because it’s ahistorical, but UK can ignore Germany and go all in on Italy because there’s plenty of ahistorical elements in the game already? Also, Europe 1940 is balanced in favor of the Allies, primarily because England can go for the kill shot on Italy early without any repercussions.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LincolnsTopHat:

Just played my first Sea Lion as Germany the other day. Basically went the same as yours did, caught the British napping and took London T2. Definitely not as easy as going all in with Russia. The UK went heavy into Africa Turn 1 (hence the sea lion), and between the residual British and French, Taranto, and the US coming in a turn early, Rome was taken by the time I reached Moscow (with better Russian play, it wouldn’t have been nearly as fast). I agree that Sea Lion bringing in Russia doesn’t make a lot of sense. Honestly, I wish there was a 10-15 ipc National Objective for Germany taking London, there’s no point in starting the game in 1940 if you’re basically punished for pulling off Sea Lion.

Germany already gets 5 IPC’s for London, and Britain’s treasury. Is that not enough reward for executing an operation that was historically impossible? If doing it in game is disadvantageous for seemingly silly reasons, perhaps it’s a good thing that a historically impossible invasion, if it can’t be made impossible in-game, can at least be made unwise.

Here’s a quote from the Designer Notes in the Europe 40 rulebook:

With the fall of France, the possibility of Operation Sea Lion�Germany�s plan to invade England�had to present itself. If it�s going to happen, it has to start on turn 2. The Brits can�t be given time to recover. Turn 3 was when Pearl Harbor would have to occur, but not before Operation Barbarossa�Germany�s invasion of the Soviet Union. This would be especially true if Sea Lion was called off.

So it’s obvious that Sea Lion is suppose to be a possibility in game. I mean, if we’re going for historical accuracy, then the Germany’s occupation of Russia should not be as easy as it is either. Besides, Sea Lion makes the game much more interesting than the regular rush to Moscow. And if it’s clearly off the table, then there’s no reason why England can’t go 100% into Africa and crush Italy, which is also historically inaccurate (the primary reason Sea Lion wasn’t going to happen was because the British focused so much on defending the Island, while in game they can basically strip the Island and rely on Russia/US aid to keep Germany away).

Just played my first Sea Lion as Germany the other day. Basically went the same as yours did, caught the British napping and took London T2. Definitely not as easy as going all in with Russia. The UK went heavy into Africa Turn 1 (hence the sea lion), and between the residual British and French, Taranto, and the US coming in a turn early, Rome was taken by the time I reached Moscow (with better Russian play, it wouldn’t have been nearly as fast). I agree that Sea Lion bringing in Russia doesn’t make a lot of sense. Honestly, I wish there was a 10-15 ipc National Objective for Germany taking London, there’s no point in starting the game in 1940 if you’re basically punished for pulling off Sea Lion.

@djensen:

Net Neutrality rules have been in effect since the Bush era, since 2010. It wasn’t until 2015 that a court struck down those rules because ISP had to be classified as Title II, that that was done to keep NN in tact.

Not true. The term “net neutrality” was coined in 2003. In 2004, the FCC encouraged ISP’s to abide by these four principles (called “Network Freedom”):
1. Freedom to access content
2. Freedom to run applications
3. Freedom to attach devices
4. Freedom to obtain service plan information

None of this was signed into law, or even an official policy, but from a speech by then Chairman Michael Powell.

In 2005, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s decision that a cable internet provider is an “information service,” (Title I) not a “telecommunication” service (Title II) in a 6-3 vote. In the same year, the FCC issued the a policy statement announcing they would adopt the following guidlines:

_� To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
their choice.

� To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

� To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that
do not harm the network.

� To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
application and service providers, and content providers._
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf

This was just a policy, however, and had no legal implications, especially since high-speed internet service classified under Title I, giving less authority over it.

In 2008, the FCC tried to enforce these guidelines legally against Comcast, but was overruled by an appeals court.

In 2010, the FCC adopted the FCC Open Internet Order, which was the first official rules regulating the internet:

_1. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user�s choice over the Internet.

2. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user�s choice.

3. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user�s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network.

4. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not deprive any of its users of the user�s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

5. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this part._
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-when-network-management-reasonable/

Key phrase here is “reasonable network management,” which is basically an open ended way of saying that the FCC gets to determine when and where these rules would be applied.

This could arguably have been the start of legal net neutrality, but after the 2014 case Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, the Court of appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the FCC’s Open Internet Order could only be applied to common carriers, basically invalidating the 2010 regulations.

Finally, in 2015, the FCC reversed it’s 2005 decision and voted to define the internet as a “telecommunications” service (Title II) instead of a “information” service (Title I), making ISP’s common carriers.

What happened in 2017 was that the Internet was again redefined as an information service (Title I). So yes, the idea of Net Neutrality has been around for a while, but it had no power until 2015. And as I said before, up until 2015 the Internet has doing more than fine fine without the government regulating it.

Just finished a game with the Europe only setup. Had to make a few modifications (changed the artillery piece in Paris to a tank and the artillery in Western Germany to a mech; pulled a few subs/tanks from my 1941 game) due to the Germany setup requiring more pieces than the game comes with. Other than that, had an absolute blast, definitely seemed balanced. Thanks.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Yes I am Canadian. If you think that destroying the internet as we know it today is something that will only happen within your own borders then you need to step outside your country for a day and see that there’s a great big world out here. As sites who can’t afford to pay the extortion die away they die away for all of us and not just you in America.

No reason why “sites who can’t afford to pay the extortion” would be closed off if they’re available internationally. Like you said, it’s a great big world out there. Besides, if  everything you and Djenson were saying about Net Neutrality is true, the good news is that America is a representative republic, where people can vote in a pro-NN president in 3 years if the repeal goes south. Now, I’m definitely not one to deny someone taking an interest in international affairs, but don’t act all triggered and lecture me about my country’s politics. Last I checked, Canada’s got plenty of it’s own for you to worry about.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

I wonder if people like you and the others who spew this BS will have the guts to admit that you were wrong when you finally realize that you advocated for allowing the corporations to steal the internet away from the people like just about everything else in this world. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion as well even if it is mindless rhetoric. The internet won’t die but it will be sham compared to what it is right now. Open your eyes.

Not really sure what corporations have “stolen” from me. I’m sitting here, on a laptop from Best Buy, on the internet via a greedy ISP, on a website I found on Google, talking to a person I know from informative video’s you produce on Youtube. And yes, my eyes are “open.” I’ve read both sides of the issue, and I find the case for keeping NN under Title II as insufficient as the case for placing it under Title II was 2 years ago.

And I repeat: What’s so apocalyptic about returning the internet back to what it was in 2015? Did I miss the huge internet blackout during that time?

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Here is a very easy explanation of what net neutrality really is for people who are fooled by the B.S. being fed to them by those who stand to benefit from the new laws and their supporters who don’t know any better but just spew the same rhetoric because of their affiliation or because they think it makes them sound smart;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oInAlTKlw64

There are many things wrong with this video, but the biggest is the guy doing it assuming that him being a network engineer makes his opinion on the legitimacy of Net Neutrality more credible. NN is a political issue that has to do with government policy towards ISP’s. It’s like someone saying their opinion on economic theory matters because they work at a bank. As to me ‘spewing rhetoric because I think it makes me sound smart’, I’m guessing it’s comments like that which is why politics were banned from these boards in the first place. However, you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Please stop spreading disinformation, you are hurting us all even if you haven’t figured that out yet.

Aren’t you Canadian?

@djensen:

When you let a monopoly ISP do whatever they want with the traffic and consumer, everything imaginable is on the table. Some are technically more difficult than others but nothing is impossible.

All an ISP is is someone who offers access to the internet in exchange for payment. When you say repealing Title II lets ISP’s “do whatever they want with the traffic and consumer,” that basically means it allows them to do what their entire business model is built on doing. As for the use of the word ‘monopoly’, there are a plenty of ISP’s out there, and no real way to block more from popping up, so I don’t see much of a monopoly. Which is good news, cause when Verison decides to charge $30 an hour for access to Netflix, you’ll know it’s time to switch over to AT&T.

@djensen:

I made an exception here for a number of reasons. First, I believe it affects the existence of this site. You may disagree but even if you disagree, you should at least concede there is still a minuscule chance of the site being affected. Second, in the US there is roughly 80% support for Net Neutrality; it’s simply not that controversial. What I didn’t expect (and I really should have) was for the minority opinion to be more complainy than the majority opinion.

If we’re going to concede to anything with a ‘miniscule’ chance of affecting the existence of the site can be discussed then that opens the door to a great deal more than Net Neutrality. Basically any major political issue, from Foreign Policy to Global Warming (depending on your opinions on those subjects).

I’m going to make a radical statement: Net Neutrality won’t cause the end of the world. I remember when people said the internet would end when Title II was passed, and nothing happened, so there might just be a chance that nothing will happen when things to back to the internet of 2015. The repeal might cause consequences down the road, it might prevent some, but as of yet it all it’s done is reversed a “fix” to a possible problem that hasn’t yet happened (definitely not at the levels you’re inferring).

@Midnight_Reaper:

@Gargantua:

{snip}
What I’m saying is that all the noise about net neutrality, is just that - noise.

It is a lot of noise, isn’t it? A whole lot of people are talking about it. But you don’t think it will affect you. So you don’t see the point.

There is a difference between a nation state seizing a web site and a corporation slow rolling you every time you try to visit a website. But the difference is moot if you can’t get to it either way. I suspect that the government is not going to shut down myISPsucks.net. But a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can keep their customers from viewing such a website.

In an example much more closer to home, a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can accept money from large corporations to shut down small sites that they don’t agree with. In such a world, if Hasbro were to be irritated at A&A.org for not always fawning over every decision made by Hasbro then Hasbro could pay ISPs to throttle down A&A.org’s bandwidth. If it took a minute for any page here to load, a lot of people would quit coming here. And in that way, Hasbro could keep their customers from viewing such a website.

You might say: “That could never happen, A&A.org is way too small for Hasbro to care about.” To which I say, I’d rather have a world where ISPs don’t have this power in the first place.

You might say: “But there’s nothing stopping ISPs from doing this before.” Before, you could sue your ISP for blocking access to your traffic. Now, all you can do is launch a campaign on the internet about what a crappy job your ISP is doing. You know, the type of website they don’t give easy access to anymore.

-Midnight_Reaper

If an ISP were to agree to a proposition from Hasbro like that, then they would be required (by law) to publicly disclose that information, creating public backlash that would undoubtedly result in more consumer money shifting to their competitors than Hasbro could ever possibly hope to compete with. As to them blocking a negative ad campaign, that would require basically shutting down every news/forum site on the internet, which for any ISP interested in staying in business is unlikely.

@Krieghund:

And what’s to stop your ISP from throttling back websites (including news services) that don’t agree with its political bent, giving you easy access to only those that do?  Ultimately, net neutrality is an issue of freedom of speech, not simply one of commerce.

Funny you should mention free speech. As a matter of fact, there is a large Free Speech battle on the internet going on right now. Only it’s not from the “Anti-Net Neutrality” crowd, it’s from corporations like Google (especially YouTube), Twitter and Facebook, all heavily in favor of Net Neutrality, and all of which censor conservative content on their sites. For example, YouTube blocks channels like PragerU (Educational, conservative content) from being accessed in school by placing them in restricted mode.

And to be perfectly honest, there should be nothing illegal about companies screening content however they want (your platform, your rules. Free Speech doesn’t apply). As long as they are legally obligated to be upfront about it, it’s up to consumers as to how they feel about it.