Posts made by lnmajor

Bombers should be 15 ipc. Tacs should be 12ipc. And everyone dont freakout but in my opinion, fighters should be 6 ipc. Tacs should basically replace what the fighter was but better and the fighter should be more in line to what a tank or sub costs and an more expendable unit.

That would save space for sure. this is actually important becouse of the map size of AAG40 and the time it takes to play. I have a dedicated room in my house i can set up my AA game and leave it standing for as long as a choose. not everyone has that luxuary. if your garage aint heated and air conditioned that could suck too.

OK, serious question;
Does anybody think that by having different classes of tanks, artillery, infantry , planes ,etc. opens up the inevitable fact that the combat system would have to be expanded to a 12d system to accommidate all these units. the 6d system seems stretched to the max to me. what do you think?

OUCH! :?

I use original MB carriers as escort carriers 8-)

I use original MB carriers as escort carriers 8-)

@AA_fourlife:

ever try an AA game with the board on the wall, then use magnets on all units?  Saves space.

Have you done this? People have been suggesting this to me for like 20 yrs and i would just laugh! tell me you really did this.

Absolute genius!
nuff said. :-)

This is above and beyond expectations! All hail FMG!!
Next you will tell us that your planes can be suspended in air above the gameboard with opposing magnetic fields. :-o

Please playtest and post results. I never had much luck trying this strategy but it  might be different in Global. If it works, Jap bombers could reach W US and that would be dangerous for US

@Chompers#2:

I want to try doing Pearl Harbor and forcing the Amercians to Spend money in the Pacifc.  It will slow Japan down but will also decrease the force in which American can show up in Europe.  It would be hard for America to retake the island if Japan reinforced it with Fighters that could be scrambled.

I agree with you about taking US focus off Europe is a good strategy. I havent played Global yet but taking Hawaii might be a viable and demoralizing move to pull on your US opponent, actually being able to hold it might be alot harder than your making it sound. Any good US player will bring the full economic hammer down on a Japanese occupied Hawaii 2 SZ away from its mainland and you think you can hold that? With your main supply lines 4 SZ away that is quite a feat. At best you will spend every last dollar trying to hold it and US will outspend you in the end. Better strategy, hit the US fleets were ever you can and fall back. hit and run is the best strategy let the US sail across the Pacific and come after you in your territory

What he said  :-D

What he said :-D

:-DLOL

No ,
i was just making a general statment. i have used this strategy in the past with a fairly high degree of success. i had it used on me in a game years ago and learned. it was a bitch.

@Tavenier:

Just an hour ago we finished a global game. Allies won, even though the Axis had the dice on their side. We had the new set up from Canuck/Larry.

In it Malta wasn’t really critical, but significant nonetheless. The UK landed a FTR there on UK3. The Italian navy was king in the med sea, but with that move on Malta Italy had to alter their plans. That fighter had to be destroyed because of its central location and ability to kill trannies, DD’s of maybe a CL. Italy ‘lost’ a turn because it had to invade Malta (with 1 inf, 1 art, 1 tr and 1 BB>SB). I needed that force to invade Egypt, which got postponed an entire turn.

Exactly how Malta should playout. Italy had to distract itself from N africa for 1 turn or deal with that annoying “mesquito” fighter sinking transports in hit and runs. Also if UK had time to renforce Malta with infantry tranported by bombers, UK could maybe hold on and the bombers could wreck havic in N africa and the MED

Yes we want big boards, but lets face it your tanks are out of scale with the other ground troop pieces. I just dont get the infantry sorry. :| I think a real oppertunity missed here. If you change what your doing in the future, I will happily buy your products.
Things needed:
anti-tank guns
German Rail Gun
Fixed artillery gun (like Singapore 1942 game)
Coastal defense guns
blockhouses
Rail stations
Kayusha rockets and German V2 rockets

@supermestizo:

Hi

Here is what I will do, You can rail as many Ground Units as you want in the Non-Combat-Movement.
But only units that have not moved. It is also restricted to territories you have owned in the beginning of your turn!
It is also restricted to the territories IPC value, a territory can only rail / receive the same amount of units as the IPC value!
A territory with IPC value of example 5, can rail up to 5 ground units or receive up to 5 ground units!
A unit can only rail through, up to 4 territories!, and they have to link.

Another way to solve this is that you can rail from/to territories that have a Major or Minor Industrial Complex.
What are you thoughts about this?, do you think railway should be included in the game?

That sounds like it could work fine.

Take PDL file to professional printing service.

" Larry is smarter than you are"?
dont agree with that statement. Not to take anything away from Larry. He is the original inventor, but many rules and concepts introduced in AAG40 have been being used for like 10yrs already by players on this forum including myself. Some like Deathhead and IL have desigened their own games that rival or maybe even exceed AAG40 in many ways. I myself have written an “advanced” rulebook for AA that has rules and concepts that i have used and playtested for years that just have begun to be introduced in AA50 and AAG40.
So, no Larry is not smarter than us, just better at marketing. think about this, we on this forum do this for a hobby, Larry does this for a living with a test player support group “advisors”. Who does he go to when he needs his games fixed?