Posts made by maverick_76

But if you think about it all the nations had a goal in mind when fighting in WWII. This only makes the game show people how they would have played out the motives these nations had at the time. Churchill once wrote in his diary that the allies had won after all when the US decided to enter the war, the UK and US are allies but first and foremost they want to see their nations be the best or have the upper hand in their own way by the time the fighting is over. The reason that Britain and USA are natural allies is they share a common economics system and both profit off each other regardless of who is really making the money. There are reasons that we are natural enemies to communism and fascism, our economies don’t mix well and therefore we don’t see eye to eye. There are reasons we care so much about the state of North Korea or Iran but could really care less about states like Darfur or Somalia. N. Korea and Iran are right next to huge economic interests for us, which can be used to better the lives of American citizens. Dafur and Somalia have nothing that begs our presence, so there are no troops there. So we see that wars are fought with real reasons in mind, remember we were not even going to battle in Europe until Hitler declared war on us because at the time our economy was pretty self sufficient and we really didn’t care one way or the other who ruled over there.

I think to do it that way you need to have National Objectives in the game, according to Hitler’s Mein Kompf (sp?), the Germans needed room to grow, which could be found in the Russian countryside. I think if we made an objective that both could fight for, one being that Russia wanted to expand it’s sphere of influence further into Europe while Germany wanted to increase the size of it’s empire Eastward, well that will inevitably cause a conflict at some point in the game, just as it did in real life. Japan’s NO would be to increase it’s sphere of influence throughout the entire Pacific and Asia, while Britain’s would be to liberate France and keep their colonial holdings in Africa, the Pacific and Asia. The US’s only NO would be to become the strongest economy by the end of the game, which can only be achieved by taking back the Pacific and liberating Western Europe to allow the export economy of the US to grow. So if we take these simple objectives and these are the only rules that the game has as far as treaties and such are concerned, we see that we get games that will be similar to WWII but also different at the same time. I think everyone wants that, games that follow the spirit of WWII but end up differently, especially if you are an Axis player, lol!

I would like to see that as well, or make the game play out as if there is no way to avoid it but for the US to enter the war, say since Japan and Germany make an alliance, if Japan attacks the US then it is on! Or make a bonus for either the Russians or the Germans if they can capture and hold the Middle East oil fields, the life blood of the blitz, fuel. That would be sure to instigate conflict between the two at some point.

Good, the Pacific is a massive beast.

Puts hand to ear

Until we see a map of Europe we really won’t know. I’ve thought about trying to put together AAE and AAP, I think I might go and have another look at it.

I still don’t think super stacks will be viable. If Japan takes all of her ships over to the Hawaiian islands then that will leave room for ANZAC to come from the South. I really think the board will be too big for a stalemate to occur.

Hopefully that is the case, and now that I have looked closer at the photos for AAP40 it does look like there are many more SZ’s and territories. Hopefully that will be the case with AAE40.

With the new size of the Pacific map it will be impossible to cover every part of the gameboard with one huge force, the size will force battlegroups instead of one giant stack.

Darn….

Most likely.

I would like to see a bullseye for ANZAC and a France flag or Red, White and Blue.

If you think of it this way, Germany took territory that basically was double the size of Germany. And they were still about 100 Km from Moscow when the winter hit. Depending on how many territories Larry wants to put in between, I would say 3-6 territories in a straight shot from Berlin to Moscow. The distance is about 900 miles, so 3-6 seems like a good number, and allows Germany to be at Russia’s capital within 2 to 3 turns.

Well if the pieces get destroyed as well then it would need to take two hits. If it supports two units then it wouldn’t make sense to have two die by getting hit once. But the more I think about it I like the idea of the blockhouse and the units it supports being destroyed all together, but it needs to be two hits.

I’m still liking the 1-1-2-(whatever the cost will be). And if the game is played accurately, then super stacks should not happen, with the game board being very large there should be lots of room to maneuver so if all of your eggs are in one basket the enemy will find it quite easy to outflank you with smaller groups. But there should be groups of naval units because one carrier all by itself without planes (even with planes!) should be suicide, in past games that was ok because at three or less you were going to at least take one of the opponent’s units with you. I just want to see the best strategy being used for best gameplay as well, which is using naval groups or task forces but super stacking should be made obsolete by the size of the board. What I meant earlier by massing units for example is like having a carrier with planes and two destroyers or a battleship, two carriers and two submarines, not 8 subs, 7 destroyers and 3 carriers fully stocked! Again though, the size of the board should negate super stacks, at least for AAP40. And AAE40 should not happen either because of the need for most units to be land based units.

@LuckyDay:

@Brain:

I am starting to warm up to your idea. I didn’t know that the planes couldn’t land after 1 hit. I kind of like that.

just for clarity, they can’t land after 2 hits either!
:-o :roll: :-D

sorry, couldn’t resist…

ROFL!

From what I understand it will stay the price it was in AA50.

I agree with IL on the Europe as a lost cause scenario. That is why if the Allies are going to be comprised of UK, US, USSR, France, ANZAC and India (Joint power like AAP) and China (controlled by the US), then I think to be fair we should have an Axis victory if three powers are taken. Classically that would be France, UK (or Joint powers ANZAC and India) and Russia. If that happened the war would continue but only in the Pacific, but really for gameplay sake I think that should be considered an Axis victory. Since the Axis are going to be comprised of Italy, Germany and Japan, the allies would need a total victory so it would be fair that way: three capitals captured for either alliance equals a victory.

Italy is good for one thing, well make that two. Attacking Africa and the Middle East, and supplying the Atlantic and Mediterranean with ships. They were and should be the breaking point for the Axis in the game. As long as Italy holds out then Germany will be a tough nut to crack, lose Italy and Germany will fall like a house of cards, so long as Russia is still alive.

That is good then, it seems like he is making the game to where the Axis must try and expand their economies as fast as possible in order to win the war. Cause that was about the only way they were going to win it in the end.