Best posts made by Midnight_Reaper

@barnee said in Churchill-Bradley Hypothetical Incident:

@CWO-Marc also interesting how Ike has his elbow parallel to the rifle as opposed to Churchill who has his perpendicular which offers better control. Churchill did see combat though against the Boers or at least I think he did. Got captured anyways

I’ve fired an M1 Carbine, as well as other weapons of war. Proper form for control of an M1 Carbine doesn’t take near the effort as proper form for control of an M1 Garand rifle. The .30 Carbine cartridge is a piddly little thing and it isn’t going to cause the carbine jump anything like the .30-06 Springfield going through the Garand.

Just my 2 IPCs,

-Midnight_Reaper

@Patchman123 said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

How about we have the Empire ships serve as the United Kingdom player’s transport ship class?

How making a seperate British transport ship piece?

There is a separate British transport. You get 12 in every copy of A&A 1941. Mind you, only 4 are in British tan, the rest are 4 in US OD green and 4 in Soviet Maroon.

The allied transport ship in A&A 1941 is based off of Canada’s “Fort Ships”, which were a class of 198 ships made in Canadian shipyards during the war. They were essentially the Canadian answer to the US’s Liberty ships. All of the Forts were for use by the United Kingdom, those built for Canadian use were named the Park ships.

All that said, WotC has provided separate, Commonwealth-origin, British transports. They just put them in a different game.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Tizkit said in Which is the best sea unit?:

{snip}
So, to make a long story short, if you want to make an incremental change to your usual navy mix, probably get more subs. If you want to up your strategic game, study how great players use their aircraft carriers. Apologies for how long this got.

No need to apologize, I think you wrote Clegg’s essay for him… (j/k Clegg).

The only thing I would add would be to “foot stomp” on a point you made early on - “Transports are arguably the worst individual unit, but even a single transport changes the threat level of a navy completely.” Transports turn an expensive collection of steel on (or in) the water into a force that will bring an enemy empire to ruins. The money is on land, and transports are how you get to that land (and money) from elsewhere.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Paper_IPC said in Axis & Allies 1941 Trivia:

This game had a dual purpose - […] kick ass pieces for A&A nerds.

To be honest, that is one of the great things about the A&A '41 game: New Sculpts! Not just new, but also hole-filling: a UK Transport, a Russian Carrier, heavy tanks for allies and axis, a Japanese Carrier that actually did something war, a US Fighter that isn’t space-alien-shaped, Battlecruisers for allies and axis.

It’s just a shame that you get so few of them…

-Midnight_Reaper

@Valladares: I always like the way The World at War covered it, with set IPC values for neutrals and set orders of battle for each neutral. That seemed right, knowing the risks and rewards before attacking. Some neutrals had fighters and some had submarines, which was period accurate. Might have to dig out my old game information and put that up.

-Midnight_Reaper

I seriously doubt that the Red Army would have trouble trouncing the IJA in a second round. The major issues would 1) whether the Red Army could spare the manpower and supplies to carry out a proper fight against the IJA and 2) the possibility that the Red Air Force would lose access to their aircraft pipeline from the US: the ALSIB.

But I am sure that if the IJA made actual progress into the Soviet Union, it would be because the Red Army let them, so they could deal with more pressing issues.

-Midnight_Reaper

You have my interest and I am willing to subscribe to your newsletter.

-Midnight_Reaper

@AAdudeCPHDK1981 said in Just Got Axis And Allies Nova:

@Playing-Kid I have one as well :) and I am currently on the hunt for the Australian released version of the same game (the letovers that didnt sell went downunder and were reboxed - as far as I know (please correct me if someone knows something else)).

So, there is a story to all of this. I don’t guarantee that I know the whole story. I do promise that this version is what I understand to have happened.

Larry Harris sold Nova Game Designs his idea for a game about WW2. This game was called Axis & Allies. While Nova Game Designs printed more games than just this one (even more games designed by Larry Harris than this one), we will concern ourselves with just this game.

Nova Game Designs (NGD hereafter) did a print run for 5000 sets of components (sheets of colored cardboard chits for pieces, sheets with the unit stats and initial setup, map sheet, rule book, dice, box, what have you). The NGD version of the game was first sold in 1981. Sometime between 1981 and 1984, Milton Bradley bought the rights to A&A and hired Larry Harris to be a game designer for them. When Milton Bradley bought the rights to A&A, NGD could no longer sells A&A. At least, not in the US. This apparently left NGD with about 1500 sets of pieces left.

By all appearances, what NGD did then was set up a deal with JEDKO, selling the down-under games producer everything they had left of the A&A print run. JEDKO made a new box and stuffed all of the old guts into the new boxes. And so, 3500 NGD A&As (roughly) and 1500 JEDKO A&As (roughly).

If you have questions, I’ll try to answer them.

-Midnight_Reaper

If units will not be engaged in combat after the end of combat movement, than those units are not allowed to move. Only movements that result in combat are allowed to occur during combat movement.

If you want to move a unit without combat, then you can move that unit during non-combat movement, after the combat phase is done.

-Midnight_Reaper

@AcesWild5049 said in Very Hi-res AA classic board.:

@Panzerboy0191 not the classic map but very interesting. where did this come from? Is it from an old third party vendor?

This is a very interesting map. What we have here is a map for the Nova Game Designs version of A&A, done in the art style of the Milton Bradley version of A&A. If one wanted to play the Nova Game Designs version of A&A on a Milton Bradley board, with Milton Bradley pieces, this would be the map for them. Mind you, it’s not a perfect, 100% accurate port of the Nova Game Designs map. But it’s easily 90% there.

Otherwise, it’s not much more than a conversation piece.

-Midnight_Reaper

Have you considered asking your real question? Could a fully built Plan Z navy take on both the Royal Navy and the US Navy? Probably not, but interesting to consider all the same.

When you start talking about deals with the devil, ships built out of thin air, and crews that can’t be killed, I have a lot of trouble taking your questions seriously.

I can’t speak for you, but I know that come here for serious discussion about Axis and Allies gaming. Yes, alternative history and the occasional hi-jink ensues. But I am starting to consider your posts to be noise. I don’t see the substance. You ask questions and when you get told that this particular set of alternative rules is rather set in stone, you blow off the person who answers you. That person has put time and effort into refining their presentation. You would do well to consider whether you need to ask the question before you ask it.

-Midnight_Reaper

With the benefit of mulling all of this over last night into this morning, I hope you find these new critiques of mine to be helpful.

@Imperious-Leader said in 1942.2 House Rules Draft 1.1:

1942.2-- House Rules
New Units:
Light Tanks: 2-2-2 costing 5 ipc

I would ask that you consider applying the “Cavalry Withdrawal” rules that Ralph Boerke dreamed up in the '90s to your Light Tanks:

[Light Tank] Withdrawal: After one round of battle the Defender may withdraw one surviving Light Tank unit to any adjacent friendly territory. The Defender may continue to withdraw one surviving unit per round of battle so long as the battle continues. It is always allowed to take its defensive shot before it withdraws. If it is to withdraw, then it must do so before the Attacker starts the next round of battle.

This rule would help your Light Tanks work more like armored scouts, in my opinion. Whether you want your Light Tanks to work that way and whether the above rule is how you would do so is certainly up to you.

Fortifications: May be built at the cost of 3 ipc for the first level and 2 ipc each additional level and limit on build to the IPC of the territory (example: France at full capacity will be 6 levels costing 12 ipc.)

If the first level of a fortification costs 3 IPCs, wouldn’t fortifying France to six levels cost 13 IPCs?

Also, is there a limit on how quickly a territory can be fortified? Say, only 1 or 2 levels of fortification per territory per turn? In real life, the Atlantic Wall wasn’t built in just 3 months.

Technology:
Super Subs: Your subs now defend at 2, costing 7. Instead of combat and while adjacent to an enemy territory may perform an economic disruption attack by rolling two or less and if succeed, they cost the player 1 ipc. The attacks are capped by the ipc value of the area.

If your Super Subs have a different defense value and a different cost, should they be distinguished in some fashion from your regular subs? Perhaps with a special marker (maybe using HBG’s Sub Propulsion Markers) as opposed to a dedicated piece?

Heavy Bombers: 4-2-6 costing 15 ipc. These can SBR with a bonus of +2 ipc lost for each successful bombing run.

Again, if your Heavy Bombers have a different cost, a different defense value, and different SBR damage, should they be distinguished in some fashion from your regular bombers?

Jet Fighters: 4-5-4 costing 15. These units can

This rule appears to have not fully joined us today. Also, differing values and price, should they be distinguished as well?

Other Rules:
Setup Changes: Under LHTR “Gen Con Setup” Move the German Bomber to France.

Does this mean that your rule set uses the LHTR “Gen Con Setup” for setup other than the above listed change?

Also, there are a number of places where you designate that players, “Cannot have more than 6”, of a certain type of unit at any one time. While I have no problems with piece limits in general or with a limit of 6, I would consider lowering the limit to 5. I suggest 5 instead of 6 not for game balance but because HBG sells markers and pieces in sets of 5 instead of 6.

Players encouraged to maximize their opportunities may have to choose between buying too many or having too few of something when the limit is 6. I acknowledge that 6 sets of 5, split 5 ways, give all player 6 markers each. I would also point out that if players purchase nation-specific pieces, they would be back to having to choose between 5 and 10 for 6. I will concede that if you are buying sets of nation-specific pieces or markers for your A&A gaming then you might consider buying 10 of something anyways.

My 2 IPCs,

-Midnight_Reaper

In this case, Germany would take Russia’s money. This would enable Germany to produce units next turn if it controls a factory somewhere. Mind you, Germany won’t go far on one turn of someone else’s production if it can’t retake Berlin - especially as the UK and the US will come gunning for Germany now.

Clear, or clear as mud?

-Midnight_Reaper

@Panther said in Submarine non combat move-hostile zome:

@RYNO87 said in Submarine non combat move-hostile zome:

Sorry about the bump post, I’ll wait 24 hrs next time.

There is no “24 hours-rule”. Bumps are “banned” by our Forum Rules.

There are some capable users willing to help and answer your questions - so just be patient please.

:slightly_smiling_face:

Well, that explains why I rarely see “bumps” around here… Just trying to do the right thing.

-Midnight_Reaper

I answered this in his general post. It’s from WWIIE2 (World War II Expansion 2).

-Midnight_Reaper

At this far off the rails, you might as well just wish Op Sealion into success. The UK was willing to use chemical weapons to defend the UK. If the crews of your Plan Z fleet are dead, it doesn’t matter how invincible their ships might be.

-Midnight_Reaper

@nolimit said in Global 1940 2nd Edition Standard Units but with Altered Costs:

{snip} for Cruisers I give the option of upgrading them to capital warships at a cost of 5 Ipcs off a coastal Factory in placing unit phase, they would take an extra hit!!!

How do you tell the capital ship Cruisers from the regular Cruisers?

-Midnight_Reaper

@jagdpanther69 I do not know of any such rules. I’ve looked and looked. I have never found anything. I’m planning to gin some up in the new year, but they would be strictly house rules.

If you do find anything, please let me know.

-Midnight_Reaper

It’s not the same game at all, but I think that when playing A&A 1941, that taking Washington is easier than taking London as the second capital for the Axis win. Like taking Moscow, taking Washington is something both Germany and Japan can work together on. Attacking London is hard work, and it can be very difficult to get sufficient Japanese forces in place to help.

But yes, in GW 36, that doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.

-Midnight_Reaper

@djensen said in Axis and Allies MB edition: inquiry form included in the box:

@thrasher1 Looks like I forgot to ask. Given that they can’t find the Zombies setup for 1942 SE, I doubt they have a copy of this.

It was sloppy of them to miss the truncated setup for Zombies '42. It is even sloppier of them to not correct it. If people ask on BGG about this, I tell them to use the setup for standard 1942, SE, and then only modify it when the setup for Zombie '42 differs. That seems to work.

-Midnight_Reaper