Posts made by Midnight_Reaper

@SS:

Ok. I was just going off your post of 12 cruiser.

Fair enough. What do you think of a 3/3/2/12 naval unit, besides ‘12 IPCs may be too high of a cost’?

-Midnight_Reaper

Here is 2 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

Paratroopers
Unit Name    IPC Cost ATK DEF MOVE Notes
Paratroopers      4       1*   2     1     Noted by Country Marker disc beneath an Infantry.

• Paratroopers attack increases to 2 when doing an Airborne Assault.

Cargo Planes
Unit Name      IPC Cost ATK DEF MOVE Notes
Air Transport       8        0     1     6     Noted by Country Marker disc beneath Fighter or Bomber. Can carry one Infantry or Paratroopers unit. May be used to help a Paratroopers unit perform an Airborne Assault.

Paratroopers - The �Poor Bloody Infantry�, now with wings. Noted by Country Marker disc or an HBG Airborne marker beneath an Infantry. Paratroopers attack increases to 2 when doing an Airborne Assault OR when combined with Artillery. Combining both bonuses is not allowed.

Air Transport - The humble cargo aircraft, this unit has 3x the speed and 1/3 the capacity of regular Transports. Noted by Country Marker disc or an HBG Airborne marker beneath Fighter or Bomber. Used to help Paratroopers conduct Airborne Assaults.

For context, in my rule set Transports cost 8 IPCs, have a move of 2, and can carry 3 Infantry or 1 Armor and 1 Infantry.

Airborne Assault - During the Combat Movement phase, a power may declare an Airborne Assault. The territory to be attacked by the Airborne Assault must be within the range of at least one of that power’s Air Transports. (Air Transports must end their movement at a friendly territory, no different from any other Combat Movement by an aircraft unit.) Additionally, the Air Transports must be able to move to pick up the Paratroopers for the Airborne Assault as a part of its Combat Movement and then move to the territory to be attacked with the Airborne Assault while having enough movement remaining to land at a legal landing spot.
   The Air Transports conducting an Airborne Assault are subject to Anti-Aircraft Gun fire, as per normal rules. If the Air Transport is successful at arriving over the drop zone, (i.e. is not shot down by anti-aircraft fire) then the attacking unit adds a +1 to its attack roll for the duration of that battle. The Air Transport can not be taken as a casualty to satisfy a Land Combat hit taken while fighting the Airborne Assault.
   When conducting an Airborne Assault and not an Amphibious Assault at the same time against an island territory, the Paratroopers in the Airborne Assault must be escorted by an equal number of attacking aircraft. When conducting an Airborne Assault and an Amphibious Assault at the same time against an island territory, the Paratroopers in the Airborne Assault must be escorted by an equal number of attacking aircraft and ground units. (The total number of the ground units being landed with the Amphibious Assault and attacking aircraft must be equal to or greater than the number of Paratroopers being moved to attack.) For the purposes of these rules, neither Japan nor the United Kingdom count as an island, regardless of other island-like attributes these two territories may have. When conducting an Airborne Assault against an land territory that is not an island, the Paratroopers in the Airborne Assault must be escorted by an equal number of attacking ground units.

What do you all think?

-Midnight_Reaper

@SS:

Cruiser costs to much. Nobody buys them at that cost.
Don�t have time to crunch numbers now. Baron might chime in.
You try
Battleship C18. Carrier C14 Cruisers C10

I have C9 cruisers in my games with a A7 D7 with D12 system. They get bought a lot more now but also Dest C6 A3 D3.

To be honest, I prefer a cost set of BB 10, CV 8, CA 6, SS 4, AK 4, but “reduced costs for new units” is a discussion that I am separating from the sins and virtues of a reduced cost naval attack unit. Therefore, I bumped the cost back up to a level that most players are used to.

-Midnight_Reaper

Here is 1 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

Cruisers in Classic
Unit Name  IPC Cost ATK DEF MOVE Notes
Cruiser          12      3    3      2    Noted by Country Marker disc beneath Submarine or Transport unit. Can conduct shore bombardment during an Amphibious Invasion.

Cruiser - The lesser ships and smaller naval formations of WWII, this unit has 3/4s the offense and defense, the same movement, and 3/5s the cost of a true battleship. Cruisers can conduct amphibious invasion support fire, in the same manner as Battleships. Cruisers suffer from not being able to absorb hits as a true battleship can.

For context, in my rule set Battleships cost 20 (and can take two hits before sinking), Carriers cost 16, and Submarines and Transports cost 8.

This is not a Destroyer unit and has no special effect on Submarines. Submarines and Transports are still the cheap units for use as cannon fodder at sea, but when you need some extra punch at sea but can’t or won’t pay for a Battleship then Cruisers are your unit.

Can be marked as different from a Sub or a Trans by placing a Country Marker disc under a Sub or a Transport. Or you could import Cruisers from any later version of the game that has Cruisers. Or, if you are blessed enough to have enough to have a copy of Table Tactics ‘New World Order’ A&A Expansion, then you could use the Cruisers and Destroyers from there. Or you could use the Destroyers or the Battleships from one of the Attack expansions. Or you could play a later version of the game that has Cruisers and not worry about it, but my intent is to hone my A&A Classic house rule set until it sings and then make a set of these rules for the later versions of A&A.

What do you all think?

-Midnight_Reaper

This sounds interesting and I look forward to trying them out. I do wonder about one thing, though:

@Argothair:

China has one national objective: if, at the end of the Chinese turn, the Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan, then China collects an additional 2 IPCs.

@Argothair:

Alternate NOs
CHINA
Burma Road – Gain 3 IPCs if the Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan.

So, is it 2 or 3 IPCs to China when the Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan?

Just trying to help.

-Midnight_Reaper

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Midnight_Reaper:

Kickstarter takes your money after the funding period is over. This is because some projects do not make their funding target. When that happens, Kickstarter does not charge anybody.

In this case, War Room ends in 5 days. So, Kickstarter will charge the backers in 5 days: on Friday, 8 December.

-Midnight_Reaper

To be nitpicky, the kickstarter actually ends at 11:59 PM EST on December 8, so it’s possible you’ll be charged on December 9 instead if it’s not quick enough.

Fair enough. At any rate, you don’t get charged until the funding period is over, and not unless the initial funding goal is met.

-Midnight_Reaper

Kickstarter takes your money after the funding period is over. This is because some projects do not make their funding target. When that happens, Kickstarter does not charge anybody.

In this case, War Room ends in 5 days. So, Kickstarter will charge the backers in 5 days: on Friday, 8 December.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Schrecki:

Hello guys,
I have a question about the Unit count. For example the german have only 1 battleship (miniature) in the Box. Is that corect or is that a miss from Produktion?

Ty for answers

Schrecki

Schrecki,

Germany should have the following pieces in a new copy of A&A 1942, Second Edition
Infantry: 20, Artillery: 8, AAA: 8, Tank: 12, Fighter: 8, Bomber: 4,
Battleship: 2, Carrier: 2, Cruiser: 4, Destroyer: 6, Submarine: 6, and Transport: 6

So, if you only have 1 German Battleship, you didn’t get your full allotment. Time to call Wizards of the Coast.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Nowhere:

@Midnight_Reaper:

You say that like it’s a bad thing! :-D

It is a bad thing.

It’s a thing with no real basis in history. Whether that is a bad thing or not depends on the person watching it.

I love me some HBG sculpts, don’t get me wrong - I’ve sent quite a bit of money to Tulsa as a result. But not everyone can afford to put down a couple hundred American dollars for a complete set of completely accurate sculpts for all 10 powers (USSR, UK, USA, Germany, Japan, ANZAC, France, Italy, China, and Neutrals) available to a player with A&A Europe 1940 and A&A Pacific 1940.

And this completely overlooks the things that A&A 1941 does give to us that we did not have before: a true UK-inspired Transport, a true USSR-inspired Carrier (while the need to actually do this was likely very weak, it was still a short fall in the sculpt inventory), US P-40 Warhawks (great for the China “Flying Tigers” fighter or for putting something other than a P-38 Lightning on a Carrier), a Japanese Carrier (Akagi) from before the war started - one that actually fought in the war, and a set of WWI Battlecruisers that were still active into WWII - UK’s Hood and Japan’s Kongo class.

The full list of what you do get in a copy of 1941, with my commentary, is below:

• Tank
  German Tiger I (This is a great piece to have - Tiger tanks are an iconic part of the Wehrmacht)
  USSR IS-2 Stalin (This is another great piece to have. And other than Germany and USSR, who else is going to be building heavy tanks most of the time?)
• Fighter
  German Fw-190 (The two great WWII piston-engined German fighters were the Bf-109 and the Fw-190. Now we have both.)
  USA P-40 Warhawk (Again, this is great for both the “China Fighter” and for putting something besides P-38s on Carriers. Plus, the P-40 was widely passed around to both the UK and the USSR in Lend-Lease - making it entirely appropriate to be seen in UK Tan and USSR Maroon.)
• Bomber
  German He-111 (Again, there were two great WWII multi-piston-engined bombers used by Germany throughout the war - the Ju-88 and the He-111. Now we have both.)
  UK Lancaster (Another iconic UK Heavy Bomber like the Halifax - and the only aircraft, other than the US B-29, considered by the US Manhattan Project for delivering The Bomb when it was ready.)
• Submarine
  Japanese Kaichu type
  UK U or Undine Class
   (These were both second class, light submarines. While they might be usefully considered for a role as a “Coastal Submarine”, I think that in actual use players would have a hard time telling them apart from the other sub designs on the board.)
• Transport
  Japanese Yamazuki Maru (This adds a little spice for Japan’s transport navy.)
  UK/Can Fort Class (Mentioned above, this give the UK a Transport that the Empire built, as opposed to being limited to American Liberty Ships.)
• Destroyer
  Japanese Akizuki
  USA Sumner Class
   (These are both designs from later in the war, with changes made to the previous design to make them better at the roles their navies had in mind for them. Again, while they might be considered useful for a different role, I think that in actual use players would have a hard time telling them apart from the other destroyer designs on the board).
• Carrier
  Japanese Akagi (Mentioned above, having these corrects the historical atrocity of having Shinanos as Japan’s only carrier option.)
  USSR Kostromitinova (Also mentioned above. Russia gets its own Carrier sculpt. Like the last sculpt, UK Illustrious class Carriers in Russian maroon, these will likely sit and gather dust in the Russian player’s pile. Which is also historically accurate, as this design was never built in real life.)
• Battlecruiser / Fast Battleship
  Japanese Kongo
  UK Hood
   (Mentioned above, the Kongos and the Hood started life as Battlecruisers during or very shortly after WWI. The Kongos were rebuilt into fast battleships between the wars. The Royal Navy wanted to do the same with the Hood, but never got around to it before WWII started. Having battlecruisers for the Allies and the Axis makes for interesting possibilities. Anybody want to buy a battleship that has a move of 3, but can not take a hit before sinking?)

Are there place for criticism on this list? Sure! But I think the incessant drumbeat of negativity regarding the historical mis-matches (including Japanese Tigers and American IS-2s) tends to drown out the good things that we did get from 1941.

My 2 IPCs

-Midnight_Reaper

P.S. Edit to fix spelling

@warTorn:

Leave it to Wolfschanze to jack someone elses thread and mock the entirety of it, and get mad at a “GAME” in the process.

Which one is Wolfschanze? I don’t see that name anywhere in this thread.  :?

-Midnight_Reaper

@Nowhere:

@Midnight_Reaper:

It’s Hungry Hungry Hippos: Eastern Front edition! Now with German Tiger Is and IIs and Soviet KV-1s and IS-2s! :-D

If it’s “Hungry Hungry Hippos: 1941 edition”; Now with Japanese Tiger-Is and British and American IS-2s.

You say that like it’s a bad thing!  :-D I prefer to think of them as Heavy Tanks for all the major powers. Just because the Japanese never built Tigers doesn’t mean that they could have never done so. After all, Japan never conquered India in real life either, but that doesn’t stop Japanese players from doing so on a regular basis.

-Midnight_Reaper

@djensen:

{snip}
Unfortunately the avatar idea is trickier than it seems so:

Bronze: badge
Silver: no ads, badge
Gold: discount, no ads, badge

I think that this idea is the best of what I’ve heard so far. I think that maybe perhaps the higher tiers might need to come at a higher price if costs have increased. Right now we have:

Bronze - $10
Silver - $25
Gold - $50

I like Bronze at $10 - I contributed a little bit, here’s proof. But maybe we might think about Silver at $30 and Gold at $60. Higher tiers - get more after giving more. I know I don’t speak for everyone, but I’d chip in $60 for gold. And yes, it put my money where my mouth is, when I do send my PayPal for my gold, I’ll send $60 this year.

Also, why not a Platinum tier. Do it for, say, $100. I don’t know if I’d plop down for that, but I guess it depends on what you or someone else can think up for possible Platinum tier benefits besides a badge that might get confused for Silver…

Another idea - sign up for Patreon.com. Perhaps some people who can’t do $50 in one shot can do $5 every month - which would be $60 for you, minus whatever Patreon charges.

-Midnight_Reaper

@AAGamer:

I attacked in a 50/50 battle and lost… Oh well…

What I like about attacking is at least you are trying. Seems to be when you always sit on defense – you are waiting.

Not that defending at times is a good thing.

To me, knowing when to attack and when to defend are key things to learn on the path towards mastering A&A.

-Midnight_Reaper

Something I’d like to see is more explanation of things around here. I’d like to see, on the front page, a “New to Axis & Allies - See Here for More Information” and have that link to an article that explains A&A, explains the differences between the different versions, and then links to explanations for: How to play face to face games, how to play virtually, and the differences between the two. It doesn’t have to be huge, but it should ideally be above “the fold”, as it were.

Just something to ease newcomers into the site.

-Midnight_Reaper

@warTorn:

@Young:

@warTorn:

Looking to buy a copy of 1941

I can sell you my copy of Hungry Hungry Hippos!… it’s more expensive than 1941, but has tons more playability.

All though that is true, the Tiger tanks sculpts, among others, are pretty badass.

It’s Hungry Hungry Hippos: Eastern Front edition! Now with German Tiger Is and IIs and Soviet KV-1s and IS-2s!  :-D

-Midnight_Reaper

@barney:

Concerned for everyone else as well. Major Black Eye for the Brand. Would’ve been better if they never released it.

Hush you. I waited a long time for them to gin up a new version. It’s imperfect, what else is new? I’m just glad I could get one for myself for less than the price of a used car.

As for board warp-age, a little bit of plexiglass over the top, and Bob’s your uncle.

-Midnight-Reaper

@CWO:

@Karl7:

Ok, I rewatched the ending again.  I get it now.  But got to say, the guy who’s supposed to be Hitler doesn’t look much like him. He’s almost got blonde hair!

I once watched a couple of Russian “dramatized historical fiction” movies about WWII, made post-war but while Stalin was still in power, and I must say that the weirdest part of them was seeing Hitler and his entourage all speaking Russian with each other.

That is weird. They’re always speaking English in the movies I’ve watched. Who knew that Germans were trilingual….  :wink:

-Midnight_Reaper

P.S. Edit to fix spelling mistake.

@CWO:

I’d say it depends.  If your various HRs are designed in a modular way, with each one intended to be a “use it at your discretion” optional extra to the game, then posting them separately would be a good approach.  If, however, they’re designed as a system, with all the HRs being intended to work together in a reconceptualized and/or rebalanced version of the game, then posting them together would make more sense.

So, talking about groups of things as a middle ground? I could definitely break these rules into chunks and discuss them that way. One way to do so might be:

• Adding Cruisers to A&A Classic

• Adding a pair of new ground units to A&A Classic

• Adding optional National Advantages to balance differing skill levels to A&A Classic

• Adding a new Heavy Artillery unit to A&A, Classic or otherwise

• Adding Paratroopers and Cargo Planes to A&A, Classic or otherwise

• Adding Special Forces Unites to A&A, Classic or otherwise

• Adding optional rule for a Production Infrastructure fee to A&A, Classic or otherwise

• A new take on rule for rolling for Technology in A&A Classic, and a new Technology chart

Something like that. I’m not saying that I’m the second coming of Larry Harris, or even the second coming of Max Michael (the credited author of Max’s Advanced Rules for Axis & Allies). I’d just like a second opinion on some house rules I’ve been working on.

-Midnight_Reaper

@HBG:

@Midnight_Reaper:

The only problem I have with HBG’s new flight markers is that they stop at 6. Between long range aircraft tech and air bases, if I’m getting a set of flight range markers, I’d like them to go up to at least 8, if not 9.

But that’s me.

-Midnight_Reaper

We can add 7,8, and 9 if there are people who want them.
problem is that my guage was only designed to 6 :-o

HBG,

You know, I wouldn’t mind flight markers for a remaining range of 7, 8, or 9 and a fuel gauge that max’s out at 6. If I still have an available flight range of 7, I’d say that the tank is still full… Traditionally, one method for increasing flight range was by the use of drop tanks. When the drop tanks were emptied and discarded, the internal fuel tanks were still mostly full at that point.

In short, I would buy them (Flight Range Markers with ranges of 7, 8, and 9 on a marker with a fuel gauge that tops out at 6) if you made them.

-Midnight_Reaper

Hello Everyone,

I have been working on a collection of House Rules for A&A Classic, the Milton Bradley edition. They’ve been a work in progress since before A&A Revised came out. Yes, I know I’m late.

I would like to discuss some of the parts in my House Rules. I was wondering if it would be better to do them all in one post or to make separate posts for them all? There’s about 13 different things I was considering talking about. I figured I would ask about the expected etiquette of discussing a bunch of topics regarding House Rules for A&A Classic before I went and posted up 13 new topics. Some of these are things that have since been added to the game (Artillery, Cruisers), some are things that have been written about by others before (Paratroopers, Flying Paratroopers to the battlefield), and some are just things where I took an idea and ran way down field (such as my extended optional rules for playing with Special Forces).

The floor is yours.

-Midnight_Reaper