I have to say that I like some of the changes and not some of the others. At first I thought they were making the allies stronger(which is not needed) but I like the changes to the USA NO. I don’t think it really stops the USA from going germany first though 15 ipc isn’t a huge loss.
True but that is still one less fully loaded transport or bomber headed to Europe.
On the bright side, at least the US NO will be split into sub-categories and it will actually give them a reason to fight in the pacific.
Nice, but he did not adress the “True Neutral” issue. It must be possible to attack a True Neutral without the rest of the world turning against you.
I agree, nor did he address the issue of the UK1 Taranto attack.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2568&start=240
I found this on Larry’s website today. What do you think of the possible changes?
wher did you fiuger this out?
several gaming sites have confirmed this, but i have no idea how the zombies will tie into the story mode. also there is speculation that black ops will tie into MW2. When the first teaser trailer of black ops was released many people speculated it was Makarov’s voice in the dark computer room.
which ones and when could hear his voice
Multiplayer info: http://www.cod7blackops.com/perks/
First trailer analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=292tCSCvFQY&feature=related
wher did you fiuger this out?
several gaming sites have confirmed this, but i have no idea how the zombies will tie into the story mode. also there is speculation that black ops will tie into MW2. When the first teaser trailer of black ops was released many people speculated it was Makarov’s voice in the dark computer room.
@Imperious:
Players can run and shoot and bunny hop like they do in COD 1 and 2 or any other game made before COD4 came out
Smoke grenades actually work and can’t be turned off in custom servers because sniper players just want to camp and shoot from miles away because they watched some movie or TV show on HBO and figured it was cool.
The gun does not recoil too much
The weapons can be picked up and spawn as well as ammo
The server does not use STEAM or Game Spy and has its own built in servers
Capture the flag is offered
It is not made by Ubisoft the worst game company ever conceived on earth
Russians are also allowed to use M16s :|.
Cant wait to play zombie mode. lol the characters you can play as are Fidel Castro, JKF, Nixon, and i forgot the other guy. Map for zombies takes place in the pentagon.
Killstreaks seem lame to me, but at least they wont be over kill like from modern warefare 2. Story mode looks okay but multiplayer is why the COD series is on the map. I learned my lesson from MW2, this time i will rent it first before buying, incase i am dissapointed.
I did not consider the possibility for building major industrial complexes on these new 3 value territories. Rather, I was simply suggesting (relatively speaking) more accurate valuations. The national totals are the same - just distributed differently. In regards to building industrial complexes (major or minor) - it appears to me that with all the forces on the board and the time contraints that the Axis are better served maximizing their build for every turn. When exactly do the Axis spend precious IPCs on extra industrial complexes? The same is true of the Allies for the most part too - they have to defend. It appears to me that the setup offers sufficient industrial complexes. To my mind, the game is won on maximizing builds for both sides and on the specific battles and die roll results. Why even bother with extra complexes (or air bases and naval bases, for that matter) or even try R & D?. Just maximize you income and your military builds.
Some players who play as Germany in AAG40 (including myself) like to build a Major IC in Romania, because it allows units to reach the Eastern front faster. Also if America captures Norway its a popular strategy to put a major IC there, and this some would argue is a game breaker (there are other post about this strategy). I agree with you that player should maximize their military builds, but in the end I agree with special forces, changing some of those territory values to 3 is asking for trouble. While history may support the cause, for gaming purposes and balance I believe they should remain the same.
Thank you docfav7 exactly what i was thinking! +1 to you
My uncle is a proud veteran who served in the American Army from the mid 1980’s to the early 1990’s (cant remember exact years.) He was stationed in Korea, Germany, and fought in Operation Desert Storm.
In Korea he told me how he would drive American generals to a secret location where they would meet the North Koreans. The first meeting the Americans brought a small flag to be placed on the table; the next meeting the Americans brought the same flag but the North Koreans brought a bigger one of their own. Pretty soon the situation got to the point where the flags had to be hung outside! When he was not driving generals to off-the-record meetings he and his unit spent most of the time patrolling, and training along the DMZ. Every morning they would jog along the DMZ and if the wind was blowing south the North Koreans would fly a plane over head (on their side) and drop pamphlets saying: “We know who you are, We know where you live, We know where your family lives….” and attempt other scare tactics in writing.
In Germany my uncle patrolled the old Berlin Wall. While patrolling the wall, the Americans were not allowed to wear their name tags, or any other items that may give away their identity. He said the Russians would literally be with feet of their faces and often times they would taunt each other. During the winter the Russians were not as well clothed as the Americans and were not given cigarettes, so my uncle and other soldiers would taunt the Russians back by exhaling smoke in their direction.
In Operation Desert Storm my uncle was a tank Commander of an M1 Abrams tank. (Prior to Desert Storm he went back to the states to train at Fort Knocks to be a tank Commander.) In the first night of the operation my uncle and his tank crew were on perimeter guard duty when they saw a “humped shape”, with a “long looking barrel” come over a hill. Thinking it was an enemy tank and receiving confirmation to open fire, my uncle’s tank fired at the object and it disappeared. The shell hit its target but it did not make the same type of explosion it should have made when normal shells hit a tank, so slowly and cautiously they approached where the object had appeared. Looking around they saw that they blew up a herd of camels!! My uncle and his crew and a good laugh for the night, but the next day he told me was far from that. On day 2 of the operation my uncle and his other fellow tank commanders engaged the Iraqis in a tank battle. My uncle did not say much about the battle only that it was a slaughter for the Iraqis, (No American tanks had been destroyed.) He did remember one part of the battle that he hesitated to tell me about… As his tank fired at an enemy tank he remembers seeing the enemy crew literary being sucked out of the tank from the explosion and flying in the air…
After desert storm he finished his remaining years stationed in Germany, again, and now is Manager for a Valve repair company. I love my uncle, and its because of him that I am reminded that war is not fun.
@ABWorsham:
@Guerrilla:
No. I just knew. Somehow I did. Now it’s deciding between the Rangers and the Giants.
GG
I wonder what the Vegas odds for the Rangers were this year?
The Rangers have had a magical fun year, started the season with a loosing slump, manager test positive for a drug test, team in bankruptcy, a catcher who is over weight hitting for a cycle.
And now they are in the World Series.
I think that instead of bombing London and other civilian targets the Germans should have focused on military targets. From what I have read the Germans nearly beat the RAF early on until they started targeting civilian targets.
lol you bring up a good point Nix, I never thought or compared the three that way. It just goes to show that ideas rotate, some make it seem better that others but in the end you have to get inspiration from somewhere.
@CWO:
Depending on the time frame in which you set your game, the answers to your four points might vary. For instance:
NATO was founded in April 1949. The People’s Republic of China was established in October 1949. So the two requirements of “NATO v.s. USSR” and “Communist Party of China will be a playable side and if successful in conquering China” would restrict your time frame to a fairly narrow window if you want both at the same time. A large-scale Nationalist-versus-Communist conflict in China would probably have to be mainly set in 1946-to-1948, which is pre-NATO, because by 1949 Mao’s Communists were probably getting the upper hand of Chiang’s Nationalists.
One way of putting a limiting factor on nukes is by choosing the time period that will give you the degree of limitation that you want. Initially, the US had a total monopoly on atomic bombs, and had a very limited number of them in stock. Then the Soviets and the British and the French and the Chinese got into the act (I can’t recall in which order). And the hydrogen bomb eventually came along too, and raised nuclear capabilities to a whole new level. Delivery systems also evolved: first bombers, followed later by various missile types, with nuclear artillery also being experimented upon. In other words, nuclear warfare capabilities become very different over time as you move forward from 1945, so you have several models from which to choose.
Similarly, the period in which you set your game might let you choose the type of guerrilla activity (or the specific insurgency war) you prefer. The insurgencies of the post-1945 period blended (to various degrees) elements of proxy warfare between the Western and Eastern power blocks with elements of anti-colonial national-liberation and/or national unification movements – Korea and Vietnam being two examples. It might depend on whether you want these conflicts to be supplementary elements on the fringes of (let’s say) a full-scale NATO/Warsaw Pact war in central Europe, or whether you want them to be the focus of the game, or whether you want them to serve as the initial trigger of a wider conflict.
You bring up very good points CWO Marc, I am now considering a name change for the variant. Would Allies v.s. USSR make more sense? As for the time frame, I am now leaning towards a 1946 scenario. I would prefer this because the units being used in the game are that of AAG and now that I think about it a 1949 would make some of those units obsolete…Okay another question I have is should Germany, Italy, Japan have any part in this? or should their original territories be occupied by allied markers? One other obstacle I am facing is what to do with nuetrals and other territories the allies did not officially occupy militarily ex. Norway, Dutch East Indies, and a couple other I can not name off the back. I appreciate your post CWO Marc, I see now this variant will require much more reasearch than I anticipated. If anyone has a link to post World War II army strengths, and where they were stationed I would appreciate it.
Like many people here in the past, I want to create a post world war II scenario for axis and allies where its NATO v.s. USSR. I would be basing this variant off of AAG 1940, but i need some ideas, suggestions and criticism.
1. All countries will be playable from AAG 1940 except for Germany, Italy, Japan.
2. Communist Party of China will be a playable side and if successful in conquering China will be able to build regular Units like any other country. (ex Aircraft carries ext…)
3. Some sort of Nuke rules…for balance sake I am thinking there should be a limit in the number of nukes allowed to be used
4. (And perhaps the rule i need help most with) Some sort of uprising rule. Ex. West Indies (Cuba) and other countries can come under attack from guerrillas? and if they are successful take sides with however sponsored them? I may be going a little over board but any feed back would be appreciated.
I find that AA guns are worth buying than previous versions. before it was rare if anyone bought an AA gun, seeing as how (in my games) they just sat there with their IC counterparts. In AAP40 AA guns can save China! As the british player I always move an AA gun to Yunnan.
I am not exactly sure what the future of A&A is now that AAG40 has been released but for future Global games I would like the following
1 - 1939. All A&A games start from either 1940-1942. How about having one starting at 1939? With this starting year you could have Poland as a playable side :-D. Or make it a Pro-Allies neutral.
2 - LOGISTICS. before going to war this is should be your number one priority. I am not sure how but I would like to see some form of logistics come into play.
3 - Fuel. This could go under logistics but the introduction of oil fields would be awesome. (I like the ones on IL’s map)
4 - Better Neutral Rules. Instead of having a universal “strick neutral” rules, what would make things interesting would be a system were both axis, and allies bid for specific nations to come to their side. (this would mean giving neutrals more realistic armies)
5 - Railroads. Just like Naval and Air Bases a rail road would grant certain abilities to land units.
I know some of these can already be implemented in AAG40 with house rules but these are just some thoughts…what are yours?
@The:
What do people think is better Halo or Call of Duty?
Xbox is better than PS3 cause you can get both in Xbox but only Cod on PS3
If it were not for Halo, or Gears of War I would own a PS3
@Imperious:
P.S. I hate being quick scoped or No Scoped in either game
Thats why you don’t play anything past COD2. I don’t even consider COD3,4,4 modern even a COD product.
To me its just like Axis and Allies Miniatures. A product that stole the COD name to sell more copies to pique interest as another COD product. The problem is COD 1 and 2 and completely different than any other COD product. They are actually fun and the game defeats all the sniper types in favor of the bunny hoppers and spray guns. Its called SMOKE and it totally defeats them. Oh that and the MP44, MP40, or Thompson.
I used to smoke the front of the machine guns, then mow down tons of guys and the long range peeps could not do anything because they could not see me. And i knew where they had set up their camping spots and killed them faster than they got me.
Could not agree with you more