Posts made by moralecheck

@Zenosco:

My previous example in this thread may have been a bit obscure but I will hold to the fact that I felt that since both the carrier and transports attack value is 0, then there is no real sea battle between the two.  Therefore, they would just share the sea zone and there would be no cause for a retreat since there was no battle.

Sounds valid…actually, wait…it sounds more like a non-combat move to me.  To be honest this situation is very unlikely to occur in the game.  Carriers are rarely unescorted.

@Flashman:

With Hitler and Stalin around, could anyone expect to be a neutral forever?

These countries are just those lucky enough not to be attacked; it shouldn’t mean that they are effectively immune from invasion.  Why didn’t they all join the war when Poland was carved up?  Or Norway?  Or the Low Countries?

Yes, Spain could be attacked without activating Turkey; that’s why I suggest that Spain should have more defences to make the players think twice about going in.

Political activation through IPCs might be neat.  Luring Spain towards ones own side for example.  The IPCs could be cumulative towards die roll attempts with other powers trying to negate your work on their turn (I stole this from 3R’s Vichy Activation rules).

@Chompers#2:

Okay thanks for all the replies everyone.  I saw 1940 Pacific at the store and was wondering about it.  So I will buy that and then buy the europe part when it comes out and things should be cool.

Thanks

Just make sure you get the errata for Pacific 1940.  They rewrote LOTS of the rules and it seems they still are.  Also the game is short by a few tac bombers for Japan. Drop WotC an email and the will gladly send you some (and a corrected battleboard too).

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Flashman:

I’d suggest modifying this by breaking the TNs down into 8 regional or colonial factions, which are only provoked to war by an attack on another member of their own group:

1. South America (10 countries)

2. Spain & Rio de Oro

3. Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola & Mozambique

4. Switzerland

5. Sweden

6. Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan

7. Mongolian tts

8. Liberia & Sierra Leone (SL should of course be a UK tt, and Liberia was virtually an unofficial US colony, but it’s convenient to group them together)

We might put Sweden and the Swiss together, but these 2 were so independent I doubt anyone else would put out for them.

To balance this some of these countries can have their defence forces beefed up, for example some armour in Sweden or a small Spanish fleet.

Then the axis will invade spain without having to worry about the allies getting the 8 Turk inf.

I quite like the rule as is.  It keeps the game as a better reflection of the war. There were very good reasons that the “true neutrals” were not invaded by one side or the other.  This mechanic is the easiest way to reflect that.

@FieldMarshalGames:

Thank you all.  We have decided to use the AAP40 roundel.

I will post when I have more news or pictures.

Are we gonna get a different version for AAP which uses a different roundel?  :wink: :-D :-D

@knp7765:

Yeah, I know that Tunisia was historically controlled by the Vichy French/Germans.  In fact, if you want to get technical about it, the Italians didn’t really control Yugoslavia or Greece either.  It was Germany that invaded both those countries before Operation Barbarossa.  However, I needed a way to give Italy 10 IPCs so I chose those territories for Italy because I figured they were the closest to being historically accurate as I could.  In the Anniversary Game, it has Italy controlling the Balkans territory which is basically Yugoslavia and Greece and Tunisia doesn’t even show up on the map at all.

Also, going by the setup chart, there are NO Axis units at all in Libya, but there is an infantry, an artillery and a tank in Tunisia.  I wanted those to be Italian.  I guess I could have changed the setup and put those units in Libya and left Tunisia under German control with Italy only getting 9 IPCs, but I just didn’t think of that at the time.

I actually tried this as well, with Italy getting 9. I also allowed land movement from Sicily to Southern Italy and gave the Italians one inf on Sicily, with UK getting one inf on Malta to balance it.  However, those were the only changes I did, meaning Germany and Italy took their turns at the same time so, for example, they could use each others transports as their own.  I did this to minimize the impact on the game.  So the only real change was that the Axis is forced to spend it’s money at both factories, much like how the UK is handled in AAG40.  In order to maintain the balance of the game, if Italy loses it’s capital their on hand IPC’s are transfered to Germany, not the allied power.  If the Allies take Germany the German IPCs do go to the Allied power (but Italy keeps it’s own IPCS).  The real purpose of my variant was just to allow a fifth player without messing up the game as is.

I made the Sicily change as every other wargame on the market does that (the land movement thing). The british infantry was added in Malta also because adding one there was such a standard move with the bonus IPCs that it probably should have been there in the first place.

You are right about Germany having captured the balkans after Italy’s failure to do so themselves, but after that they got to Italy handle the occupation for the most part. So giving Italy the IPC’s seems fair.

EDIT: Forgot to add, during the collect income phase, Germany can give Italy up to 3 IPCS.

I wonder if simply requiring Japan to maintain a garrison (of x units or ipc value) in Manchuria, Korea and maybe Japan itself to watch over the the Russians would do the trick (no actual russian units would be required).  Failure of Japan to maintain this garrison would be a NO for China, unless Japan loses those tts.

It’s usually not an issue, otherwise high roll picks.

@Raunchy:

I voted other.

My favorite line was:

“Nuts!”

That’s not quite what he said, lol.  1940’s censorship and all.

@C_Strabala:

@Funcioneta:

Maybe Crete should be Italian and also the inf there, or you are going to have problems sending that inf to Africa

The Italians never took Crete. It was a major effort by German airborne that took Crete. In short, there should not be an Italian Infantry unit in Crete.

Tunisia should also be under German (Vichy French) control.

@Imperious:

IL, found a problem with this. If each turn is 6 months, that means transports crossing the Atlantic from E US to UK take 1 yr! Its even worse crossing Pacific ocean.

The game is not realistic and secondly, moving the units could represent multiple trips of multiple units rather than one ship making one trip.

AA40 starts in June 1940:

turn 1: June 1940-Dec 1940
turn 2: Dec 1940-May 1941
turn 3: May 1941- Dec 1941
turn 4: Dec 1941- May 1942

Now look at the political rules and plug in the start dates of the Soviet and American players and you will see a pattern.

I had been been under the assumption of a 3 month turn in the games up until AAP40.  I noted the same thing as IL in the political rules. However I think (or like to think, as it doesn’t really matter in the end) that subsequent turns are much shorter (3 months?). After Barbarossa the tempo of the war picked up massively.  Don’t forget that from June 1940 to May 1941 the German army didn’t really do much other than move into positions to invade Russia, so accelarated game time for that period makes some sense.  In my view, turns 1-4 are 6 months and then 3 months thereafter.

@i:

If I can work with the game using a german AA gun as artillery

you know the 88mm gun was a good aa gun anti armor and artillry so why would you not be ok with that? it was the best anti tank gun in ww2. so really it should get plus 1 attack or defence if the enyme force is all vehicles.

It was a great AA gun and a tip top AT gun (and was purpose built in both roles).  It was an ad hoc artillery gun.  Still good, but a 105mm would have been more appropriate.  I guess my point is it’s not necessary to use stuff that “kind of” works when there are so many choices that were a perfect fit.  It just strikes me as odd that there were so many complaints about the stuka being used as a fighter but few about this.  On the other hand, perhaps the 88 was chosen as it had a more distinctive look than a 105 would have.  The distinctive look was the reason Rob Daviau gave me for using the stuka, so I’m guessing this is it.  My favorite A&A odd choice though is the German tank on the cover of the original AAE.  It’s the 3 turreted prototype tank.  Only 3 were made and they saw action only in Norway and were not considered successful.  Didn’t take away from the game at all, but I guess the art department folks are not WW2 buffs.

This is the single nicest AA toy I have ever seen.  Very well done!

@reloader-1:

Strongly disagree with the previous poster’s comment. A “command vehicle” is not mech inf. Arguably, neither is an armored car, but it is closer to a halftrack in function. I like the choice very much - adds variety to the board.

By the way, here’s a pic of it.  It ain’t pretty, lol:

http://ww2armor.jexiste.fr/Files/Axis/Axis/1-Vehicles/Italy/9-LightVehicles/S.37/S.37.htm

@reloader-1:

Strongly disagree with the previous poster’s comment. A “command vehicle” is not mech inf. Arguably, neither is an armored car, but it is closer to a halftrack in function. I like the choice very much - adds variety to the board.

Actually it was an APC(armored personnel carrier). It was just employed as a command vehicle as they had so few.  As the game is about “what ifs”, the assumption would be more were made and they didn’t have to be kept back.  I’m not sure a why you think a recon vehicle with absolutely no passenger capacity “is closer to a halftrack in function”, but I’ll respect your opinion.  IIRC, the set also includes trucks, which will work just as well.  If I can work with the game using a german AA gun as artillery, I can work with this too.  :-D

@cressman8064:

If you have money then just buy the FMG Italian pieces, they are all unique, problem solved.

They look sure nice, don’t they?  My only complaint is that they used a turreted armored recon car for the mech inf.  Italy did actually have a an open top APC (though it was wheeled, not a half-track) that was used in the balkans as a command vehicle.  Not perfect, but it would have made a better choice IMHO.  Still…gotta have those minis!