Posts made by ossel

Went ahead and bought the game…there are definitely some interesting pieces in there, but the city markers are the highlight. I will definitely be using these in my Global games to mark victory cities.

I’m also VERY interested in providing 3D models for nation-specific Victory City markers (as I’ve posted here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27911.msg1270732#msg1270732). I wonder what you guys think about that idea.

EDIT: I’ve started a thread to discuss this here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33379.0

@knp7765:

Maybe the guys at HBG could design little city pieces similar to the ones in Fortress America. Except these would have little tiny landmarks distinguishing each city:
Washington DC with a little capital building and Washington Monument
Moscow with a little Kremlin
Paris with a little Eiffel Tower
London with a little Big Ben
San Francisco with a little Golden Gate Bridge
Berlin with a little Reichstag
Rome with a little Coliseum
Honolulu with a little Pearl Harbor
I am not familiar enough with the rest of the Victory Cities architecture to note famous landmarks there. I do know that Tokyo is next to a big volcano, Mt. Fuji I believe.

I’d be interested in providing the 3D models for these if HBG or someone else had interest in making them, and if there was demand from the community. Just a thought, respond to this thread or send me a PM if there is interest.

Edit: I’ve started a thread to discuss this topic here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33379.0

@CWO:

It’s no more correct to say that the Soviet invasion of Machuria was the single factor that caused Japan to surrender (whereas other factors did not) than to argue that the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the the single factor that caused Japan to surrender (whereas other factors did not).  Japan’s capitulation was brought on by a combination of factors, so it’s simplistic to declare one to be decisive and to discount the others.  The American submarine campaign against the Japanese shipping routes had the effect, over several years, of starving Japan of oil and other vital supplies.  The American advance in the South-West Pacific and in the Central Pacific dealt Japan a succession of military defeats, thus eroding the twin myths 1) that Japanese troops and sailors and airmen were invincible, and 2) that the decadent, undisciplined, un-militaristic and soft-living Americans did not have any convictions for which they were willing to fight and die.  The American advance ultimately enabled the US, once it had seized the Marianas, to reach Japan from their air with large-scale strategic bombing missions, and in the following months they gradually burned most of Japan’s major cities to the ground.  The American capture of Okinawa, right on Japan’s doorstep, demonstrated that the US had the means and the will to mount a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands.

So: by the time of the summer of 1945, Japan was economically and militarily close to collapse.  It could still have managed to stay in the war a while longer by scraping the bottom of the barrel – much as Germany managed to stay in the war until its tropps were practically fighting back to back down the middle of a devastated Germany – but its situation was hopeless and its only two options were to either give up or to fight to the proverbial last man (including, as was envisioned by some Japanese leaders, starving civilians armed with bamboo spears) in an act of national suicide.  Japan’s leadership dithered between these two options, unable to reach a consensus.  By hesitating, they allowed the Allies to administer three massive additional blows in quick succession: Hiroshima, Manchuria and Nagasaki.  To use the trite analogy about the straws that broke the camel’s back, these blows – which were as much psychological as physical in their impact – finally gave the logjammed Japanese leadership the excuse it needed to let the Emperor make the decision for them, and gave Hirohito the excuse he needed to surrender without admitting anything more precise than the fact that “the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage” – arguably the most massive understatement in recorded history.

Well spoken, sir.

Just a heads up; the game is going for $35 on Amazon…much better price then the $80 on FFG’s website. Thinking of getting it to scavenge parts from as well…those city pieces are damn sexy.

I really don’t understand all this “house rule” talk…

The 1942 setup is APPROVED BY LARRY HARRIS!!!

It is not a house rule. It is an official alternate setup. Therefore, it should get one of the following:

• A Subforum under the G40 Board (Similar to the setups of AA50)

• Its own forum (Similar to 1939)

• A goddamned sticky

I get that ppl posting house rules in main game forums is a problem, and personally I think it should be better organized, but either way that discussion does not apply here.

WWA,
    I don’t know if I completely agree with Paul that your main focus should be 1939. I think a good thing to do would be to start with the official releases of the game, and maybe add 1939 from there once you have the foundation laid.

From someone who loves A&A and has played many of the various versions of the game, I have never personally played 1939, but my perception is that it is something that the community has created as an even more complex system than, say, 1940.

By the way, I played 1940 with a couple newbies and I mentioned that the A&A community had created an even more complex version. Their eyes almost bugged out of their heads.

“More complex than this??”  :-o

Now, that being said, I am definitely interested in a more complex version. :evil:  Can anyone point me in the direction of a sort of “beginner’s guide” to 1939?

@toblerone77:

@Yavid:

@toblerone77:

@Yavid:

I use them for the Radar tech

I thought of something similar,��  but I also have the radar dishes from Fortress America to use. That still may be a good idea for a tech though.

speaking of Fortress America is there any really good pieces a piece junkie can steal out of the game?

The city and partisan pieces are pretty good.

Do you know how many of each the game comes with? I’ve never played or purchased this one, might have to take a look.

@Yavid:

@toblerone77:

@Yavid:

I use them for the Radar tech

I thought of something similar,�  but I also have the radar dishes from Fortress America to use. That still may be a good idea for a tech though.

speaking of Fortress America is there any really good pieces a piece junkie can steal out of the game?

Those city pieces look pretty cool imo:
http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1334266_md.jpg

@Imperious:

Put all house rules threads in …ready…house rules.

That would also include some 18 threads in 1914, as well and a number that need to go to customizer, or software.

I suppose we should put the Potential Tournament Rules for 1914 in the House Rules forum as well?  :roll:

These rules have Larry Harris’ name at the top of them. They should at least have a sticky.

By the way, I played the G1942 rules this weekend. I enjoyed the setup, and it was definitely good for newer players, since the political situation is simpler.

@1Bean432:

Are we talking full-fledged rule changes or are we just changing the map around?

This particular thread is devoted to SIMPLE map changes (moving a border here or there) in order to make the OOB map more accurate to the actual borders at the time. No rules changes.

The Monroe Doctrine isn’t really a law…you can’t technically “violate” it. It’s a foreign policy.

It has historically been used by American presidents to justify actions against enemies of the U.S. (Spain in at the turn of the 20th century, the U.S.S.R. in the Cold War). I don’t think it would ever be used to justify action against an ally, especially not during the life-and-death struggle with the Axis during WWII.

An interesting idea, although I think the fact that this game only has one move phase contributes greatly to the speed of the game, which I think it needs.

I see your point though, it would enable units to be moved into battle more quickly. Would having a 4-move limit and keeping the single phase accomplish the same thing?

@sgtwiltan:

@Jermofoot:

I think this is a good thing.

We spend way too much on the military, and I find it unnecessary.  We need to lean on diplomacy and international, unified approaches to issues/crises more and breaking out the guns less.  Economic measures can be effective weapons as well.

I’m a bit sad some people want to take the A-10 away, though.

That’s what happened in WW2.
If the allies had used force to keep Germany from growing there might have never been a WW2.
“Peace in our time” didn’t work then and the US wasn’t even a player in those discussions since we felt that the Europe’s problems were not ours. And that doesn’t even take into account what was happening in China. We punished the Japanese by withholding metal scrap shipments.

I sometimes get tired of people comparing WWII geopolitical affairs to current geopolitical affairs (or even Cold War geopolitical affairs for that matter).

We exist in a completely different world than our parents and grandparents, a world of nuclear weapons and the memories of two world wars. We can’t go around saying that diplomatic efforts are a complete waste of time, because the alternative now is literally annihilation. The only wars that major (read: nuclear) powers can afford to get involved in now are local conflicts against non-aligned, non-nuclear powers.

Coupled with the fact that the globalized economy gives us greater leverage than ever to hurt other nations economically, this is why massive military spending will (and should) go by the wayside.

Opponents to this view should reference the fact that before both world wars, American military spending was borderline pathetic; the U.S. has always had the ability to quickly spin up and increase military readiness in the event of a larger conflict. Peace time military spending is a waste of resources.

@ItIsILeClerc:

I hope the OP doesn’t mind me going a little more into strategy as I understand he already got what he wished  for :wink:.

Not at all, I always enjoy reading different strategies.  :-D

Where did you buy them? I’ve been thinking of making a 18th/19th century A&A-style game for a while. Mine involves more of a world-wide map, with trading and colonization.

@FieldMarshalGames:

Big announcement in THREE WEEKS.

STAND BY

Jeremy

YISSSSS…

Will the announcement be here or on the FMG site?

I’d be surprised if you haven’t considered this, but the 2004 edition of Risk has some really nice 18th Century pieces.

Box art: http://boardgamegeek.com/image/62237/risk

Inf Piece (Far right): http://boardgamegeek.com/image/167143/risk

Cav Piece (Far Right): http://boardgamegeek.com/image/167148/risk

I know this is a long shot, but does anyone have any US or Soviet combat dice sets they would be willing to part with? I recently had the opportunity of purchasing all the other nations, and I figured I could find those two easily. I wish there was an emote for kicking myself…

Anyway, I’m willing to pay TOP DOLLAR to anyone who is willing to sell 1 set of each.

Does anyone remember Hidden & Dangerous? It was a tactical squad-based FPS that was based on SAS missions in WWII.

It was so difficult, it was basically the “Dark Souls” of WWII shooters. One wrong move would trigger the alarm for an entire base and you would die in a hail of bulletfire. None of this “one man army” Call of Duty stuff, you had to think about every move, every kill to complete the mission.

I have fond memories of sitting around a CRT monitor with a couple of my friends, blanket draped over our heads so we could see better in the night missions, knuckles white with tension. Come to think of it, our moms were probably wondering what the hell we were looking at…  :lol:

@Flashman:

Why not post a map showing your proposed changes?

Just copy one of Chacmool’s or my own maps and paste it into PAINT, then make your changes.

I’m sort of going for a higher production value than Paint…see my posts in this thread (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30390.15) for sort of the effect I’m trying to achieve. I want it to look just like the OOB map, with corrections.

As far as rail lines go, I would really like to avoid putting little lines all over the map, unless of course the consensus among the community is that they are necessary. I would much prefer a rule that simulates rail movement though, and I think the PTR are a good start.