Posts made by Razor

The guy in top row, far right, stuck up one of his arms. Better than nothing.

Razor hope France will be next, and offer some infantry poses:

As for the thread topic, Razor want you to pic a sculpt for the french infantry.

@Brain:

I vote for the middle pose.

Razor think that the pose far right in this pic are closer to the present british infantry

the pose at far right in this one is good too

And since it is a new side, Razor will edit in the first pic that B.D. commented

And to the oazy ones that dont read previous page, this is the ANZAC infantry sculps suggestions

You are off topic, guys

I dont care as long as the global game is gonna be balanced and perfect.

What happened to “Blitzkrieg & Bombers” ?

Didn’t Mike Selinker join Eagle Games just to develope that WWII game ?

Suddeny the forum closed, and all we heard of was Bootleggers.

Razor think that the National Production chart is printed on both sides, so when you reach 48 points just turn the chart around, and it continue on the other side, man.

@Krieghund:

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.  Game design isn’t an easy process, Raz.  You can’t please everyone.

….that is right, Kev, butt I can mail Larry tonight and tell him my opinion of the two-hit carrier.

Ohh, Raz may even mail Greg Leeds and tell him how the silly two-hit carrier will destroy the game.

@Krieghund:

You make a good point, Razor.

You are my buddy, Kev, so you may call me “Raz”. And I do want the level of complexity that AA40 will offer, I’m just complaining that the new two-hit carrier is silly. Thats all. You could not make a game with Blockhouses, butt a two-hit carrier that are real confusing and certainly will make a lot of problems when resolving combat, yes that you could make. Terrain ? Nooo, too complex. A two-hit carrier ? yes of course. You already made ports, airfields, minor IC and major IC, so why not a two-hit carrier ? Now Razor must go figure.

@Emperor_Taiki:

But will one of the UK infantry have a Stetson hat?

Basically Razor want ANZAC infantry to look like this :

I think the naval rules and system established in AA 50 Anniversary ed. is the most perfect, and it was not neccessary to change the system again. This new two-hit carrier will make combat resolving a lot more complicated, and that is not good. Remember that this game will be played by average people, and not only some Einstein-playtesters that love challenges and like to develope new rules. Most of the players want a mainstream combat system, so we can pay attention to strategies and play. So more smites to Kev and Craig.

@djensen:

However, speculating that there is a conspiracy to get consumers to buy more than one copy of the game is a ridiculous accusation.

Plastic cost from less to nothing, so its not a money issue. It is making the mold that cost money. And they should not be afraid of putting too many units in the bag, because if I got too many units I just trash the ones I dont need. Butt if I am short of units, I’ll need to buy another copy of the game. That is the difference.

As for the conspiracy part, the company’s history will show. Every product they release got plenty of common units, and are short of the rare units. AA50 Anniversary only come with 2 Italian cruisers. Guadal was short on cruisers. BotB was short on trucks and ge fighters. D-day was short on blockhouses.

They use the same way of bussiness in the Minis. Lets say you want a Tiger tank. Then you will have to buy a Booster Pack with 8 common units, and one rare unit that may be a Tiger, or maybe not, so you need to buy lots of Booster packs before you get lucky. And the same s*it goes with their other product, Magic the Gathering, you must always buy the new cards because your old ones get obsolete after some weeks. Its not a conspiracy, its thei bussiness philosophy.

I agree with the facility units, the IC, ports and airfields, they fit on cardboard. But the AA-gun that move with the army, that should be plastic. It feels silly to move a cardboard AA-gun together with plastic tanks and artillery.

Yes, but why bother to make the ANZAC pieces if they are not nation specific molds ? Razor wants ANZAC infantry with the Stetson hats, not the brit helmets.

@Flashman:

….the Romanians being controlled by Italy and the Magyars by Germany.  These two nations hated each other and had to be separated on the eastern front.

Except it should be the other way around. Hungary was friendly to Italy, and hated Austrians. Rumania had a large ethnic german population, and was friendly to Germany.

@bennyboyg:

Why do you talk in the third person?

Because Razor come from Sweden. They all talk like that. You should know that. Now bennyboyg must stay to topic.

@shohoku201:

2. “A kamikaze may target any naval ship except transports.” I just wanted to double check to see if this is correct?

Yes of course it is correct. Do you know any incident where a kamikaze sank a cargoship ? And please let Razor amuse us with his in-depth analyze of the rational behind this rule. Okey, shohoku201, lets pretend you are an kamikaze pilot, who will crash his plane into an enemy ship, an action that is most likely to end his life. He might choose between a famous battleship or a poor tranny. Tell us, wich of the ships would you prefer to sacrife your life to sink ? This is how it works. Nobody want to die for a poor tranny.

@shohoku201:

1. “Aircraft that scramble cannot participate in another battle.”  Does this mean that those aircrafts used in a scramble cannot be used during the players normal combat/non combat movement phase?

Remember that scrambling fighters are defending. And I dont think defending units have combat and non-combat movement phases, since it is not their turn. They are just defending. It is the attacker that enjoy combat and non-combat phases. Basically fighters scrambling from island bases have the same mechanic as interceptor fighters defending during Stratecig Bombing Raids. They defend an adjacent space. I think the cause to this irresolutiones lies in the old CAP(combat air patrol) rule from the old A&A Pacific, where the cap-fighters had to move to the seazone during their non-combat phases, and land in their combat phases. I like this new rule better, man.

@Krieghund:

Nice work!  I saw only one mistake: you listed the maximum damage for a major IC as 6.  It should be 20.

Nice work, Kevin ( you may call me “Raz”). I spelled coffe over my keyboard when I read that 6 IPC damage, if that was true facts it would be end of SBR. Also that majors can be build on 2 IPC territories, that too was weird. Someone should monitore Djensen’s rewievs, since he obvious dont have the grip on it, man. And please dont smite me for telling the true.