Posts made by Razor

@BJCard:

Germany could have won if (a lot of IFs):

5. Either NOT do Barbarossa at all or:
   -Attack in May instead of July

What, not attack Russia, are you crazy ? Have you ever read a book about WWII ? Germans have always tryed to conquer and colonize Russia, they tryed it in 1812, they startet WW I in 1914 to try it again but unfortunately France and UK interfered it. Hitler wrote “Mein kampf” in 1920 where he stated that the goal was to conquer and colonize Russia and kill all russians, and that was his casus bellum, and that was the cause that all germans supported, thats the reason they voted on him in the 1933 election. Das drang nach Ostern. The urge to go East. Hitler had nothing against brits or frenchmen, nor did he have any territorial claims in west. Hitler invaded Poland, and then UK and France started WWII because they wanted to intercept Hitler. If Hitler had said “I want to conquer Britain so German settlers can colonize that foggy island” then no Germans would have supported him ever. Germans go to war to kill slaves, not britons. Thats the case in WWII, and in WWI, and 1812, and before that too, we can go back to the mediveal, the pattern is blatant.

@BJCard:

Germany could have won if (a lot of IFs):

1. Not spread hatred about other cultures and used them to help the war effort (Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etc).

Silly suggestion. If you dont spread hatred, then you dont start wars neither. War is all about killing people you hate. And exactely how could the gypsies have supported any kind of war effort ? Gypsies are by nature independed beggars, sitting on corners with their cups. They dont work in factories, neither do they enlist in any kind of military branch.

Nahh……I dont like the plot

Hitler would never attack USA, he loved the way they treated the redskins, and he would need like 10 years to build enogh ships to sail over there.

On the other hand, he would more likely have turned on the Japanese. Yes, he had a pact with Japan, but so did he with Stalin too.

So I think IMHO “Bloodbath 1950” would be a better choice, 3 players all against all. Nazi Empire, Japanese Empire and USA. No alliances allowed, fight to the dead. Survival of the fittest combat force. Man I would love that game.

Yes, and I should have guessed so.

But then we would need a plastic piece seamine, like the one Table Tactics used to sell, and remove the mine after the Destroyer sweeped it.

The Italian look akward  :-o

@Flashman:

Britain first used tanks in 1916, a year before America entered the war.

In this game tanks can be built on the same turn, but not used effectively until after American entry.

So my proposal is the UK only can build on turn 3, everyone else a round later.

A rationale point. You smart  :wink:

But Larry had his best fans to playtest this game big time. Larry smart man too. He must have a game balance reason to do it his way. Sir, did you have like 12 buddies to playtest your suggestions some hundreds games ?

@Flashman:

Build loads of destroyers to soak up mine hits.

If you read the 1914 OOB rules, one die is rolled to each specific ship, just as the fighters cant be fodder for the Bombers during AA-gun rolls.

@Flashman:

WWII - air units were about attacking ground units, transport networks and industrial production.

Agree, a fighter should not promote all artillery to hit on 4 or less in a WWII game.

I think the OOB rule that let one artillery boost one matching infantry is a good one. I also think inf should att/def on 2/3 and art on 3/3, after all artillery barrage did inflict 70 % of the casualties in the real war. Artillery always was the King of the Battlefield.

Tanks should att/def on 2/2, but a matching fighter or Tac should boost it to att on 3 or less. Aircrafts were the flying artillery to Tanks. Each Tank should also absorb, or negate, one matching enemy hit for every round of combat, since they in fact did create a shock wave and overrun/scatteled the enemy front, making break throughs, but not being the meat grinder as the inf/art combo. During WWII all attacks with armor got lesser casualties than the classic inf/art assault

@Make_It_Round:

Air supremacy would definitely have a role to play in the WW2 scenario:

The OOB rules already covers this, since during an SBR you may commit escorting and intercepting fighters for one round of air-to-air combat.

For the ground battle I think the current OOB system is fair enogh.

For naval combat the OOB system let you park your fleet in the adjacent seazone and attack the enemy fleet with your aircrafts only, and later you can, if the enemy sunk, move your fleet in during NCM.

So why should you be allowed to target the juicy units ? In the real war this units was camoflaged during day, and only moved by night. When they was killed by air, it was because the owner choose to sacrifice them by stupid moves. The same should go for this game.

@BJCard:

The single round of attacks may make it too difficult for the Axis.� Â

I think the game turn’s should be appointet to specific seasons of the year, like summer and winter turns.

During a winter turn, you can only roll dice for one round of combat, since cold and snow makes it difficult to bring supply to the frontline.
During a summer turn you can roll dice for an unlimited rounds of combat, either until the enemey is gone, you want to retreat, or you want to end the combat but stay in the territory to make it contestet.

Obviously we will need to draw a line cross over Europe to differ the Arctic zone from the Mediterreanean zone. Of course there are no winter effect when fighting in Egypt.

@Flashman:

No retreats/strafing attacks?

I think the player should have the same options as a real commander in a real war.

1. Keep on attacking until the enemy is gone.
2. Retreat back to a friendly territory
3. End the attacking but stay in the territory and make it contestet.

The player/Commanders decision must depend on what he benefits most from, and not be decided by a silly rule that basically is designed for game balance.

The map sure looks good, and the only problems are the far too small territories on the Western Front. Its bad enough when only France and Germany contest Belgium or Picardy, imagine when UK too start to reinforce that little territory, and from turn 4 even USA and tanks need space for their stacks, in this tiny territory. Luckily Russia have some huge territories to host its lone infantry, so he’ll never get this space issue.

The difference in territory size also makes for some funny stuff, man. Like an aircraft in Berlin cant reach France in one turn, but the Russian aircraft in Moscow can easily reach the Middle East in one move. I guess Russia had developed long range aircraft already then.

I love how the Rulebook use cartoons to explain the difference between Amphibious assaults and Amphibious reinforcements. Too bad they used dark colors, so its hard to see. Maybe in next editon.

The plastic pieces were beautiful, except for the artillery, wich looked like it was liftet from Risk.

…so what is this fuss about not enough pieces, it was just enough for set-up and thats good enough, you dont need to purchase the piece you are short just to provoce. If you are short of infantry, just buy a battleship, problem solved

In that case, what would be your explanation of the cartoony sculpts ?

Why not, Einstein ?

@BJCard:

Well, that makes no sense.  Don’t think you can have Blizzard conditions in the Med/Africa/Mid East

On the WiF map they draw a line bethwen the arctic zone in the north and the mediteranean zone in the souht. Of course it wasnt blizzards in Morocco at that time, thats something new because of the global heating

Agree. I figure A&A 1914 is a simple game for kids, and G40 is an complex game for adults. Thats why

@oztea:

Winter would be
1-2 cold weather (half of your attacking infantry attack at 1)

I dont agree. When you study the war, it looks like a unit have the same combat value in both summer and winter. In summer you have minefields, but they dont work under the snow, and you can cross frozen rivers. It looks like winter and terrain effect the supply, you can only move so much supply when the road is gone under snow and ice, or through a montain pass. So it looks like a unit can do more rounds of combat during summer, and less rounds of combat during winter or in mountains.

So I say, have two turns in a year.

Winter turn - only one round of combat move and combat
Summer turn- Several rounds of combat moves and combats. Of course in Wif style. All do purchase. Then rotate on combat moves and combat like 5 or 6 times. Then all place units and collect income

I think it effect supply, so during winter you can only roll one round of combat, but in summer you can roll for several rounds of combat, just like in WiF

…or just e-mail them

“Hi you loosers in the next room etc…”