Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. thrasher1
    3. Best
    0% for April
    T
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 35
    • Posts 305
    • Best 63
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Best posts made by thrasher1

    • RE: Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A

      @smo63 said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:

      @RogerCooper Ok, sorry for such a long delay but here are the answers to your questions.

      1. First you must understand what Blitzing is. Blitzing is when you, pass through an unoccupied enemy controlled territory on your way to a second combat as part of your 2nd combat move as a tank. So in short, no. If it is zombie controlled, no you have to stop and fight. If it is friendly units with zombies in the territory, then you can move through but it is not a Blitz.

      But what if this area is ‘Z-controlled without any Zs present’? So the area you want to blitz through has a Z control marker on it but there are no Zs in the very area.
      I would say one then could blitz through this area…

      posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Renegade Con Virtual: Axis and Allies

      Renegade: “It is Friday now!” :)

      posted in News
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: A List of Expansions for Avalon Hill-era Axis & Allies

      @Midnight_Reaper Thanks for the kind words. I spent so much time on that site… But got so much reward from people around the world. The internet was rather new back then. It was so nice having seen it emerging…

      On Europe at War: between Axis and Allies Classic and Axis and Allies Europe no new games were released by MB/Hasbro. In that very era, say mid-80s and 2000, we were stuck with this standard Axis and Allies and… ourselves. So that is what we did: scenarios, house rules, map modifications… So many people sent me their own house rules and own scenarios.
      I guess most of it can be found through archive.org (great site BTW).

      Edit: fix typo

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: A New Axis and Allies (-like) game? Possibilities and your opinion wanted please

      @Slip-Capone ,

      Interesting ideas. So we basically got:

      (1) North Africa -only map. More campaign based. This can get close to a kind of D-day game.

      (2) A bigger map:
      (2a) All of Eastern Med: so also battling it out for say Malta, maybe even Cyprus. Allies possibly invading Italy…
      (2b) More of Africa: so maybe even including Italian East Africa (and some Vichy France / Free French areas).

      Thanks for input!

      posted in Axis & Allies Discussion & Older Games
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A

      @taamvan said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:

      @thrasher1 now i get it i agree the timing and capture of zombie territory is odd

      taamvan,

      Yes. I think AAZ rules set would be less complex if gaining control (placing a control marker) by Zs would be at the end of the game. However, this would have (at least) two implications:

      (1) The player who is losing control to Zs will lose the IPCs of that very area immediatelly.

      (2) These IPC values count to the Z apocalypse check immediatelly.

      Maybe we will hear more about the reasons why this very rule was implemented.

      posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Looking for the Xeno Games World at War Map

      Thrasher used to have a site that was a main hub of internet information on A&A and its variants, back in the day (Thrasher himself (@thrasher1 ) is a user on this site now, but his old site is now only available on the Wayback Machine).

      Thanks for the kind words.

      Thrasher’s Main site

      Thrasher’s A&A Expansions page

      Thrasher’s World at War page

      Thrasher’s World at War Maps and PBEM page (PBEM - Play By EMail, how they did it online, back in the old days)

      A very large .gif of the World at War Third Edition map

      Regarding the World at War maps:

      I own the Second Edition map. This was the more standard map with black border lines.
      Then came the Third Edition map with red border lines. I personally never saw this map. Did any of you?

      Regarding the old files on my old site:

      This page ( http://web.archive.org/web/20020527112145/http://www.wargamer.com/axisallies/ce/xeno/waw/maps/waw_maps_maps-pbem-help.html ) features two maps.

      But I * THINK * that Micheal Roberts created this ‘third edition’ map in the style of the second edition map. As both of these maps look the same and are in the ‘second editon style’. So probably he adjusted the Second Edition map to create this version of the Third Edition map As it * IS * not the real third edition map as that one had red lines…

      Anyone around in 1990s/2000s can help us out?

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: List of all different A&A playing pieces (types) for all A&A games?

      @Panther

      Thanks for moving this message/discussion to the right place.
      I really did not know where to post it.

      As many of us are looking for additional playing pieces (and this message is about playing pieces) I deceided to post it in the Marktplace subofrum.

      But thanks again.

      posted in Axis & Allies Discussion & Older Games
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A

      @Krieghund ,

      Thanks for reply. Looking foward to the FAQ.

      posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: 1950 Korea variant?

      @dishero

      You refer to this Korea game?

      https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Korean-Conflict-Map-Rules-Free-Download_p_628.html

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: My Axis & Allies collection

      Regarding the French/Chinese expansion for ‘Nova Games Axis and Allies’:

      My Nova Games game came with this counter sheet.
      No setup though…

      See: http://web.archive.org/web/20020104163044/http://www.wargamer.com/axisallies/original/nova/nova_description.html

      Image of FR/CH counter sheet: http://web.archive.org/web/20020906125332im_/http://wargamer.com/axisallies/images/nova_aa_counters.gif

      EDIT:

      Just adding this:

      This is from my defunct Axis and Allies website (see link in this very message):

      “Nova planned to release a expansion set for the game. This set would introduce France and China to the game (sounds familiar to World at War players!). The counters were produced, but the actual package was never released! This was because MB took over the game. The counter sheet as pictured on this page actually is a never released French/Chinese counter sheet (both having only halve the amount of units the original powers have).”

      If anyone every finds a kind of draft (or demo, whatever) for this French/Chinese expansion… please post info here.

      posted in Axis & Allies Discussion & Older Games
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A

      @Krieghund

      Any chance you can give your interpreation on this issue:

      https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32350/axis-allies-and-zombies-q-a/17

      (Playing two Z cards).

      posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: My Axis & Allies collection

      Wow, I did not know this French version existed:

      https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/assets/uploads/files/1623432330073-a-amp-a-mbg-fransk.jpg

      Regarding a Dutch version.

      There were Axis and Allies (Classic) games that included a Dutch version of the rule.
      But as far as I know the box was the same.
      A sticker? Maybe…

      posted in Axis & Allies Discussion & Older Games
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A

      Krieghund,

      Looking forward to further clarifications.

      Regarding ‘stacking of cards’ I think common sense indicates you play one card, implement the effects. And then play another card, implement the effects on the situation that just occured (after playing the first card).

      Again, this goes against the general principle of ‘state of the map at the beginning of the game’ dictates what you can do or not.
      ( https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32350/axis-allies-and-zombies-q-a/17 )

      posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: My Axis & Allies collection

      @aadudecphdk1981

      Again: I do not know if the ‘supplement’ to the Axis and Allies Europe (original) rules was ever included in print in the box of AAE.

      If someone has this document in paper: a photo would be nice :)

      EDIT: Just fixed a typo

      posted in Axis & Allies Discussion & Older Games
      T
      thrasher1
    • AAZ: Missing Balkan Card / No Russian port (coastal IC)

      Two more issues…

      (1) There is no Z-card for the Balkan territory. Was this intended?
      Any reason this very area was selected not to have its own card?

      (Someone also raised this in the BGG forum. So credits to this person:
      https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2119883/no-balkanss-card )

      (2) Russia has no port. No factory in a coastal area. So it cannot build new naval units.
      Question here too: was this intended?

      (And this was also brought up in the BGG forum: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2085763/industrial-complexes )
      )

      posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Back to the 80s/90s: Why no OFFICIAL expansion pack for Axis and Allies Classic?

      @the-captain

      Thans for reply, The-Captain.

      Which units you really had wanted to be part of this - hypthetical - expansion pack for Axis and Allies?

      Regarding MB/Hasbro:

      I really do not think the existence of unofficial expansions like the ones from The Gamers was a reason for them not to release an offcial pack.

      Regarding Escorts:

      We always played with escorts since we got the plastic playing pieces from Xeno Games (World at War and Europe at War).

      We placed (if I can remember correctly) one escort in:

      USSR: Soviet Far East
      Germany: Baltic Sea and Italy
      UK: UK and India
      Japan: Japan and Philipines
      USA: Westcoast and Eastcoast

      posted in Axis & Allies Discussion & Older Games
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Broken, Busted, or Both

      @taamvan said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

      Scenario; You’ve just taken Moscow. There are 12 zombies, and you have 3 German tanks.
      Opponent sends in 1 fighter. Zombies cannot hit this plane, but it prompts a Zombies Bite step. The zombies kill the 3 German tanks, but cannot kill the UK plane. Since all the defenders are dead, the plane flies home. During the next “Zombies Control Territories” step (Japan), control of Moscow is lost (>4-5 Zs there) and the Axis do not win. During the next round, they could move more units into Moscow–but the UK will prompt another punt+bunt battle at that time.

      So say this is:

      Germany takes Moscow.
      Then UK (UK’s turn comes after Germany’s) conducts this move with attacking with just a lone fighter.
      Then Japan’s turn and during PHASE 3 the Zs take control of Moscow.

      This move doesn’t require a fighter–it just requires any unit that can be sacrificed as an attacker that’s in range, where there are enough Zs to do more than 1 unit worth of kills on average (6-10 minimum). Say 12 zombies roll–thats 2 D casualties vs 1 potential Attacker casualty. If its an infantry, who cares. If its a fighter, you don’t even lose it as long as all the defenders are killed.

      Yes, 12 Zs will probably hit 2 defening units. So yes, that’'s probably two German tanks gone. Out of three. Will probably leave one German tank in Mosow.
      And that British fighter can maybe alos score a hit against these German units.
      Remember: both the attacking units hit by the Zs (as per A die roll at the special Z dice) and the defending units hit by the Zs (as per D rolled) are NOT removed immediatelly. They are hit. But just perform a regular round of combat.

      (…)

      Maybe I’m wrong–I sure didn’t come up with it, though I suspected it might be in here somewhere.

      Good you bring this up. Maybe a rules fix for this is needed. But first: please all share your ideas on HOW to counter this in the framework of the normal AAZ rules.

      posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Back to the 80s/90s: Why no OFFICIAL expansion pack for Axis and Allies Classic?

      @imperious-leader and @the-captain

      On my To Do List:

      Play Axis and Allies Classic both with Gamers Paradise Expansions and with the Enemy at the Horizon…

      With all these newer official Axis and Allies games we got the units! :)

      posted in Axis & Allies Discussion & Older Games
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Broken, Busted, or Both

      @taamvan said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

      That is a good point. I thought these were first strikes, but they are not. Nonetheless, this makes taking and holding a capital a very difficult proposition.

      No. These Z-hits are not ‘first strikes’.
      I hope people come up with ideas to counter this under the current rules.
      Remember: you often get at least some technologies during the course of the game.
      The deck includes 12 ‘get a free technology’ cards: Anti-Z Technology. And also 6 Research Mission cards. So after a few turns there is a good chance you own at least some technologies. Of course same is true for your opponents…

      Still, the basics of this strategy/issue remain unaltered by technology. It reminds me of the famous/infamous Battleship Background Fire issue. What?
      The Battleship Background Fire issue. Some versions of Axis and Allies (I include Xeno Games’s World at War and Europe at War here) have the rule that all surface ships in a seazone from which you conduct an ampibious attack (invasion) perform a ‘background fire’.
      This makes sense.

      But what happened was that some people performed the following:

      • invade an enemy-held coastal area with 1 (yes: ONE) infantry unit
      • have all these battleships and cruisers (depending of the specific version) fire
      • result: you score at least a few hits. Under some rules versions they are even removed immediatelly (without firing back)! And you only lose that one single infantry.

      So many agreed on this fix: “The number of naval units peforming background fire is limited to the amount of land units talking part in the actual landing.”

      Makes sense I would say.

      This might be an option to pursue here.

      Idea for now: “The number of casualties inflicted by the Zs on the DEFENDER is limited to the number of land units of the ATTACKER that take part in the actual combat.”

      What do you all think?

      posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
      T
      thrasher1
    • RE: Back to the 80s/90s: Why no OFFICIAL expansion pack for Axis and Allies Classic?

      @nolimit Really looking forward to play Classic Axis and Allies game with these expansions. Keep you updated.

      And to all:

      What would you have liked to be included in such an official expansion back then? (Had Hasbro/MB released one.)

      posted in Axis & Allies Discussion & Older Games
      T
      thrasher1
    • 1 / 1