Posts made by timerover51

@Warplayer12:

My house rule is simple: if someone invades a strict neutral, then the other strict neutrals are not pro-allies or axis. BTW: sweden is in the game strict neutral, but they give iron ore to the germans.

Sweden sold Iron Ore to the Germans, Ball Bearings to both sides, licensed the Bofors gun to the US and the UK, supplied the Allies with a V-2 that landed in Swedish territory, and sold spare aircraft engine parts to Finland for US and UK aircraft that were operated by Finland with the tacit approval of the US and UK.  In my house rules for the original Europe game, Sweden has 3 IPC that go to whoever controls Norway, while remaining neutral.

I am working on a set of rules using the Political Action Cards of the first Attack Expansion to influence neutrals one way or the other, with Turkey being the main neutral that I was thinking of, along with Thailand, and possibly Spain.

I do like the idea of grouping the neutrals into geographic blocks, as they would be most interested in intervention by one side or the other near them.  However, Brazil entered the war in August of 1942 on the side of the Allies, and the US was using Brazilian air fields for Trans-Atlantic aircraft delivery to the UK in the Middle East prior to 1942, so I am putting that in the Allied camp as soon as the US is in the war.

@Fishmoto37:

Use the plastic oil derricks from the wildcatter game as radar towers. When placed in a territory it gives advance warning whenever an attacking plane flies over said territory so that the AA gun in the territory being attacked has a +1 defense value or even allow fighters in any territory that is adjacent to the attacked territory to defend. So a string of these towers would force the attacker to fly around or to take one out with a dive bombing attack. Just a thought.

Not a bad idea, but you are getting close to the crossover between a strategic game and a tactical one.

@Warplayer12:

i was reading the newspaper, en then i get an idea: a continental war. Every continent (Europe, Asia,Africa etc.) gets their own army and fight each other

You could get the Attack and Attack Expansion game from Eagle Games and use that for your map and forces.  You have infantry, tanks, artillery, aircraft, battleships, aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines.  The combat system works considerably differently from A&A, and depending on whether you use the basic games rules or the Deluxe Expansion rules, production points work differently too, along with tech development.  I prefer the original Attack Expansion, and I am running a game using a mixture of the basic game, original Expansion, and the Deluxe expansion.  Works pretty well.

And Australia in not one territory but 5.

@Peck:

The reason USA battleships are under represented in this game is because most were old decrepit models and were no match for the “modern” units being built by other contrys of the time.

All of the US ships were modernized in the 1930s with increased deck armor, increased gun elevations, increased AA batteries, and improved fire control.  The action at Surigao Strait Strait against the Japanese Southern force of Yamashiro and Fuso was fought by 6 of the old battleships:  West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, California, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.

The West Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado mounted eight 16 inch guns, and were equivalent in everything but speed to the Japanese Nagato and Mutsu, with the California and Tennessee being viewed as the equals of the three 16 inch ships, but mounting twelve 14 inch guns.  The Idaho, Mississippi, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Arizona also mounted twelve 12 inch guns.  The Nevada and Oklahoma mounted ten 14 inch guns in 4 mounts, the Texas and New York mounted ten 14 inch guns in five twin mounts, and the Arkansas, the oldest active US battleship mounted twelve 12 inch guns.

The Yamashiro, Fuso, Ise, and Hyuga all mounted twelve 14 inch guns in 6 twin mounts, and saw virtually no combat in WW2 prior to the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where the Yamashiro and Fuso were sunk, and by which time the Ise and Hyuga had been converted into battleship-carriers, loosing two 14 inch mounts.  The most used of the Japanese battleships, the Hiei, Kirishima, Kongo, and Haruna, were originally built as battlecruisers with eight 14 inch guns, 26-28 knot speed, but only 9 inch armor.  The Hiei, as a consequence, was crippled by US heavy and light cruiser fire in the action of 13 November 1942 at Guadalcanal, taking at least 40 hits from very close range cruiser and destroyer gunfire, and then sunk the next day by US aircraft.  The Kirishima was sunk on 15 November 1942 by at least nine 16 inch hits and about forty 5 inch hits from the USS Washington and South Dakota.  Kongo was sunk by two submarine torpedoes in November of 1944, while the Haruna was sunk in the Inland Sea by US air attack in July of 1945.  The  Mutsu was destroyed by an internal ammunition explosion on June 8, 1943.

While the Texas, New York, and Arkansas were not comparable to the Japanese ships, clearly the remaining 12 US ships were at least equal to their Japanese counterparts, and superior to the Kongo=class ships in armament and armor.

The Italian ships in 1940 mounted ten 12.6 inch guns each, and had good speed but lighter armor.  Cavour was knocked out of the war completely by a single torpedo hit during the British Attack on Taranto in November of 1940.

The older British ships, dating from WW1, were the Queen Elizabeth class of 5 ships, the 5 ships of the Royal Sovereign class, and the battlecruisers Hood, Renown, and Repulse.  The 5 Royal Sovereigns never were rebuilt between the wars as completely as the Queen Elizabeth ships, the Renown, or the Repulse.  They would be more comparable to the US Texas and New York.  The Nelson and Rodney were the only post-WW1 battleships that the UK had in 1940, with the Rodney contributing in a major way to the sinking of the Bismarck.

The best single source for information on WW2 Warships is Conway’s All The World’s Fighting Ships, 1922 to 1946, and for the older WW1 ships is Conway’s All The World’s Fighting Ships, 1906 tl 1921.

I have worked up an Event Cards chart, combining a standard 52 card deck with a cross-referenced chart for the following A&A games:  Classic, Revised(2004), First Edition Pacific, and First Edition Europe.  We have been playtesting them for several years now. For added realism, I use for the card deck a set of WW2 Aircraft Recognition cards, but an standard deck can be used.  The events cover weather, technological improvements, production improvements, and one-time bonuses/windfalls.  All are based on actual WW2 data and history.  I anticipate selling the set through Historical Board Games along with my 6-player expansion rules for First Edition Pacific.

To use the deck, each player draws a card at the beginning of his turn, and the effects are checked and noted.  Technology changes take effect immediately, and may be shared with any allies, is so noted on the chart.  Weather effects take effect immediately, and last until the next turn of the drawing player.  Production improvements and one time bonuses/windfalls take effect at the end of the players turn.  Separate charts exist for the Allied and Axis player, and obviously, if an Axis player draws a card, that effect is denied to the Allied player.  The Random Events have worked well in playtesting, and so far, both the Axis and the Allies have appeared to benefit equally.

I am working on adding Italy to the first edition Europe game, so I will need to revise the Europe chart to add Italy to it, and that will result in two separate charts for the Axis for Europe, and eventually Classic and Revised as well, along with the Global Rules that I am working on.

Hasbro is a TOY company that happens to own some game companies.  They do not think like a game company.  Also, given the economy, games and toys are discretionary purchases, so their sales are going to be down.  Mayfair has a solid line of railroad games that they are building on, and many of their other games are also popular in Europe, where they were designed.  As such, they are keeping their risks down as well.

Hmmm, an interesting set of ideas.  I am planning to do the same, using the original Pacific and European games for my summer history class and historical gaming class.  I have some home rules for Pacific that I use, where I have increased the game to 6 players: the US, British India, Australia, the Netherlands East Indies, China, and Japan.  For the European Game, I am planning to add Italy, using the pieces from the Anniversary edition.  There will be theater commanders for the US and the UK in Europe and the Pacific, and a separate commander for Australia.

I do have rules for Lend-Lease, and also Lend-Lease certificates that I use.  I have modified the rules a bit for aircraft and shore bombardment, and Japanese Infantry are a bit harder to kill.  When I add Italy, it will have the option of changing sides during the game, or even staying neutral.  It does mean reworking the IPC for the Europe game, but such is life.  Should be interesting when it is finished.  I am also writing a combined rules set for the game.

@knp7765:

Well, you are right.  That 47/32 artillery piece sure does look an awful lot like the FMG Italian Artillery.  By the way, I don’t mind being corrected.  I would much rather someone come in and let me know the correct model.

I thought the Bohler 47mm AT gun was Romanian.  I got that from the A&A Minis collection “Contested Skies”.  Now that I think about it, that piece looks a lot like FMG’s piece too.

Here is what I was going by when I made my list.  Is it possible that all Italian artillery pieces kind of looked alike even if the caliber was different?

Bohler sold the 47mm gun to several European countries.  The Italians had a wide range of artillery pieces which they used, and they did not look all alike.  I am surprised that they used the Bohler gun for the artillery, but that is their decision.

I am not sure that it would be that difficult to make an A&A type of Napoleonic game.  Eagle Games makes Napoleonic figures in a variety of colors, covering infantry, cavalry, and artillery.  That covers your basic unit types, although ships would be a problem, since the only way to get sailing ships would be to get the Sid Meier Civilization military runners and cut out the ships, although that would give you additional cavalry and artillery units, so the pieces are there.

While some of Napoleon’s campaigns were over with a single battle, some, like the Spanish campaign lasted from 1809 to the 1814, while the Russians and the French sparred a couple of times prior to the disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812.  Austria kept renewing the fight on a regular basis, while the Prussians proved to be less than dependable auxiliaries.  You might want to restrict the number of infantry and cavalry units that can be raised by Great Britain, while allowing the British unlimited ship building.  Also, you probably would want to have some what of adjusting for British superiority at naval combat, along with allowing for national revolts to occur, based on either a cumulative die roll or French setbacks. You would have to play with the exact manner of creating new units, but something like the way the Chinese get to muster units based on the number of territories held would be a good starting point for infantry and cavalry units, possibly with a terrain adjustment for cavalry based on plain verses mountainous, watery (i.e. the Netherlands), or poor terrain (such as Spain).

It would take some work and development time, say 6 to 9 months, but I do not think that it is in any way impossible.

You can also check for older copies of A&A on eBay.  Otherwise, 1/72 scale plastic infantry figures can be used for additional infantry, and 1/285 scale minitanks could be used.  For ships, you could use some of the various 1/2400 scale destroyers and transport, along with 1/4800 scale battleships and aircraft carriers.  It just depends on how much you want to spend and how accurate you would like the pieces.

Interesting.  Japanese anti-submarine minefields and also surface minefields were responsible for the loss of several US subs in the Pacific.

Xeno Games Pacific at War uses an 8-sided die, and I have experimented with 10-sided to 20-sided dice.  The more options you have on the die roll, the more distinct you can make the units with respect to attack values.  When it comes to qualitative differences, I tend to go to using additional hits to destroy a unit.  Japanese infantry units normally fought to nearly the last man, so take two hits to kill.  German battleships were exceptionally difficult to sink, so take three hits to sink. These would be examples.

Eliminate Hitler in 1934, then you might not have had a WW2 in the manner that it actually took place, which would have been of far greater benefit to Germany.  The likely line up would have been UK/France/Germany/Italy against the USSR.  Now that would be an interesting A&A variant, since without major German re-armament, it is likely that the UK and France would have been a bit slower than they were.  Although it is hard to imagine how France could have been slower with respect to its army and air force.

@Rorschach:

@timerover51:

From the proceeding post, I take it that the project is a ways from completion, even for one nation?

Italy is near completion.  The rest can’t really go forward until Italy starts to sell.

Hmm, if they are depending on sales of the new units for Italy to keep the project going, they are going to have a long wait.  I cannot see that a lot of guys are going to pay on the order of $50 for different Italian sculpts.  Even $30 is a bit much.

Your event cards sound pretty similar to the random events chart that I have worked up for Classic, AA Pacific (first edition), and Revised.  I use the charts in conjunction with a standard 52 card deck, and have separate charts for the Allies and the Axis.  Each player draws one card every turn, and since the same deck is used, every time a player draws a card, that eliminates the chance of the opposite side drawing that card.  We have been using the system in my summer historical gaming class for several years and it works quite well.  The various suits represent weather effects, technology improvements, production improvements, and one-time bonuses of various types.  All of the events are based on actual events from WW2.  The one thing that I do not include is the Atomic Bomb.  The US was the only power that could have developed the Bomb within the time frame of the war.

I am still working on the set for A&A Europe, first edition.  Once I get them all polished up, I hopefully will put them out as a complete expansion set.

From the proceeding post, I take it that the project is a ways from completion, even for one nation?

The most underrated naval commander was Raymond Spruance, who assumed command at the Battle of Midway following the damage to the Yorktown, and commanded at the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June of 1944.  Overshadowed by Halsey, he never would have fallen for the Japanese carrier lure at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

As for underrated battles, probably the most decisive underrated battle was fought prior to WW2 starting, between the Japanese and the Russians at Nomohan/Khalkin-Gol on the northeastern border of Manchuria.  The Japanese decided after their shattering defeat by the Russians that it would be safer to attack south for resources to sustain the China war than to attack the Soviet Union.

The other would be the campaign to isolate Rabaul from August of 1942 through February of 1944, which aside from costing the Japanese heavily in irreplaceable warships and transports, also essentially destroyed their carrier air power far more thoroughly than the losses at Midway.

Lastly for simple unbelievable guts and determination, the low-level attack by B-24 Liberators on the Ploesti oil refineries on August 1, 1943.

If you are looking for mines, Table Tactics has mines in their Axis and Allies accessory set.

http://www.tabletactics.com/index.html

They could be used for either land or naval mine fields.

We use a mix of white and red.  Some guys prefer all white to throw, some all red, and some a mix.  I do keep thinking of going to using 10-sided dice though.

Having the US put one in Australia has proved useful on several occasions to speed reinforcements there.