Posts made by timerover51

I will simply say that I am working on it.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

@Cmdr:

My house rule was that you could get technology (pill boxes) which made your defending infantry immune to bombardments.  So to do any damage, an attacker would have to get more hits on bombardments than you had defending infantry before killing anything.

I like the idea of fortifications but, I don’t think you need to research pill boxes. Fortifications like this should be something you can just build. You woundn’t need to invent them.

The basis for my rule that you cannot kill infantry by bombardment, either naval or air, assumes that they have dug in, with overhead cover.  US tests and experience in WW2 showed that dug-in infantry with overhead cover, i.e pillbox or similar, required at least 100 times the firepower to inflict casualties on than infantry in the open.  If in rough terrain, it takes even more.  You need to have ground troops to deal with dug-in infantry.  Japanese island fortifications are a special case, but again, I do not think that any tech needs to be researched for them.  They simply made good use of manpower, hand tools, and the materials at hand.  A good description of Japanese defensive positions can be found in the Handbook on Japanese Military Forces, published in reprint by Louisiana University Press.  You can also get good information from Jack Coggins Campaign for Guadalcanal which uses illustrations from that Handbook.  The data on firepower required to inflict a specific level of casualties comes from the formerly classified Army manual, Ballistic Performance of Ammunition, 1948. The information in that manual still applies today.

@Cmdr:

My house rule was that you could get technology (pill boxes) which made your defending infantry immune to bombardments.  So to do any damage, an attacker would have to get more hits on bombardments than you had defending infantry before killing anything.

If you do that, Jen, you should make the rule apply to aircraft bombarbment and artillery as well.  The average WW2 naval gun was considerably heavier than WW2 field artillery, and more accurate than any form of air bombardment.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

They have the National Objectives up.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1111655

Love the National Objectives. I only wish there where a few more that dealt with the sea like Italy. Great way to get the battle of the Atlantic in if there was some sea zones that had to be kept free from Uboats or the UK and the US would lose 5IPC or something.

I do not see why you could not work up some of your own for house rules.  The introduction of National Objectives does provide a new way to modify the game fairly easily.

I am getting two mainly for the extra units, and to give me an extra board to work with for modifications.  Since Hasbro will not sell components, it is the only way to get these items.  I will probably start picking up copies of Revised on eBay for the same reason.

Edit on Nov. 19:  I may start looking sometime in February, after getting clear of all of the Christmas and birthday bill.

My house rule for bombardment is that the ships do not get an independent attack, but only boost the attack of one supported unit to 2.  This works quite well in the Pacific game, and eliminates the ability of the US to simply wipe out the Japanese on an island by bombardment, as this simply did not happen.  It also takes care of the problem off a naval force eliminating the opposition from a large area like France, Norway, Egypt, etc. by shore bombardment before landing any troops.  I believe that this correctly puts the navy in the supporting role for the attack, and means that the major emphasis is the invading forces success.  I also have a house rule that air attack cannot eliminate infantry units, but may eliminate artillery and tank units.  This also works very well in the Pacific game, as it means that you cannot eliminate an opponent’s forces if they include infantry by simple air attack, especially on islands, but you have to use ground troops to take it.  An air unit may support an ground unit in an attack on infantry units just like artillery, increasing its attack roll by one, but does not get an independent attack.

The reason for the difference in air attack on artillery and tanks is that those forces are more vulnerable to air attack, whereas dug-in infantry is a very difficult target.  I am thinking about excluding Japanese artillery units on Pacific islands as well, as the Japanese in island defense primarily used their artillery in the direct support or direct fire role, firing from either cave or heavily protected positions.  The aim is to achieve a closer relationship to what actually occured in the war without excessive complexity.

Basically, I use the criteria of is the unit or force capable of offensive operations in a manner which would influence the war.  If a force cannot do that, then I do not worry about them, hence, I did no consider the Italian holdouts.  Any military campaign in Africa, even today, is going to be severely hampered by the lack of any kind of good communications network of roads and rail.  That still does not exist, and probably will not.  You also have to deal with extremes in terrain and temperature, and the lack of useful infrastructure besides roads.

Actually, I am thinking that with the addition of some 1 inch by 3 inch cards under each ship, you could easily use them for miniature naval battles using any of the wide variety of rule sets out there.  Especially now with the addition of the cruiser.  I am thinking of using some simply naval miniature rules to fight sea actions in the Guadalcanal game.

Convoy routes are also used in Europe, but that are not going to be used in A&A50.  I cannot remember what has been said about the fighter rules.  I would agree that the rules for Pacific are my favorite as well, although I have tweaked them a bit.

I allow that as well, and no, in Pacific, it does not break the game at all.  Does limit the Japanese Rush to India.

I have made China a 6th player in Pacific, and the house rules for that are posted in the house rules section.  I am waiting to get the game to see what might be required for A&A50, and see what modifications are needed.  Bottom line is giving China some sort of aid from the US via the “Hump Airlift” over the Himalayas and allowing them to get aircraft from the US.  Bsically, you will need to put in some sort of Lend-Lease rule.

For Japan to concentrate on Hawaii is the best thing that can happen for the Allies.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Why is China so less powerful in 1941? It looks like china will be a push over in the '41 scenerio. The '42 scenerio looks more like it. This setup for China makes me want to play the '42 scenerio more and I was really forward to the '41. You have to use national objectives I think too. The US less powerful in '42? The US is even less powerful than in revised. Yes, you lose the Phillipines but it the game doesn’t take any account of increased US production. I want a balanced game but it seems the US is always under powered. I will have to wait and play.

When in doubt, give the US a couple of automatic free units builds, or maybe give the US Long-Range Aircraft and Heavy Bombers to start with.  That should help to balance things.

Given that the USSR set up shows 2 AA guns and no Industrial Center in Russia, you really think that the set ups are going to be accurate?  This is a bit ridiculous.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17228451&posted=1#post17228451

I agree wholeheartedly that Hasbro is missing a real good bet.  I know of one small company that nets about $100,000 a year simply from selling extra components to its games.  Hard to say how much they would make.  I do wonder if they are afraid that if they sell components, the gaming community would simply download the rules, make their own battle boards, use the existing A&A revised board, and have at it.  Personally, I need the additional pieces.  I keep expanding the game with additional players, and need more unit for the different countries.

I am hoping that there are IC in both India and Australia, but I am not holding my breath.  It would be a good way of insuring that you have fighting in the Pacific.

Well, until we know the real setup, it is very hard to judge about Italy.  I suspect that normally the German player will also play Italy.  I doubt if many people actually have 5 player games.

Hmm, nice to know that the problem is not my being on a Mac.  Load times and page temporarily not available are a big nuisance for Macs as well.  Neither Safari or FireFox seems to help.

I guess my problem with reducing the effect of air power is that it is totally non-historical.  Air power was THE dominant factor in the Solomons campaign.  Japanese ship-based antiaircraft fire was abyssmal in effectiveness, to be generous.  If you are trying to reduce that, why call the game Guadalcanal.  Read a good history of the campaign, and then argue that air power was not the decisive factor.  I guess I would not worry about victory points and simply see if you could do better or worse than history, like the old Panzerblitz scenario victory conditions.

Hmm, interesting strategy.  The odd thing is that shore batteries played a very limited role in the actual campaign, because so much of the naval movement was at night.  Artillery on Rendova was a major factor in the Munda attack, as it kept the Munda airfield under constant fire.  I find it interesting that the actual strategy followed by both sides does not seem to work at all in the game.