Posts made by toblerone77

Solution 2 or some more to add to your airborne forces.
Take one national marker and write a GB or Glider Borne whatever you wish. This token will act as a glider for infantry. Stats are A0 D0 C3-5 M2-3*-Special: Gliders are a one time use weapon and must be towed by a bomber into combat. The bomber can not attack while towing a glider. The glider may only be used once and must be removed from play once it has transported it’s payload or it’s “bomber/tug plane” has been destroyed during combat or AA fire.

Okay, I have an Idea for those not so enthralled with HBG air transports and paras. Simply take some of your national markers and write AB or Airborne whatever you like and place it under an infantry sculpt.

A1 D2 C13-18 M1/2-3* Special: Airborne units may move up to 2-3 TTs (depending upon the players HRs) when starting from an air base. They are subject AA fire and operate within the same guidlines as regular infantry except when deployed from a friendly or player controlled AB (The AB must have been captured and held from previous turn) increasing it’s movemnet only when moving from an AB.

The cost you may debate amongst your play group as well as movement. When calculating a cost for this unit I decided that a dedicated Transport Air wing would be “built-in” to the unit adding a cost of 10-15 IPCs to a regular INF unit. A movement of 2-3 while airborne reflects that the “aircraft” “attached” to this unit will be used only for this particular unit hence no need to model a return flight path for Airborne units (i.e. M4/6). If not operating from an AB during CM phase the Airborne unit operates with all the same stats as regular infantry.

I think this solution will work well for those who do not wish to utilize HBG’s fantastic pieces and may work well as an interim solution until we have proper units for all armies from HBG or other manufacturers.

I don’t see why air transports/paras are such a big problem. There were tons of them used during the war. As for paras I don’t see this as a game breaker either. Paras are expensive en masse if we use say 15 IPCs for a transport and 4-5 for a para unit with COMBAT transport stats at a 1:1 transport/para ratio. They will play a role but will by no means be a war winner. Neither do transports during NCM 2:1 transport/inf ratio.

I always thought it un-realistic that magically an entire bomber division would be converted for one round to carry troops  into combat and that the division being transported was parachute trained.

No offense either but Stalingrad and North Africa are not the best examples of air transport capability. The US used C-47s in India to supply the Chinese and there was also the Berlin Airlift after the war. It is completely reasonable for A&A to have and use air transports in the game in NCM and CM phases.

@Tall:

Guys,

––With the Air Transport units that have ALREADY been produced,…the Italian from[ b]FMG and the American C-46 and German JU-52 from HBG, I’m wondering why some gamers aren’t making more use of them in their games.  :?
––These three units are enough to enable players of ALL countries to deploy Air Transport units until more are produced,…like the up-coming Japanese Air Transport from HBG.
––They’re inexpensive & available.
----And whether you play with ‘optional R&D’ rules,…or allow their purchase from the start for all countries except China they make worthwhile and cool units as far as GAME PLAY is concerned.

----Some gamers have brought up a concern about another piece cluttering up the already too small game board. Pardon me, but IMHO this is somewhat ridiculous as there more than likely wouldn’t be very many of them in total on the whole game board.

----Whether you use the generally agreed upon ‘house rules’ or make up your own doesn’t matter. My whole point is that Paratroopers should be carried by Air Transport units ONLY and Bombers should ONLY bomb.
––I think if more players were to consider this they would agree and probably have more FUN, too!

“Tall Paul”

Already on it. I’m using Japanese and German HE111s from 41.

If you can still find a cheap one, buy a copy of 2009’s AA Spring 42 and throw in a copy 1941 and keep both games in one box. Voila! you have the game with no shortage of parts and when your noobs are ready they can advance to the next level.

Why the hell don’t they just sell the damn pieces? Everyone knows the reason these games cost is the paper-based componets. They could sell boosters all day long at a profit.

I like this idea. The series has plenty of crazy convoluted rules that are supposed to be historical or realistic. I’m not saying they always are or aren’t. I don’t think this is a bad idea.  I like it.

Unless you already have red Japanese units they will be hard to come by. I’d go with HBG and they have tons of colors

A territory at 3 IPCs may deploy six maries as long as it has a naval base and an industrial complex. They may also build 3 of any other unit as they please hence no penalty. I have but haven’t played any AA40 games keep this in mind. I know of but am not familiar with the new minor and major ICs.

Actually IPCs are medi-chlorians and has nothing to do with what a territory is worth, Larry Harris said so.

Baron I’ve mostly played Classic and AAR and AA42SE more recently. Basically we have stuck to the Classic rules format adopting some the new SBR rules and unit stats. I’m old school and don’t sweat a lot of what others sweat here at the forums. I don’t like overly complicated rules with National Advantages, bids etc. You have seem to have put a lot of thought into this so by no means am I critiquing you’re work or thoughts.

Marines have to be cheap, as cheap as infantry. I think what I’m looking to do is to make one special ability for Marines. A simple advantage that fits the uniqueness of the branch. This is what needs to be worked on at least in my games and if others like them, thiers.

I think a deployment advantage is where I’m going with this. No build penalty for marines deployed on a territory with a naval base and IC not to exceed twice the IPC value of that territory. Â

Sounds cool. I just hate separating up my games to do so. I thought about cannibalizing my AAP40 first edition for Canadians. … then again there’s alaways HBG

Gerry should’ve waited about ten years to start the party and do his best to stay clear of the US involvement. Hilter was about ideology. He tried to win the war using ideology not sound tactics.

@BJCard:

@toblerone77:

I’ve gotten used to HR with A&A so I’m not overly concerned with rule glitches. My concern is that the business model seems to be “Buy this edition or miss out.” So yes I’m buying this and probably two copies. I have all the games some multiple copies except AAE40 1st ed. and Guadal Canal. I was able to get P40 fist edition. The price jump in AA42SE scared the crap out of me. The reasoning behind it is that I feel like the price points on these games will make the series go further into a niche market. That being said I want to support the game. I just wish we would get a fully produced game from the start. I don’t see why there can’t be beginner, intermediate, and advanced level instructions with web supported for us nerds and hardcore tourney players.

P40 fist edition
WHERE DO I GET THAT???

AAP40 Fi-R-st Edition is easily found for relatively inexpensive rates on Amazon

Thinking about your thoughts on beach combat. This could be simulated by giving defenders a first round reprisal or sneak attack. personally the problem I see in all the AA series is that the PTO islands aren’t worth attacking as hard as other targets elsewhere.

I’ve gotten used to HR with A&A so I’m not overly concerned with rule glitches. My concern is that the business model seems to be “Buy this edition or miss out.” So yes I’m buying this and probably two copies. I have all the games some multiple copies except AAE40 1st ed. and Guadal Canal. I was able to get P40 fist edition. The price jump in AA42SE scared the crap out of me. The reasoning behind it is that I feel like the price points on these games will make the series go further into a niche market. That being said I want to support the game. I just wish we would get a fully produced game from the start. I don’t see why there can’t be beginner, intermediate, and advanced level instructions with web supported for us nerds and hardcore tourney players.

@ossel:

@DWoodchuck:

We played until my wife went into labor, so I only have five and a half rounds done. Things looked even. Without the option to knock out Russia, though, CP are in dire straits. We like it.

Now wish me luck. My wife is glaring at me for typing on my phone. 10 hours and counting…

Man, I feel your pain; I’m in the same boat. It’s hard having a baby and Axis & Allies 1914 on the way…I’ve gotten plenty of, “If you only cared about this or that as much as you care about that stupid game…”

Just ignore it.  :evil:

I’d respond with " I know. I’ve really been neglecting my beer-drinking time."

Basically Baron the marines in the A&A series IMO have been crap and nonsensical.  A cost of four is too high inthe mechanics of the game when it essentially has worse stats than artillery. So you have to give it an advantage that artillary does not have. Its fire power, mobility or special ability. It HAS to be worth buying and apply to it’s historical role. The marines were powerful because they could respond rapidly via the USN. Making a marine that can do the same thing for more money or less for more money just doesn’t work for me. So I don’t know they have to have an advantage that makes sense. I can add marines for flavor from HBG which is fine. The OT was to design a marine unit which was cost effective and worth while. I personally don’t get overly hung up on absolute balance with this game. I try to go big picture.

So I don’t know I don’t think your idea is bad but personally if I’m buying essentially a regular infantry unit to get a combined forces roll of two or less for a couple rounds I’m not buying. Marines should be cheap and powerful under the right circumstance IMO

Baron why would you buy a marine unit if it costs as much as a gun? You can already bombard with your cruisers and battleships. The whole point is that a marine uses a “fire mission” ability that no other unit has making it worth it when your taking islands and hopping off and on in defenseless transports.

If a marine costs as much as artillery or armor or mech infantry they need to be more powerful somewhere. That somewhere is the beach. Even if they are +1 every round they would be if they were army units with artillery support plus they would have a shore bombardment!

@Baron. I s hould have qualified what I meant. +1 for marines would simply mean that if you attack ten marines and the landing had 1dd, 1 bb and say a fighter that three of the marines would attack at +1. Marines could easily call in close air support or call a fire mission when available during WWII.

The advantage of buying marines in that way means you don’t need to have artillary that is essentially cargo in a sea battle. In my example if you had attacked with ten destroyers you’d essentially have ten arty without having to buy them or risk losing a fleet due to less escorts. Naval support for marines is useless in land battles. Therefore your arty still has it’s need and usefulness. The marines keep thier unique and primary role of conducting naval warfare while not being cost ineffective. So buying marines makes more sense in the PTO. You can have more destoyers and less arty but similar firepower while still having escorts for your transports.