Posts made by Variable

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs399.snc3/24249_109617132411059_100000883178144_68714_7068018_n.jpg

To answer your question IL, no, no one has talked him out of the gun idea…

@reloader-1:

The thing I hate is all the negative publicity and complaints about Axis & Allies….

For example 1942 - OMG it doesn’t come with paper IPC’s!!! (Never mind that it comes with the best A&A Pieces ever, hundreds of them, and oh yeah… it is $20. For example, Monopoly is 14.99… 1 board, like 40 pieces, and money.)

Or Pacific - OMG it doesn’t come with enough Tac Bombers, the battlestrip is wrong blah blah (CALL Wotc, FREE Tac Bombers and Battlestrip… duh!)

I agree about 1942. But, don’t forget, a lot of people here had to do a lot of work to convince WOTC that they owed us fixes for the $60 P40 game. Hundreds of complaints is what SOLVED that problem.

@allweneedislove:

mine came in an envelope, battlestip was a bit dented, 14 tacs sent in total, 12 in perfect condition, 1 lost a wheel, 1 had a small white stress mark on the wing. funny thing is i now have 20 tacs and they annoy me because they take up too much room in the piece compartment in the box.

i live in canada and they did not charge me shipping.

Just send a couple extra to me. I have space. I’ll even pay for shipping.  8-)

@reloader-1:

I asked Jack, and he said there will be 8 countries represented:

1. USA
2. UK
3. USSR
4. GERMANY
5. JAPAN
6. ITALY
7. FRANCE(yes!!!)
8. SURPRISE!! (I don’t want to say, but a cool power to add)

Uhh, Hungary?

Who do you guys know to get the premium packaging???

We are making first shots next week and I should be able to take pictures of parts. I will post them ASAP. :O)
Regards, Jack

Got this reply from him on FB…

@C_Strabala:

Let’s first make this a profitable proposition for FMG before we start demanding all of our little pet units/pieces.

Ooh! Pet units… good idea. I need some farm animals for Agricola. The wood ones are a little lacking in realism.  :-D

Not sure anyone has heard about this yet. I “friended” Table Tactics on Facebook and received a product update. If you “friend” them as well, they have line drawings of the tanks they are planning. According to the info there, he will be taking photos of the new tanks next week. I know TT has a habit of falling behind schedule with this kind if thing, but it’s something to keep our eye on. Based on previous stuff, it’s not likely to match the quality of FMG, but price may reflect that in the end. Also, he made mention of something like 8 infantry moulds… guess we’ll have to wait and see. I figure combining this with the FMG stuff will make the SUPER ULTIMATE A&A SET!

Check it out. Sorry, there is no way for me to post a link. There is nothing about it on their website yet either.

Hmm, okay trying to take all this in…

How about this:

Torpedo bomber (Tac Bomber) has target selection, but attacks during normal attack phases. A1,S2,L0 Cost 4, Move 2.

Thoughts now? I really want to add these but need your expert opinions as I has not played a ton of games. Also, if VPs are an issue, I have no problem adjusting the number required. Playing to 15 almost seems too short anyway.

Ah, picking targets… forgot about that option. That’s already in this game with the sub rules so that would fit best into the OOB stuff. That said, how about:

Cost 4, A1/S2/L1, pick sea and land targets. Now is it worth 4? I initially wanted an in-between air unit.

@Frontovik:

okay, i don’t get it
so, US only gets +30 for being at war?
they get 17 starting income from pacific
so US gets in the europe game 33?
cause everybody mentions 80 IPC?

I think this is what Larry is saying.

Yes, we are a bit overdue… Bring on the 'Mericans AllWork!

@Dargoon:

@dakgoalie38:

India was horribly designed in this Axis and Allies.  In both historical accuracy and playability.  Let’s start first with historical accuracy.  India was known as the Crown Jewel of the British Empire.  It conducted much trade, and thus gave the British Empire a large income.  This is not represented whatsoever on the game board.  India is left at a value of three IPCs.  That’s not even a third of the ten IPCs that Australia, a much less economically important British colony, is worth in this game.

Secondly, playability.  If Japan takes all of India’s territories, India is reduced to an income of three IPCs per turn.  That’s a single infantry per turn, which can in no way compete with the 6-10 total units Japan will be sending into the area each turn.  And that’s not taking into account the fact that just a sub and a destroyer will reduce India’s income to zero, so India will be forever doomed to get defeated by even a somewhat small Japanese force in almost every game.

Let’s go back to history now.  Is it really possible that India would stop recruiting men to fight the Japanese because of a small blockade off the coast?  India is the second most populous country in the world, and was not willing to give up to the Japanese easily.  Sure, the Hindus may have been protesting British rule, but they weren’t exactly ready to submit to Japan.  Then there’s the vast Muslim population, who more willingly fought for the British due to the fact that the British rule kept democracy out of India, which the Muslims feared would lead to Hindu domination of the government and thus the persecution of Muslims.

For these reasons, the territory of India in my opinion should be worth at least twelve IPCs.  I would argue that it should be divided into East India and North India, with East India containing Calcutta and the factory, AA gun, port, and airbase, and worth eight IPCs.  North India would have no sea border, and only border East India and the Himalayas, and would be worth six IPCs, meaning that India could continue to produce at least two infantry per turn even in case of a full Japanese blockade.  This would help balance the game, which many say is unbalanced, by reducing the success rate of the India crush, thus possibly causing Japan to lead a more balanced approach by attacking Australia and China more evenly to gain IPCs to attack India with.  A fourteen IPC India would also be much more historical, more realistically representing the size of the Indian economy.

While I am at it, I’ll also say that Major ICs should be in a territories with a value of five minimum.  Three minimum is way too low by allowing mass production of units in relatively minor territories.

Anyway though, what do you think?  Would this tip the scales too much in favor of the allies?  Maybe the Japanese home isle should get an IPC boost as well.

I agree with you dakgoalie38, Japan was horrobly represented in P40. The goal of the game for Japan should have been to see how long they could hold-off the Allies, not how they could dominate them. Something more along the line of after the tenth turn, if Japan still holds 2 or more vc, Japan wins. The amount of air power they start with is just plain dumb. India and China were not easily pushed over, they were tough has hell and they made the Japs fight for every inch of territory they were trying to take. But more importantly, Japan’s biggest problem was logistical. They had a hard time expanding beyond the islands of the pacific and the shores of Asia. The terrain was rough and vehicles like tanks could not manoeuver well. All tanks and mechanized infantry should have there movement reduced to 1 on the pacific board. Furthermore, Japan could not produce units on the mainland. The only factories they had was in Manchuria and they were only producing supplies for the war effort. And you are also right about ICs. No one should be able to buy new ones. What you start with is what you get.

Sorry about this, just venting some frustration…

You should try the original A&A Pacific if you haven’t already. I think you’d find it to your liking.

@blitzgordon:

@Variable:

I think if you want to stick to historical accuracy at all, use your tank stats for the mech inf and leave out tanks. The only “tanks” used in this campaign were very light tanks, even then with limited mobility. The jungle terrain was not conducive to tanks at all. But mech inf kinda represents light tanks IMO, so that would be ok, in limited numbers. Also, any mech inf or tank should require all the space on a transport and should not be able to board a destroyer.

And with those stats (1 tank equals full transport) there is no reason at all to buy a tank over two INF. Same land attack, same space on transports, plus harder to destroy (two INF requires two hits). A possible idea would be to have the tank take up one space but keep the stats. That way it might have its uses.

True. What about 1 tank and 1 inf? I just don’t think two tanks fit on a trans at this scale. And definitely not allowed on destroyers!

Thank you sir! I can always count on you  :-D

What about a loaded carrier damaged by a sub attack before the planes are launched?

I think if you want to stick to historical accuracy at all, use your tank stats for the mech inf and leave out tanks. The only “tanks” used in this campaign were very light tanks, even then with limited mobility. The jungle terrain was not conducive to tanks at all. But mech inf kinda represents light tanks IMO, so that would be ok, in limited numbers. Also, any mech inf or tank should require all the space on a transport and should not be able to board a destroyer.

The reason I believe they should be worth 4 is that sea attack strength is very important in this game, especially from the air. The extra range on the bombers is ideal for bombing runways and islands. This makes you pay for the ability to do both in a turn, but not as expensive as a second fleet of bombers. But I see your point as well. Hmm, you try it your way, I’ll try it mine. Then we’ll compare.

“Out Of Box” - Refers to the way the game originally game from the manufacturer.

@dannyboy2016:

Does anyone have any house rules for these commander units, blockhouses, and Army HQs?

I’ve had a few ideas of what i wanted to do with these.

Mechanized Infantry (the half tracks)
cost 5
Attack 2( 3 when paired with artillery)
Defense 2
Move 2
May blitz like a tank

Motorized Infantry (trucks)
Cost 4
Attack 1 (2 when paired with artillery)
Defense 2
Move 2
May increase the move of an infantry division by 1
May blitz like a tank

Pillbox/Blockhouse
Cost 20
Attack 0
Defense 3
Move 0
Increases the defensive value of all infantry in the province to 3.
Limit of 6 of these may be built. If you don’t lose your fortress as a casualty before the final round of combat and you lose the battle, then the fortress will be captured by the occupiers of the province. They will then gain the benefits of the fortress.

commander  units -
Cost 15 ipcs
attack 1
defense 1
move 2
Raises the attack or defensive rating of one type of unit by 1 for the duration of a battle. The effects can stack with the fortresses. So, for example, commander Chukov could make Russian infantry defend at a 4 in the fortress city of Stalingrad.

Army HQ
Cost 20 ipcs
attack 1
Defense 1
move 1
Raises the attack or defense rating of a single type of unit by one for one battle in the HQ’s province or any adjacent land province.

Why would the Hq cost more than the commander and have less ability?