Posts made by Variable

@FieldMarshalGames:

We will keep the two tanks for USA! (We already have the sculpts)  …just wanted to explore the issue.

Thinking of a Sherman redux and a Stuart? What’s on your mind FMG?

@Gharen:

It has been over 3 and a half months now that the game has been out, and I think the Allies can win this game if Japan attacks turn 1.  People still play the defensive mindset of saving India, you have to go on the offensive against Japan and I truly think you need to attempt to cut Japans forces in half but cutting directly to Phillipines and Guam.  I think people are getting too hasty to put a bid on the game while only trying out a handful of options.

This is where I’m coming from too. I don’t believe there are any changes needed in the game to fairly use the J1 attack. We, as players, need to find the strategies necessary to make the J2 attack as viable as the J1 attack; whether that means better J1 Allied defenses, or better J2 Axis attacks, to maintain the variability in playout that we seek.

@robbie358:

Simple, just make it a rule that Japan can only declare war from turn 2 on.

I just never do a J1 attack when I play Japan.  I play to have fun not to win.  A J1 attack makes sure the allies have no possibility to respond, let alone get UK the much-needed IPC boost from taking Sumatra and Java.  Also, Australia can be attacked from the Carolines on turn 1 to make sure they can’t interfere either.  USA doesn’t even get to place any of it’s wartime units until the end of turn 2 so it’s just not any fun to be the Allies. It’s still easy as hell to win with Japan on a J2 attack, but it takes awhile longer and there are more pieces on the board.

I’ve said my peace.

I like this idea best so far. It doesn’t change any of the OOB play rules and it would seem to fix the balance issue. Unless you think a J2 attack is still too powerful.

@reloader-1:

I agree with you, Variable - but not with crusader.

P-51 is very unique - and the Corsair’s wings would probably help in recognition.

but THREE (remember, he wanted P-47 and F4U!) radial engined craft would be a bit much to recognize.

Well, sounds like we better go with the P-51 and F4U…  :wink:  :-D You hearin’ us FMG?

@robbie358:

2. I think hitting anything other than cruisers or aircraft carriers with kamikaze is a total waste, destroyers aren’t worth that much and battleships take a REALLY lucky dice roll to go down.  Am I wrong?  Are you a total idiot if you bring a carrier within range of kamikaze?  I think so.

Don’t carriers take 2 hits to sink as well? I know they can’t land/launch planes after 1 hit, but you can still limp back to port and not lose the IPCs. Just saying it’s as difficult to sink a carrier as it is a battleship now…

While a bid (x ipcs extra to start) has been used in other games for a long time, there is no real world equivalent to this. I like to think of the '40 games as “Historically based simulations” versus the other A&A games being “Historically flavored strategy games”. I think the balance you are looking for should come from Allied ingenuity and not a simple pay out. We will find a strat, just haven’t come up with it yet. I’ve seen a lot of good ideas though.

@reloader-1:

The fighters…. not so much. All are radial engined fighters, and along with the OOB F6F Hellcat would look indistinguishable compared to each other.

I disagree. I think if we went Hellcat, Mustang, and Corsair there would be no issues. The mustang would have nearly flat square wings, and the Corsair’s wings are so unique it would be different from the Hellcat. I mean, you can tell everyone else’s apart without the color, right? I think with the amount of detail that FMG goes into, it will be no problem.

I’d actually like a B-24 since I can buy a 1/700 B-25 that would fit in nicely…

Here are some good choices for aircraft:

Twin engine fighter, Ki-45 Nick

Twin engine tac bomber, Ki-21 Sally

A bit different, a 4 engine seaplane bomber, H8K Emily

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/japan/akagi-6.jpg

Akagi Class Carrier (rebuilt version as shown in link).

@spartan:

I think that is a really good idea how about you battle test it and tell us how it works out :-)

Okay, as soon as there is opportunity I will. Real life has taken over a bit lately  :|

@Brain:

@Variable:

Okay, how about this question - Who would be willing to give up the 2nd tank model for a 2nd fighter model just for the U.S.?

No way. All the countries should have the same type of pieces so that we can add new rules to the game using the new pieces.

Okay, as a house rule guy myself, I see the validity in this. I guess I was just trying to stay open and test the waters with different ideas. I’m with you guys though, I’d like these pieces to open up as many new house rule options as possible.

Yep, good stuff indeed. Your army of faithful project investors is ready to put down our money for the Italian sets!

I already started this trend with the US aircraft poll. FMG - Can you set them all up as to what the choices are you have in mind? Also, people like example picks for each choice.

How about tipping forward? Do the legs weigh enough to keep the barrel up?

You painted the metal cap on the canteen… You’re INSANE man!

Although the poll is already going this way, I thought I throw out a bit more conjecture on the fighter debate. Inspired by other posts, I looked up the service record of the P-38. It in fact saw the most action in the Pacific. That means BOTH the US fighters are Pacific theatre aircraft. We absolutely need a European theatre fighter - what better than the P-51.

I’m still pushing FMG to make us Corsairs too. No comments on my question above?

I can’t speak to the rules since I haven’t seen any. As for how you are splitting up the Theatre Maps, it’s a bit unoriginal. And, how does the 3 map system work? Now I have to look in at least 2 different places to see what’s there? Reminds of Third World War by GDW, another game that won’t fit on any table known to man.

I’m betting Hobbes is right. Let’s see what Krieg says.

Okay, how about this question - Who would be willing to give up the 2nd tank model for a 2nd fighter model just for the U.S.?