Topics created by Variable

This line of products will not be successful…I have no idea why so many people make the same mistake. Jeff who made The War Game: World War Two had its minis made by Pegasus hobbies and i knew when i saw the prototypes the size would be an issue because they are not compatible with AA. The whole point is to make them smaller so they fit on the map and are in scale with what people use over many years. Such a simple concept that they never seem to realize. Then in this case he makes these ‘guns’ as representative as infantry? Terrible idea.

I find the idea of adding Tactical Bomber intriguing and given the fact that Axis & Allies Guadalcanal came out before the separation of bombers into Tactical and Strategic I think makes this a excellent concept. Given the details from A&A 40 that Tactical Bombers represent dive, and torpedo bombers it would make sense to add this unit to A&A Guadalcanal. For the record I have just recently purchased A&A Guadalcanal off ebay and have not yet been able to play the game other dabbling on my own.

That said there would need to be limitations set namely that Bombers (Betty and B-17) are now Strategic Bombers, and can only attack airfields and ground units no longer Sea Units. The new unit the Tactical Bomber is able to attack both Sea and Land units, and has targeting ability including supply tokens. The Tactical Bomber would also be both carrier and land based. The Tactical Bomber would move between the Strategic Bomber and Fighter units. And being that Air Combat is the first phase of combat it would have first strike ability on its target similar to the submarine.

Taking into consideration the historical aspect the SBD Dauntless dive bombers were very effective against the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Solomon Island campaign. Most naval battles were fought without either ships coming within firing range on each other.

In summary I think Tactical Bomber should be included with a cost of 4, Air Attack of 1, Sea Attack of 2, Land Attack of 2, and select target.

What are everyone else’s thoughts?

Thanks,

yeah i read earlier fmg say that they had the 2 US tanks sculpts already. but i was wondering if you use 2 fighters such as mustang and the F4U and make one into a dive bomber would they still be scaled as fighters

Request was placed before. I can do it again.

@coachofmany:

I will trade you.

I’m afraid reloader-1 caught me first!

Thanks guys, but these are gone now.

Hi All,

I’m looking for 2nd edition navy pieces (BB,TRN,SUB,CC) for a game I’m building. I have some stuff I could trade or just pay for them. I have a set of red Japanese from Pacific plus some extra Americans and Brits all from Pacific and Europe. Any takers?

@Variable:

@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  :|

darn real life! :lol:

That’s what I was assuming but for some reason it seemed odd. Compared to the old AAP, it gives the Brits/ANZAC a bit of an advantage over the Japanese.

Record response time BTW! Thank you.

@Imperious:

looks like were going backwards. I would like a travel version like the nova games, but with magnetic map and pieces. Dice too.

WOTC would even screw that up.

@Variable:

I know we always ask this question but, how long does each turn represent? I thought on theatre level games it was 3 months or so. The reason I ask is if US attacks on turn 3, isn’t that well before Pearl Harbor? Or did I mess up my math…

It’s an abstraction.  A turn can not and does not reflect any actual measure of time, just as the map doesn’t have much bearing on actual scale.  It doesn’t take 6 months to a year to cross the pacific, just like it doesn’t take the same amount of time to go from Washington DC to LA as it does to get from Italy to Czech.  It can be implied that two rounds might possibly amount to a year, but it’s still an abstraction applied after the fact to comply with the amount of time the war actually lasted.

As far as US3 is concerned, imagine what would happen if Japan had no timetable to work against for more than 3 turns.  China would be completely crushed and they’d have more than enough time to position against the UK/Anzac with no fear of any sort of retribution as they wouldn’t attack until they were ready (as the US couldn’t actually do anything besides stack unless japan provoked them by attacking the UK), and I know that as japan, if the US wasn’t coming in until round 5 or 6 or whatever I’d do my best to make sure the UK had to make the first move.

The setup is supposed to loosely symbolize actual arms power and position in 1940 and from there time and actual position diverges rapidly.  It’s not a historical reinactment.

Paint me orange? :x

No they are orange, my camera just isn’t up to snuff, but it seems like I have more ANZAC pieces then US.

Make sure when you play Germany to Gas the french real good. You got a few turns before they can gas you and you get gas masks sooner.

Man i love sending in gas canisters against the allies.

Turn 1 is a good turn to launch the German fleet, use your zeppelins and always take the Schlieffen Plan option.

Try to kill one front then the other. If you try both you may fail. You can also just grab some french and go after Russia. Latter in the game Russia will fall by itself, but to remove it early is huge.

Don’t let the Ottomans get too weak. If they go you lose the whole front because they cut the board in half.

Don’t be sure of anything when you have chimps making all the decisions.

They were in pretty useless shape. The stern of the the Japanese subs was pointed straight down, the bow of the Italian battleships were pointed straight up. The legs of some of my Italian infantry were so thin, they looked like rejects from a Tim Burton movie… :-o A couple of destroyers looked like they had been t-boned by an aircraft carrier, they were so crooked.

Sorry though, after receiving the pieces and checking I had replacements for everything, I sent them all to the round file. I shouldn’t have been so selfish :cry:

@Imperious:

The reduced values are realistic because the target is a fast moving plane and not a slow moving tank.

My point is: if you don’t dominate the skies, then you can’t loiter around doing the damage required to neutralize a dug-in infantry division, for example.

IMO, there should be some decrease in fighter lethality if enemy fighters remain in the battlespace.