Best posts made by vodot

/lurk so hard

As I print these, I noted a correction: “Navel Setup” should be “Naval Setup”

@crsluggo said in Have you guys seen this big anouncement for A&A?:

I’m glad their first reprint is 1914. Did they mention how long the pre-order window is open?

I didn’t hear about a duration for pre-orders, but the WELCOME20 checkout code will get you 20% off.

@djensen said in Customizers: which A&A games do you own?:

Somebody out there seems to think customizers and people using them don’t own A&A games. :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

:rolling_on_the_floor_laughing: :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing: :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

One copy each: Revised, Spring 1942, Spring 1942 2nd Ed., and Anniversary (2017) [UPDATE: And Europe '99. And Pacific '01. And Europe 1940.2. And Pacific 1940.2]
Two or three copies: 1941. I was just completely unable to resist a $10 Amazon deal…

…and I 'm actively hunting for deals on Europe & Pacific 1940.2 just bought E&P40.2 along with Europe '99 and Pacific '99. As customizers go, I expect that I am on the lowish side for financial investment at something like $200 $320. While I would expect that most customizers are indeed bargain-hunters that love the idea of fan-made, royalty-free expansions… that doesn’t in any way mean we aren’t simultaneously the most devoted user-base and market for the OOB games themselves. I can’t wait to see the numbers put up by some of the heavyweights here…

has not happened for me in several days

@barnee said in Larry Harris 3.0 Setup Cards for Printing.:

@vodot said in Larry Harris 3.0 Setup Cards for Printing.:

Navel Setup

lol :)

yeah, my navel setup is nobody’s business but my own

@reloader-1 said in Renegade Con Virtual: Axis and Allies:

2. Axis & Allies Advanced - $25 (pieces ONLY - nothing else. Small box, about half the size of the 1941 box, with about 600 - 700 pieces). Smaller size = less cost.

Well, I think that 600 pieces retailing on a shelf in the US for $25 is a bit off, even looking at aliexpress’s bottom-barrel quality as a comparison. Also in your version an “Advanced-only” player would have to pay for pieces he does not currently want, which I was trying to avoid.

But yes, whether it’s pieces packaged as separate from the boards and rules or whether they are generally bundled I think a base game + layered expansions/modules system is the way to go.

Looking at the “waaaaay more complicated” end of the WW2 gaming spectrum, I think that ASL and ASLSK are at least somewhat good analogues for this, for anyone that knows that system. Enticing new players into a complicated system - whether that system is “insanely, ludicrously complicated” (ASL), “very, very complicated” (ASLSK) or even just “mildly complicated” (A&A) - is inherently difficult, and so the barriers should be re-examined from time to time to ensure they are as low as possible. I think the current state of the A&A family leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, even with the entry-level offerings like AA41 out there.

@Midnight_Reaper good idea…

@Midnight_Reaper said in Custom 3D Major Industrial Complex, Airbase, and Naval Base markers:

The plane for the Air Base and the anchor for the Naval Base work fine.

Your Major IC looks factory-like, but I recommend having 1 or 3 smokestacks on your MIC. If you have 2, a careless player may think they have a standard IC. You may not have room for 3, I understand. But putting a “10” on it somewhere, or having 1 smokestack on both the Major and minor IC, and differentiating them in another manner, might be preferable.

Just my 2 IPCs,

-Midnight_Reaper

Good idea… how about 4 smokestacks? Thingiverse Link

Note that the Major IC piece is already 24mm tall (vs 17mm OOB) and has a much larger footprint (17x17 vs 17x10) and two extra little buildings.

Here’s the little Minor IC, with a single smokestack:
Minor IC (Thingiverse Link)

@reloader-1 regarding “culling the stickies” I do think that much of the information they contain needs to be preserved for swift access - but they could be greatly condensed. Instead of the threads themselves an “index” could be stickied that summarizes key info and links users to the previously-stickied threads. Take the “Customization” subforum for example - my favorite haunt as an incurable tweaker. It has 12(!) stickies - Three of them are Tjoek’s awesome maps; one of them is Siredblood’s map; one of them is IL’s map… and another of them is a “community maps” thread. These could be unstickied and/or split off into a “Maps” subsection, or replaced with a master index thread that links to each of the map threads in a similar way to YG’s already-stickied community maps thread.

This is a work in progress, but I’m putting it out here for ideas and feedback if anyone is interested in geeking out on something like this.

This is an expanded list of techs with fixed costs (no more die rolls) that would simply come into effect immediately (unless otherwise specified) for the cost shown. Some of these have a cost of 5 IPCs, with the intention of simply enabling what are essentially house rules/new units (Mechanized Infantry, Cheaper Naval units, rudimentary dogfight rules, etc.) while allowing players with no interest/need for them to ‘opt out’ and save the 5 IPCs. I’ll be using this list for my next solo game and will be making adjustments.

Note: The ‘Turkish Pact’ tech is designed for games where the Turkish Straits begin the game closed (via house rule), but also works for games where the straits start open as per OOB rules (in which case, upon the development of ‘Turkish Pact’ they would cease to be a special case of “Always Open” straits and revert to the normal OOB straits rules (closed to units unfriendly to the controller of Turkey).

Fixed_cost_Tech_v2.xls

@superbattleshipyamato said in New Renegade Edition:

@vodot

…Larry technically did that back in the day, but I understand what you mean.

What are you referring to?

@superbattleshipyamato said in New Renegade Edition:

@vodot

…For your ideas though how would you combine the different tiers? Do you combine the maps? If so, how?

The maps would not be combined, but the other components would necessarily be.

For example, say you wanted to play a G40-alaogous game with the new system.

You would first need “A&A”, the base game, for the basic units and major powers.

You would then need A&A “Advanced”, which would include all the units for Italy (for eample), but for the major powers would include only the new “Advanced” units unique to the “advanced” ruleset (cruisers, AAA units, etc.) - because you’ve already got the basic units from the major powers from the base game.

Finally, you would layer on A&A “Global”, which would include the new bases and all the units for the French and ANZAC powers (for example), but for Italy and the major powers would only include the additional “expert” level pieces unique to the “Global” ruleset (mechs, tacs, etc.) - because you already have the basic and advanced units for those powers from the first two games.

Recruitment Center complete!

Recruitment Center (Thingiverse Link)

Thanks Dave! In to win again for 2024!

@Argothair What about that spectacularly elegant idea we discussed last year (in this thread) : The Colonial Outpost?

Colonial Outpost
Instead of a bid, before the start of the game the Allies may designate any Allied TT as the “Colonial Outpost” for that game. Add an IC + AAA to that territory and increase it’s IPC value by +1 (but not over 3) for the duration of the game. If the “Colonial Outpost” is ever captured by the Axis Powers, the IC there is destroyed (not captured) and the value of the territory reverts back to the original value printed on the board.

I’m teaching this game to my group soon, and I liked this idea so much that I’m planning to pretend that an “internet quorum” of “unassailable genius” (namely yourself and @axis_roll) had decided this was the best way to balance 42.2 and 50_41… and if the idea completely tanks I can blame said quorum for all failures. :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

@black_elk said in Renegade Con Virtual: Axis and Allies:

I kinda got my hopes set on North Africa honestly.

ditto :)

Shipyard!
Shipyard (Thingiverse Link)

@reloader-1 I think these are good ideas.

@CWO-Marc I too wanted to find a more generic term than ‘colonial’ which does have the aforementioned “optics” and historical accuracy problems. Remote was the word (instead of colonial) that I couldn’t think of until I read your post; so “Remote” or “Forward” or perhaps “Frontier” would be good, less politically loaded terms; “Outpost” could then either remain or be replaced with “Command” or “Base” or “Base of Operations”. These names might work especially well with ‘additional consideration’ option where any IC placed as part of a bid (or the whole bid) takes on this rule.

Regarding what it’s supposed to represent, definitely the historical presence of centers of production and vectors of attack that weren’t the very capitals of the powers in question. NO power in AA50 or 42 has a second vector but the US, and vector #2 (the PTO) is basically a giant trap. The very first thing I always tell any new player with the UK is “don’t get excited”. I think it’s apparent that someone goofed when you look at the design in 1941 (or, of course, G40), neither of which commits this same mistake (41, anemic as it is, gives the British TWO extra factories (to place WHAT units, one might ask?). Why should the two most playable versions not do the same?

I have nothing against bids for tournament play, but bids are kinda lame for games with friends until you know what you’re doing- and obviously newbies in particular cannot bid (or understand why a bid would be needed) and instead should have more fun and more options. I think this will work well.

Regarding if a power can do this in a different power’s territory, I think certainly not. That’s confusing and against the spirit of the rule, which is to do something really simple with loads of fun, balance-y potential.

@axis_roll said in [Various] The Colonial Outpost (an enhanced Allied IC bid):

I can only speak strongly of AA50-41, that is what we mostly play.
Two others on your list might be a USA colonial outpost in brazil. Also, If russian were going to pressure Japan, I think a bryatia IC might be better than the SFE listed. USA can support with fighters off SZ56 based carriers.
BRY is more positionally valued than SFE.

Other comments on current list (ordered in highest to least valuable):
India. Best all around, will need initial help from russia to sustain
Egypt. Can you hold it round 1? if so, very key as well
South Africa. Good, solid way to fight the Africa Korps and hold onto UK IPCs. Will the axis commit that much to africa?
Australia. To use most effectively, USA needs a fleet to back up small UK navy that would help to take back UK islands
Hawaii. Don’t see too much advantage to a 2-unit producing 1 sea zone forward naval base.
Soviet Far East. might be acceptable since farther away from Japan mainland

Great ideas, of course. India has got to be the main play, but then you forfeit the IPC boost… Is there a strat where hardcore KJF works with a Buryatia OC and an R1 2tnk buy, followed by UK1 Indian IC? There is a lot of Russian cannon fodder there that only wants for some offensive punch. I think that northern land threat is key to cracking Japan, especially if the UK has to pivot completely to Europe due to Sea Lion or big German tanks or something.

One of the (apparently many) North Africa voters here. It’s such an interesting theater of the historical war, and will be awesome to have fun with alternative scenarios could play out; If Malta had failed to hold out; if the Italian navy or economy or logistics could have been more impactful, etc.