Posts made by vodot

@djensen thanks for everything you do, Dave

@djensen Paid! In it for Gold again in 2025 :)

@aardvarkpepper I think we’re talking about LH/3.0 setup with the 2-bomber india strat.

Hi @Aelban1 - here’s some info I have from measurements of the pieces done at some point - not sure which pieces these are, exactly, but I believe I took averages from the different units:

@cloud7707 awesome!

@cloud7707
First, thanks for the encouragement, and I’m glad you’re using the project as a baseline for your own ideas! Keep going! :)

Second, RE: this quote from your post:

…giving Italy 7 more IPCs is a bit too much and almost doubles their IPC count.

+7 IPC for Italy would be a lot - But even my “Kitchen Sink” version only intentionally adds +4 IPC to Italy:

• +1 for splitting the Balkans (was 3) into Balkans (2) + Greece (2)
• +1 for Sicily
• +1 for Sardinia
• +1 for Italian East Africa (assuming it starts the game under Italian ownership rather than British)

I think these bumps for Italy are not only needed in general to make Italy more fun to play (particularly if Cairo is sitting there as a VC), but are also offset by increases to Italy’s great adversary the UK in Malaya, Australia, Ceylon, and the like; and also by the fact that Sicily’s territory is carved out from and adjacent to the Italian mainland, making Italy much more vulnerable to a protracted [historical] amphibious invasion.

Regarding your other changes I mostly agree with @Argothair. While I’m personally in favor of the SZ62 split we see in AA42.2, I do feel very strongly about making Australia in particular (and the money islands by extension) a much more interesting part of the game. Splitting AUS into two 1 IPC territories is a step in the wrong direction, as Argothair says, making them impossible to build from and inconsequential to attack - the exact opposite of both history and, more importantly, fun Pacific games!

EDIT 1: I should clarify that I cordially dislike National Objectives, both philosophically (don’t force my strategy, bro!) and mechanically (they’re a balance crutch and they add a whole meta-layer of complexity). I almost never play with them, so that does have an impact on how I think about espeically Italy’s pathetic income without her NOs. I mostly teach and play with groups that include newbies, so things need to be as WYSIWYG and straightforward as possible.

EDIT 2: In that vein I think the “minimalist” board changes from OOB to instantly improve Italy and the AUS/Pacific game without NOs or any fuss would be:

• Increase AUS to 3 (+1 UK), no split
• Add Sardinia and make Italian Africa… Italian (+2 Italy), no Sicily
• Add Singapore and Cairo as VCs

You can make the above changes to an OOB board in about 10 minutes with some sharpies - use blue tape to make it reversible - and I think you’ve instantly made AA50 more interesting and fun :)

looking amazing, @Bigwatcher! Let us know when the rules are ready for perusing.

@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

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

@Black_Elk said in Larry Harris Semi-Official Tournament Game Patch:

Yeah, I reprinted my cards for the Tournament set up

Hey @Black_Elk, which cards/files did you print to refresh your setup cards? I’m teaching 42.2 (live, to a full table!) in a couple weeks and would love to set it up with 1942.3.

EDIT: Nvm, I [re]discovered @Mondueo’s great 42.3 setup cards here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/39616/larry-harris-3-0-setup-cards-for-printing?_=1709213218386

@8d88 said in 2 ocean USA strategies?:

An alternate setup might be interesting where the US player is forced to fight both sides of the map. Perhaps with a split economy and/or shutting down the Panama canal.

I wasn’t going to mention it since its a variant and your original post was leaning towards actual 42.2 strategy, but yes, and this can be super fun! When I used to play a lot of Revised in college I would occasionally get groups of 6 or even 7-8 players. After incorporating Italy and China from @Black_Elk’s ‘Pact of Steel + China’ modified setup, the next move (If we had 7+ players) would be to split the US economy at the board edges and give each half +5-10 IPC. The two halves could take turns together, but each could only build from the economy gained/lost on that side’s half of the board. Units could be flown across the US or shipped across the panama canal if desired, but not built directly at the other side’s factories. Pacific player would also control China (which in this version got a factory, a third territory, and kept a separate economy from the US). Super fun!

8 players and we would do the same for the UK economy with Canada (add a factory here) + London on one side, and India (add factory) + Australia (add factory) on the other, splitting any African money between the two. Japan had to play these games VERY differently and much more surgically than a normal game of Revised (which is typically KGF with a MONSTER Japan), and Germany and Italy were very tough to contain with the much more limited resources going into the Atlantic.

Hi @8d88 - if by “viable” you mean “potentially game-winning at a high level of competitive play” then I believe the short answer is “no” and the long answer is “nope.” :)

Much longer and un-asked-for answer: It depends on your definition of “viable.” I like playing the US with a two-ocean strategy— particularly when I’m teaching the game—becuase it gives me the most control over the balance/fun ‘knobs’ of the game experience for the other players. If one player is dominating (or struggling), I can most effectively reach out and smack (or help) them with the US, and to do so requires two-ocean logistics (or some kind of “Green Skies” strat) to immediately get material where needed. My A1 purchase in these teaching games is definitely going to be two-ocean; enough carriers and transports to make up for any G1/J1 losses and to (lightly) defend and escort two oceans’ worth of shipping. My A2 purchase and moves will be more transports and escorts as needed, and the start of flowing material in whichever direction.

In many cases the two-ocean A1 purchase evolves into a normal one-ocean US strategy becuase it becomes quickly and painfully obvious which of the oceans is going to require the smacking (or helping) given dice, player skill, and other factors. This also depends on the kind and quantity of communication that is allowed/happening between the Allies.

While the two-ocean US strategy is mechanically very suboptimal for a dozen reasons which others here can explain better than me, the Allies will still often “win” teaching games where I play the US as a two-ocean power. In that regard, if winning = viable then I would say potentially yes—if you’re playing with new/poor players, particularly new/poor Axis players, and you want them to have a good time and come back next time—when you can crush them with an all-in Thorpe Thump, KGF, or whatever you like :)

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Scamble and amfib attack:

@shadowhawk

I believe so.

@Krieghund @Panther

calling in the big guns :)

@Nuts I’m proud that they went with a D10 right in the face of releasing their “battle dice” accessory product.

It should go without saying- but it definitely doesn’t- great design should trump a marginal increase in sales. I don’t expect companies to sacrifice significant financial incentives for the sake of minor improvements, but in the world I work in (consumer electronics) it’s often the case that they’re willing to sacrifice significant design improvements for even the potential of a minor financial gain. Good on you, Renegade.

@shadowhawk I think categorizing A&A as “as much a game of luck as a game of skill” is selling the system short, especially at the highest levels of play that you’re discussing here. It’s possible to lose because of bad dice, of course, but swingy-outcomes decrease with sample size, and so the “luck” factor in A&A decreases when:

• skill level is high and therefore battles are more often one-sided
• experience level is high and therefore odds calculations and expectations are much more accurate (this is more about ‘perceived’ luck)
• battles are larger (more rolls = less swing)
• within each game as the battles pile up
• over the course of a whole tournament where multiple games are played

Gary’s videos that @phd_angel linked above are great examples of all of these factors.

While there will always be cases of great players knocked out early in a tournament due to bad dice, this will still usually require being matched up with a similarly skilled player getting good dice, because it will require a skilled player to capitalize quickly on those advantages before the good player can adjust.

I think players with differing skill levels will be sorted out over the course of any tournament involving multiple games & rounds, especially if isn’t single elimination (like this year’s world championships at Gen Con). Requiring players to play two games (one from each side) with identical bids can be a good way to mitigate the effects of luck. In any tournament, whether it’s chess or ping pong, you’ll see a great team or two knocked out early and a mediocre team or two going father than they should on paper… but if you look at quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals you’ll almost always find highly skilled teams duking it out.

Hi @Nuts, welcome to the forum!!

RE: new units, I think there are some fun options and at least one no-brainer: if you’re playing G40, those Somua S35’s go right in as drop-in replacements for the blue T-34s in G40! Finally!!

• Pzkpfw IV’s should also go right into the german armor unit mix, of course, especially for the first few german tank builds, along with the ubiquitous Panthers and a Tiger or two from 41.
• For G40 the CMP Trucks and LRDG Jeeps can do the same for British Mech Inf., since both the Italians and Russians (and French… sigh) already use use a Truck/Truck-ish sculpt for Mech Inf anyways.

The problem with the rest of the units is the limited number of powers with the sculpts available.

• The Tactical Bombers are great but if you aren’t already into G40 then you’re only getting a handful and for only a few powers. Do the British and Americans get them? I only see German & Italian Tactical Bombers so far.
• The Sd.Kfz armored cars make for great Light Armor pieces, but there’s only Germany and Italy represented.
• The 6-Pounder’s can swap in/out for British artillery in most systems. I don’t play with dedicated AT guns - and then, only the British have a sculpt.

There’s the multiple copies & paint option, of course… but if you’re buying multiple copies to paint units you’re much better off looking at all of the incredible community support and high-detail sculpts that have been created for A&A at places like HBG, IWNGU, Combat Miniatures, and even my own web store.

@Azimuth wow, again, incredible! Keep it up!

@atbot Awesome! The ability to hold chips/damage markers is a really cool innovation!

@Black_Elk said in North Africa pre-release:

D10! …That innovation alone should turn up the heat a bit for desert sands hehe

I agree, the D10 change alone is huge. No more dividing by 6 for hit counts!

@ABWorsham4 Arrested Development, as himself :)