Posts made by wardog42

Tigertank:

Purchase all inf and keep counterattacking the Germans in force, but do not go too far into Germany to put yourself in range of large forces of German tanks. For example, on your first turn, bring in 3 inf from Archangel, 3 inf from Russia, art from Russia, 2 tanks from Russia, ftr from Karelia and ftr from Russia and attack West Russia. You should be able to wipe them out and have a strong force remaining. On noncombat, move 2 inf from Kazakh to Caucasus, land both ftrs in Caucasus, move tank from Archangel to Russia, move 2 inf from Novosibirsk and 2 inf from Eventl National Okrug to Russia, move 1 inf from Buryatia and Soviet Far East to Yakut (leave only 1 inf in each coastal territory - their only worth 1 IPC each and not worth losing a lot of units for). Also move sub to sea zone 6 to blockade the German navy in the Atlantic. With the 8 inf you purchased, put 4 in Caucasus and 4 in Russia. Archangel will be empty, but Germany can’t get to it anyway because you took West Russia. He may take Karelia, but that’s not that big of a deal. UK can invade and take over Norway on it’s first turn, putting those German forces in Karelia between 2 forces. Just beware large stacks of tanks coming out of Germany. Keep using small counterattacks with inf. and the 2 ftrs (try to keep your tanks around as long as possible) which slows down their tanks and prevents concentrated attacks on Moscow or Caucasus. These forces should be just big enough to win and that’s it. Keep your larger forces in reserve for defense or counter attacks. You want to avoid a big showdown of your inf vs. his tanks at all costs because you will be crushed. I was able to stay strong with Russia doing this while simulataneously fighting Germany and Japan.

I just played 2 games of A&A revised on Sunday and the Axis won both times. I didn’t know if this poll was for A&A world or A&A revised or both.

Just played my first 2 games of A&A Revised and it has become my new favorite in front of A&AE. AC at 16 IPCs, Ftrs at 10 IPCs and Tanks defending at a 3 are awesome. However, the best part is that the Axis is stronger militarily (especially navy & airforce) that the original and they also start with more IPCs, which makes for a much more balanced game. Also being able to land planes on an AC when it’s 1st built is a major plus (we played it that the fighters either had to be purchased with the AC or had to be in the territory bordering that sea zone and had to be inactive in that round - the instructions are vague on this). Haven’t even used the national advantages yet, but they sound cool.

I have played “Lord of the Rings Risk” and the new one “Lord of the Rings Risk Trilogy Edition” and they are both a lot of fun, especially if you are a fan of LOTR. It has unique elements such as evil hunting the ring, impassable mountains & rivers, etc. I have also found that most people who aren’t really into war strategy games even enjoy playing this one.

Both games are cool, but I much prefer A&AE for the simple fact that in A&AP the Japanese have no chance of a military victory - they have to win through the victory points system due to the fact that the eventual US armada will come and kick Japan in the teeth. The IPC differences are ridiculously skewed in the Allies favor: a combined 110 in starting IPCs for the Allies vs. 19 for the Japanese (plus the fact that China gets 3 inf/round if they hold the road)! I do like the sea battles, the Japanese surprise attack in the first round, kamikazes, and that the number of strategies for this game seem endless. However, the last time I played I was the Japanese and it came down to the US vs. Japan in an invasion of Japan itself. I ended up winning by victory points because I won the battle by having 1 fighter survive. This is crazy though because if we would have kept playing eventually I would have lost because of the Allies had me cornered. If the US started with fewer IPCs the game would be much more even and enjoyable.

As far as the best unit is concerned, I agree that each unit has a purpose. But the best multipurpose unit is the fighter. Attack at 3, defend at 4, can move 4 zones, can attack land & naval units, can land on a carrier to provide strong defense for your navy and when coupled with a large # of inf can be extremely effective on defense.

MysticalRommel, I am also a very aggressive Axis player but you definitely need infantry for canonfodder on offense and defense to keep your armor intact. With Germany, I will usually purchase 4 inf 4 arm with the initial 32 IPCs.

I have been looking for one for years but as far as I know there isn’t one. A&A Iron Blitz is all you’ve got. However, I did read on another post on this site that they are coming out with a new A&A computer game that will be turn based but will become real-time-strategy (like Command & Conquer) when it comes to the actual battles. It is regular A&A though, not A&A Europe.

I was just at Hasbro’s website trying to find out if they were coming out with an expansion of Lord of the Rings Risk and I happened upon a game call “History of the World”, where you lead one of 7 empires (Vikings, Mongols, etc.). It sounded like a cross between Risk and Civilization and might be good. Just wanted to see what everyone’s opinion is on this game.

Juries love to award tons of money. Is this related to the “american dream”?
I know some people here who sue repeatedly, but these people are looked upon as useless, incompetant parasites.

I wouldn’t say all juries love to award tons of money. I performed jury duty earlier this year where a 58 year old man was suing a trucking company because he got hit from behind from one of the company’s trucks on the highway. He was claiming that he was suffering severe neck injuries from the accident and that it knocked his discs out of alignment. The defense claimed he had retrolistesis (I don’t know if I spelled that right), a degenerative disc disease. To make a long story short, the procuting lawyer said “Big dollars is big justice and little dollars is little justice”. It made me sick. Anyway, they were asking for approximately $600,000 for medical bills and things like “loss of quality of life” and “pain and suffering”. We ended up giving him $80,000 and I didn’t even want to give him that much. But, we had to work everything out amongst all 12 jurors. Cystic, you seem to be very anti-American on a lot of your posts in the general discussion area. Why all the negativity against us? Don’t judge us all by the small percentage of people that you hear about in the media or by our politicians. Most people here are solid, hard-working people. However, we do have our share of useless parasites who seem to always be the ones in the news. The sad fact is that the negative and controversial means ratings & sells newspapers here, so the worst of our country are always in the spotlight.

All countries that strike first in a war come up with their reasons to go to war, whether they are blatant about them or not, but it all comes down to resources, and resources are power. We did not strike first in the war in Afghanistan - this was the main headquarters of the Al Quaeda network at the time and we were justified in striking back because of 9/11. I have good friends that served in Iraq over these past 9 months and they have said that the situation there is better than it was before. I back the US soldiers 100%, but I believe there were hidden motives. The Bush administration used 9/11 and the supposed threat of WMD as excuses to invade. Anyone opposed to the invasion was branded as not being patriotic and against the US soldiers. This is ridiculous - I have nothing but the utmost respect for the US military but I don’t agree with the government when they put our troops in harms way for no good reason. Since the invasion, they have found no WMD and the Bush administration admitted in recent weeks that they have found no evidence of Iraq having ties to the Al Quaeda network. Even if the situation for the Iraqi people is better (which I believe it is), what government, be it US, France, Russia, China, Germany or any other really cares about the fate of the regular people in Iraq? France, Russia, China and Germany did not want the US to go in there because I believe these countries had favorable contracts with Saddam for oil and were also selling Iraq weapons. By the time the US pulls out, we will have the favorable contracts with Iraq for oil and we will be outfitting their military and police force, which means fat contracts for the companies that supported the Bush campaign. Why didn’t we invade North Korea? First and foremost, they are backed by the PRC, which we really don’t want to get into a war with, because it would probably escalate to WWIII. Iraq had no powerful country backing it and it’s miltary was weak. North Korea really does have nuclear, chemical & biological weapons which it probably would have used on the US, South Korea, Japan and any other neighboring countries during the conflict and we would have limited means to stop this. North Korea also has a huge troop advantage on the 38th parallel border and I read a news report that said that North Korea’s artillery would kill 700,000 people in the Seoul, South Korea area in the first few hours of a conflict. Iraq, if it had WMD at all, did not have them in a position to readily fire, their artillery was not very accurate and their military was poorly trained & outfitted. Finally, North Korea has no oil or any other natural resource of value (this coupled with their “Military First” policy is the reason why their economy has been so bad in recent years). Iraq has an abundance of oil. The costs of invading North Korea would not be worth it vs. the costs of invading Iraq. It is awful to look at it like this when you are talking about people’s lives, but this is how governments & generals think. I believe that a strong miliary is necessary to protect our rights and the rights of other countries and that getting involved in conflicts to stop them is a good thing - The Gulf War & Kosovo are good examples. We learned our lesson in WWI, WWII & The Korean War that waiting to get involved until things get out of hand makes things much, much worse. However, I’m not sure the Bush administration had the best of intentions with the Iraq situation and I’m not so sure that Iraq was as big a threat to the US that they were made out to be.

You could stop this one of 2 ways:

1. With the $12 you get at the beginning, buy a transport and put it in the Danish Sea and buy artillery with the remaining $4 and put it in Germany (or possibly Finland). If Russia does not put any additional infantry in Leningrad with the Allies’ $12, attack Leningrad on your first turn by transporting 2 infantry and 2 artillery and maybe 1 or 2 fighters (Russia only has 2 infantry to begin with. You should also attack from Poland to Baltic States and Finland to Vyborg. This way you not only take Leningrad but you encircle it and are prepared to counterattack if Russia takes it back. This also prevents the Allies from being able to land fighters in Russia from UK (all 3 of those spaces are exactly 4 zones from UK - everything else is out of reach).

2. Buy a transport with the initial $12 and keep $4. Buy a Battleship & Aircraft Carrier with your remaining money an place them with your 2 transports in the Baltic Sea. (You could combine this with the above strategy as well if you don’t by the artillery). Assuming that you have knocked out all of the UK’s navy surrounding the UK mainland, UK can only attack your navy with their bomber and 2 - fighters on their first turn. That would be gamble for them, considering your battleship can take 2 hits and defends at a 4, the carrier defends at a 3 and the 2 tranports can be used as fodder. Assuming your carrier survives, land 2 fighters on it next round (and add more navy if you’d like) and you have a decent-strength navy in the area for UK and US to have to unseat. Having a strong navy here also gives you the flexibility to invade UK depending on the circumstances.

As far as the map is concerned, get the “D-Day June 6, 1944: The Climatic Battle of World War II” that I mentioned earlier. Their are a lot of useful maps and pictures and it goes into great detail about everything you would want to know about the battle. For the map, each beachhead (Omaha, Utah, Sword, Crown, Juno) would be an area, then split the towns further inland into sections (I am assuming that you are going to use squad-sized infantry units). You really have to figure out what scale you want to use as far as the size of a territory as well as how long would a round be in real time (US lands new infantry and attacks and takes out a bunker and this all takes place in 5 or 10 minutes?). How far could a squad wearing 50 lb backpacks in a heavy battle move? 100 yards? 200 yards? More? This will answer the scale question. Once you figure out the scale, it would be easy enough to look at maps of the D-Day invasion and chop them up to that scale.

The bunker units should already be in place at the begining of the game and Germany shouldn’t be allowed to build new ones or modify the existing ones (they were all concrete). This would probably go for mines too. I thought about mines a bit further. You could have an engineer unit that has to roll a 4 or less to deactivate a mine. If he rolls a 5 or 6, the mine has a defensive roll of 1 (possibly blowing up in his facing and killing him). If the mine doesn’t go off, the engineer can have another shot at it next round. You can allow units to pass through territories with land mines, but for each unit you would roll an “attack” roll for the mines (2 or 3?). Those units are immediately removed and the remaining units are slowed down. My thought for new units would be something similar to A&AP with China. As long as China keeps their certain territories that contain the road to Burma, they get 3 infantry. With this game, since it’s a single battle IPCs wouldn’t make sense (how could you build units during the battle at a factory and add them to a battle that lasted a little over 24 hours?). I would say that as long as the Germans keep roads behind them open and that the US keeps the beach or some waterway (the Germans had a submarine pen off the coast that could send out subs to clog the way) open that each side gets a certain # of units each turn (probably infantry for the US and armor or infantry for Germany). Some airborne troops would also be the German’s rear, so the Germans would not only have to contend with the landings but also the scattered but potent 101st airborne. The units that would come through these roads would be finite - maybe give both sides a pool of different units to choose from and they could only place one or two per round. And once the pool runs out that’s it.

In looking at the map, I see no reason why the Allies coudn’t amphibiously assault those islands.

It’s kind of funny that you are talking about doing an A&A D-Day. I went to Gen-Con in Milwaukee, WI in 1999 and Avalon Hill had a booth there where they were displaying their newest product, A&AE. I talked to an older guy at the booth that said that he had designed the A&AE game (I can’t remember his name for the life of me). Anyway, he said that he was planning on putting together an A&A game based on one battle and he specifically mentioned the D-Day invasion. I thought it was a great idea but obviously it never happened (probably because of what happened with Hasbro).

You may also want to include concrete fortifications where infantry get a better defense roll. You could also have machine gun infantry that have an attack value of 2 but require a second infantry to hold the ammo belt and reload (if the 2nd infantry is killed, the machine gun becomes inoperable and the remaining infantry attacks at a 1). An initial bombing run & offshore battery would be good (before the landings), but I would only give each unit an attack value of 1 for this. Due to cloud cover and other factors the Allies barely did any damage. An excellent resource for this would be “D-Day June 6, 1944: The Climatic Battle of World War II” by Stephen E. Ambrose. It contains information on troop postions prior to and during the battle, where the airborne gliders and parachutes landed, and the units that were in every wave in the landings as well as a lot of other great info. Sea mines, land mines & barbed wire could also be added and would have to be cleared by engineer units. Perhaps morale can be used as well. When the US troops hit Omaha, they didn’t all rush forward headlong. Some huddled behind a nearby cliff and were only pressed into action by Sergeants that gathered them together and went forward. Ost Battalions (made up of foreign prisoners) also made up a good portion of Germany’s defensive force in Normandy and would surrender a bit easier than the German soldiers would. The Germans should also have heavy artillery (attack at 3) and you may allow them to attack at 4 because they had every inch of those beaches mapped out to the exact for their artillery (this would balance out the constant offshore bombardment).

I thought this was a rule in regular Risk too.

I haven’t played standard Risk in a long time, but I’m fairly sure that you get a territory card for each territory you take over in a particular round.

Lord of the Rings Risk is superior to regular Risk. For the forces of darkness, the 1 army piece is an orc, 3 is a Nazgul and 5 is a Cave Troll (forces of darkness have 2 armies - black & red). The other guys have the 1 army piece as an elf, 3 is a Rider of Rohan and 5 is an Eagle. Each side starts automatically in 9 territories each (forces of Darkness in Mines of Moria, Isengard, etc. and the good guys in Rohan, Rivendell, etc.). The ring begins in the shire and moves 1 space after each player takes their turn. If it gets to the last spot, the game ends and you decide the game by a point system. Their are ring cards that allow you to slow it down if you so choose. Their are also power cards like if someone attacks you you can use a reinforcements card to add 4 armies to your force. At all of the main “bases” on the board, the “home” army gets a +1 to defend (Isengard, Helms Deep, etc.). Each army begins with a commander that gives the group that it travels with +1 to attack and +1 to defend. Another point that distiguishes this from normal Risk is that no matter how many territories you gain in a turn, you only get one territory card (and 1 power card if you take over certain territories), so the armies don’t get out of hand. The # of armies for turning in a set does not go up either - the max. # of armies you can get from a set is 10 depending on what type of set you turn in. There are also impassable mountains, rivers that divide some territories and ports that connect some territories. For some reason, my wife, her sister and a lot of other people who would never play standard Risk, A&A or anything like that really enjoy this game (I think it’s just because they like LOTR). It still is a game of runs to a point, but it does not get so out of hand and a bit more strategy is involved (just the fact that you are teamed up with someone else makes a strategy necessary, because you can’t travel through eachother’s territories - many a time where a large force got boxed in due to poor planning!). It’s definitely worth checking out.

The concept sounds very cool but I think you’d have a pretty hard time firing a paintball gun out of a plane. The wind would probably throw your shots off and you’d have a hard time steadying your gun to get a shot off. If you had an automatic paintball gun you could just spray an area and not have to worry so much about accuracy. Paint grenades would also pretty good, although you’d probably injure someone pretty bad if it landed directly on them!

What about the ground forces in Africa? Just ignore them, take them back to the mainland with the transport, or something else?