Posts made by Weekend Gamer

I happen to agree that the unloading rule is f***ed up – why should the troops get an EXTRA move because of congestion?  If anything, they should move LESS, not more.  I think this is one of those rules that is designed to make the game resolve quickly, which is certainly one of the game’s strengths.  But logically, it makes NO sense whatsoever.

As for the flamethrowers, speaking with the bias of one who usually plays Axis (at least, FTF), I think they are underpriced at 5 IPCs.  So anything that limits their effectiveness is just fine with me.  At least, until they are re-priced to 6-7 IPCs, which is their true value IMO.  I mean, a freaking Panzergrenadier costs 5 IPCs and it DOESN’T DO SHIT!!!

Cobalt, next time you’re in Florida, you can come play with Mateo and me.  You can kick his ass FTF just like online! :wink: :lol:

Throwing another line in to see if something bites . . . 8-)

@Cmdr:

@Gamer:

Switch will remember that my partner, Mateo, and I won the 2 vs. 2 tourney when I did the Solomon Islands maneuver, our opponent missed it, and I grabbed Western US the next turn.  I simultaneously invaded Western Canada from Japan/Buryatia and the US was unable to re-take Western on its turn.  I then began building in Western and the Allies surrendered within a couple of turns.  That was sweet, and probably a 1 out of 1,000 game outcome, because it depends on the US player making a mistake.

Closer to about 1 in 3 from my experience. :P

Who have YOU been playing???  I need THOSE kinds of opponents! :wink:

Switch will remember that my partner, Mateo, and I won the 2 vs. 2 tourney when I did the Solomon Islands maneuver, our opponent missed it, and I grabbed Western US the next turn.  I simultaneously invaded Western Canada from Japan/Buryatia and the US was unable to re-take Western on its turn.  I then began building in Western and the Allies surrendered within a couple of turns.  That was sweet, and probably a 1 out of 1,000 game outcome, because it depends on the US player making a mistake.

You know, you were probably asking specifically about North Africa units. :roll:  Sorry, I don’t have that list.

@Guerrilla:

Does anyone have the stats and SA’s for units?

GG

This one has stats and the NAMES of the SAs (but no description):
http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/aam_db.asp?term=&format=Allsets&cost=Allcosts&speed=Allspeeds&fdef=Allfdef&rdef=Allrdef&ss=Allss&ms=Allms&ls=Allls&sv=Allsv&mv=Allmv&lv=Alllv&year=Allyears&nation=Allnations&type=Alltypes&subtype=Allsubtypes&rarity=Allrarities&output=full&sort=name

This one lists MOST of the SAs and what they do:
http://www.hill107.com/browse/

Since they are frequently adding units, the websites have not kept up with all the new units and their SAs.  If you have a question, just ask one of us.

Nevermind – I got it now. :-)

Mot, I can install the new scenario maps just fine, but I can’t seem to install the updated regular maps.  Every time I “install” the new maps, they don’t show up in my “New Game” window.  Help!

I’m not sure which I hate more – covering fire or defensive fire.  Either way, it’s screwing me out of an attack is how I see it. :-P

(Yeah, I know, it’s rock, paper, scissors.  I guess the “rock” to the BAR gunner’s “scissors” is the SS Haupsturmfurhrer, yes?)

It’s another variation of the Nigerian “I want to deposit $1,000,000.00 in your bank account to save it from the corrupt government and will pay you $100,000.00 for use of your account” scam.  I started getting these faxes in the 1990s, with the emails soon following after that.  Half of them don’t even make any sense, but it is hilarious how they keep dropping obscure legal-sounding terms in the message (like “demurrage”) to make it sound official.  It’s like they did an analysis of which words are more likely to get a response and loaded the message with those words – but it’s complete gibberish!

Thanks for sharing. :-)

@ncscswitch:

I am a couple of posts late in posting this…

Congratulations to our SEVENTH Heavy Bomber… Gamer!  (formerly Weekend Gamer).

It is nice to see an increasing number of folks with a SERIOUS A&A Addiction…
:evil:

Previous HB’s (in order of achievement…)
1.  Cystic Crypt
2.  NCSCSwitch
3.  Jennifer
4.  Darth Maximus
5.  Emperor Mollari (formerly JSP and some digits)
6.  Imperious Leader

And now…

7.  Gamer

Congrats!

The reward for achieving such a high number of posts is a discount on the fees charged by your divorce attorney!   :evil:

LMFAO!!!  Funny you mention that – the spouse is sleeping in the guest room tonight.  But it was something I said – nothing to do with my gaming addiction, you understand. :-D

But seriously, I’m not sure whether to be elated or chagrined.  Over 30 days of my life (according to the ticker at the top) spent on this website.  That’s freaky!!  I guess it beats gambling ('cause it’s free, thank you Dr. Jensen), booze or being Eliot Spitzer!!! :lol:

Oh, and did you notice I’m a fellow “Heavy Bomber” now? :-D

@ncscswitch:

I only read the first one…  There are about a score more (each one advancing forward from the premise of the Confederacy being independent), but I cannot bring myself to read anymore of them.

Yeah, I remember that.  I even think I saw it carried the story forward as far as WWII, with the South siding with Nazi Germany.  Interesting premise – not very good execution, at least based on the first book.

Funny you should mention that book, Switch.  I tried to read “Guns of the South”, but whoever wrote it is one serious gun nut, because he went on and on and on and on about how they took apart the damned AK-47s, cleaned them, put them back together, etc.  Bored me to tears!!!  I just couldn’t get through it after that.

There are at least two problems with your theory:  (1) up until Pickett’s charge, Lee was WINNING the battle; and (2) the war lasted another two years after Gettysburg (or almost two years) – not exactly a “quick end.”  That, and you would have to be pretty cynical about the general who was held in the highest esteem by both the Union and Confederate armies (and by historians since).  Now Grant – he might be fairly called a butcher (I don’t happen to agree, but some might).  But no serious historian speaks of Lee in those terms.

Gettysburg was indeed a turning point, but it takes some serious revisionist history to make a case that Lee “threw” the battle.  He made an error of judgment, pure and simple.

@dezrtfish:

You need the SS Capt anyway  Initiative is important with german tanks

Agreed – especially if the Allies have BAR gunners or BREN machine gunners.  Those things are a pain in the ass!

@frood:

Otay. But only if you give me good karma :wink:

I’m not going to be back significantly, I was just checking in because I was notified of a glitch in AACalc that I’ve now fixed.

Anyone here play Battle for Wesnoth?

Are you tired of Revised, Dan?  If so, you should check out our miniatures forum.  Mot has done an awesome job adapting his Mapview program to play AAM by forum.  Miniatures play relies more on tactical considerations such as line-of-sight, maneuverability, range, etc. rather than raw strategic/economic factors as tends to be the case with Revised.  It is great fun trying out different army builds and pulvering your enemies’ Panzers (or Shermans or T-70s or whatever . . .). :lol:

@Motdc:

The German Panhard ( SPW P204(f)) has a year of 1939.

Turns out the best tank the Germans can take in a 1940 invasion of France scenario is a French Panhard captured in 1939  :roll:

Morons…

What about the Elite Panzer IV Ausf. D?  Light on the armor, but oh so lethally accurate with the crack shot! :-D

@DarthMaximus:

@ncscswitch:

2 TRN buy DEMANDS a UK attack in SZ5.  You have to sack the 2 FIGs 1 BOM to avoid several turns of Sea Lion risk while you build up your fleet and landing forces.

I would disagree with this.
I don’t see how the UK can make that attack.
Best Case you leave Ger with 1 trn, 1 dd
Avg to Bad Case you leave them with 2-3 trns, 1 dd
Worst Case you whiff and take a double hit and end up retreating the bom.  Which leaves you facing the same scenerio minus the UK ftrs for defense.
Even if you get two hits in the battle you still risk seeing 3 trns sitting in Sz 5 on G2.

I think 2 ftrs, 1 bom vs. 2 sub, 1 trn, 1 dd is a bad attack so I think going against 2 subs, 3 trns, 1 dd is a really bad attack.

I usually think it is bad to attack with less units then what is defending.  3 units attacking 6 just looks like a disaster waiting to happen.  There are some exceptions, certainly planes vs. only subs, but I just don’t like the early risk here for the Allies.

Well said, and I would also say “Just say no” to heavy Axis naval purchases unless:  (1) you really know what you are doing (most don’t); (2) Russia got TOTALLY SMOKED on R1 dice; or (3) your opponent does something stupid with the Allies and you have IPCs and time to burn.