Posts made by Wolfshanze

@IronWill:

I’ve read other posts where players have complained about the low income rates being less fun because you have fewer units to play with, but my observation is that it seems to make the game less about strategy and more about who’s the luckiest with the dice.

Thoughts?

It’s kind-of an everything you mentioned… low income means less buying, less buying means less variety in a number of things, including changing strategies and ability to recover from losses (near impossible). All of those things combined come back to the “less fun” because you have less control over your fate when you can’t shake things up, take chances, change strategies or recover from an unlucky die-result.

The low-income of 1941 effects all of the above… having said that, it DOES cut down on game time… less money, less units, less rebounds = shorter gameplay… it also is a good way to just show someone the ropes of Axis and Allies if they’re new to the genre (something beyond Checkers or Monopoly… ah, who am I kidding, something beyond a PS4 or X-Box). IMHO, AA41 isn’t really for long-term play, its mostly for learning the game… I suppose some folks can/might use it for speed (meaning don’t have time for a longer game)… but AA41 is still a long game, even with low income, just not “as long” as 42 or 40.

My Thoughts are AA41 is certainly not perfect, it’s not the best of the series…its arguably the worst of the series, but that doesn’t mean its a bad game… it has a purpose… its the shortest game, and its good for introducing people to the game… getting back on point, a lot of that has to do with the low income of 41.  I’ve made several suggestions on how to raise the income in 1941, but of course that will usually mean a longer game, which can be self-defeating as to the main lure of 1941. In any case, my preferred format is 1942, but I think 1941 has its place as a learning tool and/or the quickest-playing version of this game due to low-income (as with any perk, there is usually a sacrifice, as you have mentioned).

@Gen.Nehring:

Nice job on separating the pieces. Much easier and nicer to grab what you want instead of people fishing and digging for the desired piece. Where did you get those trays and about how much do they run you sir? Thanks, Todd

The bins I use are Stack-on SBR-13 storage bins (up to 13 compartments, some manipulation with dividers can be done). You can find them at your local hardware store and/or online… I picked up mine locally at the Home Depot… they ran $3 to $4 each… here’s the link to Home Depot’s listing for it… in a previous post, I linked the same thing on Amazon, though they are charging more. With their size and ability to adjust the compartment size, I have found them to be just the perfect size for individual nations (not too big or too small), so I have five bins for the major nations and one “ad-hoc” bin for misc and minor nation(s). I especially like the “one large compartment” which is perfect for dumping all your infantry into… hard to get a single bin that big in most any other type of storage container of this size. On my configuration, I use a 9-compartment setup, which you can see in the pics above… the biggest being for infantry, and larger (double compartments) for ships and tanks, with 4 smaller compartments for fighters, bombers, artillery and AAA.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Stack-On-13-Compartment-Storage-Box-SBR-13/204065028

Depending on which game(s) I play, I got all angles covered… I have a ‘proper’ wood & felt round dice tray and a pair of hard-plastic castle-shaped dice towers.

@Baron:

I will not buy anything for now, but if we play more often, I will try to add something for Fortresses.

Monopoly hotels really work?

Not just ANY Monopoly hotels… as you know, Monopoly comes in many, Many, MANY different themed versions… the Monopoly Hotels I used were from LotR Monopoly… and yes, the hotels from LotR Monopoly are basically Middle Earth fortresses perfectly suited in size and sculpt for use in LotR Risk… as I mentioned earlier, by default they come in a semi-translucent white, which can be used for all sides… I went one step further and painted mine to match the four army colors for further clarity. If you search E-Bay, you can probably find someone just selling the LotR hotels for cheap… I didn’t spend much, and a lot cheaper than buying the whole game just for the hotels.

@alexgreat:

sometimes a tribble is just a tribble.

And I thought the writers were trying to tie-in tribbles as some sort of comparison to some president’s hair…

@LHoffman:

@Wolfshanze:

If this were TOS, you could just put him in a red shirt and he’d die before the first commercial break…

The good old days when everyone wore colored uniforms.

TOS was the good old days when you could always count on someone dying before the first commercial break… TNG and beyond was always too touchy-feely for me.

@Gargantua:

“Michael” is just a dumbass - who I hope dies soon.

If this were TOS, you could just put him in a red shirt and he’d die before the first commercial break…

@LHoffman:

What’s wrong with that? Certainly isn’t as bad as watching Japanese movies in English.

Scotty speaking German is just wrong! lol

@LHoffman:

Are Trek voiceovers in German usually that bad?

See for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-e4CEqzPH0

@Bob77:

i like the fortress pieces. Ill have to look 4 them

There are 11 Fortress locations on the LotR Risk Board… if you go on E-Bay, look for “LotR Monopoly” hotels/pieces… I think they come in a set of 12 per Monopoly game… by default, they are a semi-translucent white plastic from their original game… as that’s a neutral color, you can easily use one set to cover the entirety of the Fortresses in the LotR Risk game.

Of course, if you’re an anal-retentive gamer like me, that won’t do, and you’ll get your hands on four sets of LotR Monopoly hotels and paint them to match the army colors (it is a curse, sorry). Considering how important Fortresses are in the game, and that they add one-army per turn when under your control, I always thought it was important to have an actual piece on the game board in the appropriate color to quickly determine who owns what and where at a glance, rather then trying to see the printed icon on the map, buried under army units.

@Baron:

I played my first LOR Risk. The map is great and kind of jog my memory about geographic regions of Middle-Earth.
Ship lanes can surprise you, from the lower part to the upper, you can reach it in two combats.
I enjoyed this upgrade version of Risk.

Oh that’s cool… where did you get your copy from, and what made you decide to play it for the first time this year? Have you/are you going to customize and/or trick-out your copy of the game?

@Benito:

Ladies, Ladies, can we just get along?

I’m prettier

@Bob77:

I prefer to keep my games separate.

To each his own of course.

Personally, I prefer the bigger nation bins that combining them allows. Whether I’m playing 1941, 1942 (and/or if I owned Global), Germany is Germany, UK is UK, etc, etc… so I don’t really see a need to keep the bins separate by game, especially since I don’t play two games at the same time so I only need one nation bin per country.

Naturally, everyone will do what’s best for their own situation/philosophy on the matter.

@Krieghund:

Having two would be nearly pointless, as almost no one has played 1st edition since the 2nd edition was released.

And that’s based on what scientific study? I still own 1st Ed… the only “real/significant” difference is the dropping of the Command-in-Chief rule…

If nobody even plays 1st edition according to all the scientific studies on the matter, then WHY is it important to specifically mention this forum is only for 2nd Edition players, 1st Edition players should not be addressed. I’m at a loss as to why this forum must specifically mention 2nd edition classic if all the studies and non-biased analytical studies have revealed that nobody plays 1st edition.

Is there a harm in dropping “2nd Edition” which is the same as the CURRENT A&A games are, in-favor of “Classic” or “MB” or something else?

@taamvan:

Devastating indictment, way worse than a stratbombing!

Meh… One man’s opinion…

This book portrays itself as presenting a logical argument for the elimination of the U.S. Air Force but in reality only argues for redistributing its assets in a less efficient manner.

In a poorly constructed attempt to justify a foregone conclusion, the author argues for disestablishment of an independent air force for the U.S., maintaining that the Army and Navy can do the job better with the same assets. In a mixture of organizational platitudes and some worn criticism of air power, the book is unconvincing in its simplistic arguments.

Although similar arguments could be made for the other services (when did the U.S. Navy last attack an enemy naval force or when did the U.S. Marines last storm a hostile beachhead), the author takes a swipe at the U.S. Air Force, basing his arguments on old doctrine and a superficial understanding of military doctrine and operations. To some extent, the author has fallen victim to accepting U.S. Air Force hype about its successes at face value without an appreciation for the more rational airpower theories and criticism within the Air Force itself.

I have seen high school debate teams do a better job of research and logical presentation of arguments.

@wartorn:

I have inserted 3mm steel blanks into my aircraft. Keeps them from bunching together in the piece tray, but give the magnets some strong to hang on to.

Even better… great idea… i’ll take a wild guess you put magnets in your carriers too?

@wittmann:

Did not know it was 70 years old. Thank you.

Yes, the USAF was created in 1947, as a direct result of lessons learned in WWII and the need for a separate branch away from its direct ties to the US Army (during WWII it was the Army-Air Corps/Force). Certainly not the first, other nations realized this earlier, as both the RAF and Luftwaffe (and others) had separate air forces before the USAF separated from the Army.

On this day in 1947 (okay, so I’m off a bit on the subject matter), the United States Air Force was created… Happy 70th Birthday to my branch of military service… I was happy to serve 20 of those 70 years in the Air Force blue!

I like the use of magnets over peg-to-hole method… nicely done.

I guess you and I have different opinions of stupid, because resurrecting ancient threads to answer multiple year old questions to people that haven’t been on the forum in the same amount of multiple years, seeming to expect an impact or an answer, and doing this in multiple threads on a subject that already has many recent posts saying the same thing… yes, this is kinda stupid to me, and yes, I will comment on such stupidity.

@Bob77:

Wolf, would you say the yellow green is an exact, close or close enough match for the chinese? I want to get them their own art.

You would ask a question of about the only nationality color I haven’t actually bought… I’ve bought at least one custom unit from every major power (the 5) and two minors (Italy and ANZAC) from HBG, the one exception being China… so I can’t offer my opinion of the color match from HBG on that one.