Posts made by Woodstock

This probably has been posted somewhere before, but looking at the pictures (I still am awaiting my copy)  my eye caught the Russian territories. Little q about it:

These are inaccessible? or are they free to conquer by Japan?

@KH:

Inderdaad, hup Holland hup. Jij Putten toch? Misschien een keer live spelen Frontovik? En dan plaatsen we lekker een hoop nederlandse soldaatjes op het bord, lekker puh!  :-D

Als je nog een derde en vierde (mn broer) wiel nodig hebt…

@Imperious:

It has no correlation to anything. I shall not remove it because it is not anything wrong and it is his thread.

Bizarre regulation methods. Sure it is his thread, but it’s off-topic, and he’s advertising/spamming some vid under false preconditions, prolly to get more prescious views on his youtibe channel or something.
Allow this, and we can rickroll anyone whenever we want.

Ow well, moving on.

@BadSpeller:

@MaherC:

This game is FAR from balanced, it is should not even be considered unbalanced, it is BROKEN.  Don’t agree?  Setup the game.  Now, replace every tac bomber that isn’t on a carrier with a tank.   Then look at the board.   Would you consider this game balanced at the start?  The INSANE amount of air power the Japanese get to start the game is ridiculous.  Attack J1, by J2 you are taking the DEI.   Game over.  Every time.

Oh, how time will time how wrong you are!

This game has not even been out for two weeks, and you think you solved it?

You think you are that smart, to declare AAP40 broken already.

Some made claims about AA50 Axis, but others started trying differnet things in the Pacific(AA50) to slow down Japan.  Give the game 6 months (or a year, but we all know that Global Game imbalance claims will start and people will not play AAP40 as much) to see what solutions people come up with for the Allies.

Give the puzzle a chance man, give it a chance.

What has replacing planes with tanks to do with inbalance?
Sure, Japan has a lot of planes, but that is (and always has been in all the versions I have been playing) the problem for Japan: the lack of land units.

No wonder it gets inbalanced the moment you give Japan a #$%^load of tanks, they can just steamroll china with them.

@Imperious:

Mech attacks at 1 no matter what.

Euhm?

Page 24, Artillery – Unit Characteristics:  This paragraph should read: “Supports Infantry and Mechanized Infantry: When an infantry or mechanized infantry attacks along with an artillery, its attack increases to 2.  Each infantry and/or mechanized infantry must be matched one-for-one with a supporting artillery unit.  Artillery does not support infantry or mechanized infantry on defense.”

@Omega:

Razor’s solution is probably the dumbest of all

Correct.

I dont have the game yet myself (still waiting for delivery), but looking at what I have seen and read, I think there should be a fair enough chance for the Allies to win.

Agreed, Japan has the advantage at start with their massive fleet and airforce, but they seem to lack ground units. With a defensive posture at start for the Allies, and a USA building up slowly to a vast force, it seems to be possible to start hassling Japan from turn 3 onwards.

I could be utterly wrong offcourse, seeing I have yet to play a game.

@Army:

I have a question: It’s called the Netherlands, right? But how come it’s also called Holland? And how come the people are Dutch? Confusing, no?

Actually, it’s The Netherlands ;)
And to be honest…no clue…It’s just as confusing as the dutch language itself.

@Army:

No good. The site’s in foreign.

True, sorry bout that, didnt think of it. It isn’t foreign to me ;)

@Micoom:

I bought it in the Netherlands

Ordered it yesterday aswell on a ducth website (www.spellenenzo.nl) for 60 euro

@Brain:

@Imperious:

Who was the guy who typed out the rules? Is he still employed? Were the rules typed out on a computer with spell checker?

Why didn’t these questions get answered?

Because they don’t add any value to this topic, and should better be posted in IL’s own “complain to WOTC” topic.

@General:

Razor,

Buying two games is no excuse for not including enough parts.  Some people don’t want to shell out for 2 games and nor should they need to.  Myself I have aa50 so can use some of those parts, I have also modified some fighters by painting them to distinguish them as tac bombers.  I am not shelling out for 2 games to get more tac bombers and a load of tripe I dont need.  Although I would have paid $20-30 more for more pieces to be included in the game.  I’m sure Uncle Joe would have too.

Unlike you, people have other priorities in life, family, christmas is coming up… things of that nature.  So i’m sorry if some of us don’t want to shell out nearly $200 for board games, no matter how much we like them.  You can call us cheap all you want but I call it intelligence.  But it’s ok for you because it appears your goal in life is to get to 1000 karma on a gaming forum…

Another example of Aldertag living up to his reputation of being a total schizophrenic asshat.  If you don’t have anything productive to say instead of just mindlessly bashing any justified critisism of the game, then just don’t post.

This rant may get me a warning from mods but I feel someone needs to shut this moron up IMO.  Sorry if I offend anyone else.

Merry Christmas.

Quoted for truth.

@BJCard:

I don’t see how you can take Hawaii turn one… you have no transports within 2 spaces!  Or do naval bases not work the same as in the old pacific?

AFAIK ships departing from a naval base get a +1 movement boost.

move sub to SZ 3 to block off british

Sadly, every ship can choose to ignore the sub.

@bongaroo:

@Cmdr:

Yes, Battlemap is a way for players to play each other.  TripleA is a prettier version of Battlemap with less functionality but comes equipped with an AI (which sometimes prevents you from performing legal moves)

Funny, I found the dice rolling, built in movement restrictions, IPC calculations and built in options to mean that TripleA has MORE functionality, not less.  But I guess I need to know what crazy definition of functionality your using.  Care to entertain?

:?

Win.

@dondoolee:

@Subotai:

It seems like the game designers thought that if every axis attack goes as planned then they would win…and succed to conquer the world……which might have happened in the real WW2.

But for the game balance using NOs, just give the allies 2 units and place them in Egy and Karelia, from rnd2 the allies need to strike back, attack and repell, and keep the production advantage. If axis don’t get superior economy from rnd2 or rnd3, the allies will win, just like a typical Revised game w/o bids.

That is certainly the most irksome thing to me about this game.  The amount of high probablity attacks the Axis can make and win on T1.  If most succede the Allies are doomed.  This probably happens to the allies in my game 1/3 - 1/4 of the games.  Makeing that many games a virtual moot point after J1.  I wish there was a way to design an AA without being so T1 heavy (at least for opening moves, maybe not purchas), but I fear that may be an impossabilty due to the mechanics of the game.

Should be possible. Just remove all units outside the capitals, give all nations a fat wallet to begin with, and have everyone start their campaign of war the way they like it. This would require a whole lot of long term planning, action/reaction to what the other bought…but no decisive first round battles, as there are no battles untill turn 3 or 4.

Sure…might not be the most exciting 3 or 4 first rounds, but it could make for an interesting game.

@SgtBlitz:

Thanks for the email links Veqryn, sent emails off to all those bastards at WoTC and Hasbro.  The amount of apathy on these forums is astonishing; Hasbro threatens a DMCA takedown to a freely hosted fanservice of one of their lesser sold products, and the majority of people just flame it into oblivion and even suggest that the program sucked anyway and deserved to be shut down…  When Hasbro comes after your AABattlemap and Mapview programs next, don’t expect much support from me… :cry:

Let’s get everyone on the same page here, dammit!  Refuse to buy any Hasbro products and let them know that what they are doing is infuriating their fan base by clamping down on fan-made freeware!  If they had made a superior product that was worthy of  attention that’d be one thing, but threatening copyright infringement on a freeware game that has a total of 300 users worldwide is ridiculous.  Most of you out there apparently don’t even like TripleA, even though somehow it was popular enough to have been shut down.

Definitely NOT buying AA1942 after Hasbro has completely eliminated any chance of me having fun with the Axis and Allies franchise anymore.  People in town don’t play the boardgame, they can’t stay around for 12 hours to play one game, plus you can’t save those games anyway to pick up later.  TripleA was the easiest way for me to find matches in their online lobby and ran generally flawlessly for me.  THEY HAD A WORKING VERSION OF AA50 THAT I WANTED TO USE FOR THE TECH TOURNEY.  So F*** you, Hasbro, never buying one of your products again.

Hopefully we’ll get somewhere with this, Veqryn, as we apparently are the only ones who give a rats a**.  I just can’t understand the total lack of support from the Axis and Allies Community, as they apparently will use ANY thread to pointlessly debate about Technology rules while Hasbro gleefully pulls the rug out from under them.

Quoted for support. +1 karma there.
I am stunned to see that some people keep on going off-topic, pushing me their opinion down my throat, as if it were the truth.

Kick ass. Thanks Krieghund.

Now only to do some math…I just spotted 3 bombers and 2 fighters within range aswell for the americans…Ouch

Okay, in AA-50, it is allowed to have fighters end their non-combat move (or combat move) in a sea zone, when you are planning on placing a newly purchased AC in that same sea zone. Right?

It is also allowed, to place newly purchased naval units into a sea zone that already contains enemy naval units. Right?

How about….Japan is surrounded by an american fleet, and there is 4 fighters on Japan?

Is there a way to have 2 AC’s pop up in the Japanese sea at the mobilize new units phase, and have those 4 fighters get on them AC’s aswell, without having those 4 fighters battle that american fleet first?

If that is no option…does anyone have some suggestions how to counter 4 American battleships, 2 destroyers and an empty aircraft carrier sitting at the japanese sea? (see attachment)

Japan has no naval units left, but does have 4 fighters on Japan. Japan also has about 20 IPC more then America, and America is losing IPC’s, and Japan is at least stable in it’s income (Asia is fully conquered, with no immediate threats).
Next to that, there’s an IC in Manchuria, FIC, Burma and India.

I myself was pondering, if I (well, my teammate who is playing Japan…screw him for letting US get 4 Battleships there :P ) just built 5 subs, a battleship and 2 AC’s, and have the 4 fighters land on the AC’s.
If USA then decided to attack the fleet, he will first have to kill of 5 subs + 1 shot at the Battleship, while there’s 2 rounds of fire coming from the Battleships and fighters, which makes a total of 10 times a 4. That should at least damage all Battleships, and maybe a destroyer or 2, weakening the fleet.

America has no immediate reinforcements, but Japan can immediately replenish it’s navy, and continue the fight against the sole Battleships. Sure, big losses there, but Japan needs the pacific supremacy at all costs.

If he decided not to attack, even better.

But…if I cant get those 4 fighters there, this will be no option. So then I prolly should just reside to start builing a fleet at FIC and Burma, and face the challenge later on.

I think this post from a different topic says it better then what I just rambled:

@atarihuana:

well germany moving heavy in BST its quite tough to defend, even if you send all allied planes in range and buy 2 ftr for russia there… pretty much the same in india. if it turns out that KGF is more “effective” than a combined global allied strat …(keeping russia alive, uk focus africa first, us pacific first > see note) this will  become even more true for both since BST and  burma will then become top priority (imho).

note:
keep in mind thoose NOs. imho ppl underestimate brit vs jap/ita NOs… its hard to get the europe NOs for allies in the first 4-6 rounds, but you can get 2-3 UK, deny ITA its 2 (japan possibly one but that ones a biggy -9J +4B )

ps:
“effective” doesnt mean just because KGF is faster, its better.  strictly strategically thinking brings me to the conclusion that it aims for a decisive battle(since axis cash out bigger), and i personally dislike that. i’d  rather outproduce the axis and that means meet them where the IPC are.