Posts made by WOPR

@coachofmany:

I am adding 1/2400 ships (panzerschiffe) for all countries with 1/285 ghq tanks.
I am thinking about 1/600 aircraft but might just stick with plastic.
I am getting some candian roundels made. I am looking for some minor
factories to put on my board. I also want to add some railway to
Russia as well as some fortresses to Malta and gilbrator.
Any ideas?

Those ships are going to be too large at 1/2400th scale unless you have a large custom map. FMG is coming out with new pieces soon that should be good.

This thread escaped my attention. Great news! Count me in for a set.

I’m a graphic designer myself and I’ve just spent the entire weekend sculpting some custom pieces of my own. I finished 4 models that I was happy with but there are a LOT more I want to do. Now that I know FMG is on the ball, I’ll halt my project until I see what what they’ve come up with. If there are any particular units I would like represented but aren’t, I’ll simply fill in the gaps myself.

After further consideration I no longer feel the fighter escort/interceptor rule needs any fine tuning. In my previous posts I expressed the view that the rule nerfed strategic bombing too much but I’ve since changed my mind. After all, bombing raids over inland German targets without escorts was near suicidal, especially during the daylight. It wasn’t until the Allies had deployed long range escort fighters and had outnumbered the defending Luftwaffe aircraft, that the Allies were able to conduct bombing missions without terrible loses. The same is true with the fighter escort/interceptor rule as it stands now and it should stay that way.

Thanks. I’m trying to learn a new 3d modeling program and I thought I fun way to do would be to make some custom A&A sculpts. I’ve finished the cruiser already and I’m happy with it. I’m going to do a couple more and then print them.

Could someone tell the exact size (length) in millimeters the new German cruiser unit is? I’m going to give a go at modeling my own just for fun.

@manincellv:

It is not worth getting without Italy.  Italy has set the standard now.  Its not a real A&A game without it.

Yes. Italy is awesome.

@axis_roll:

@WOPR:

I’ll take a rain check for when we receive a proper software game.

Boy that could be a long wait……

I know. :-( Come on Hasbro. Lets get the software wheels turning.

Looking ahead, could you imagine A&A on a table like this:
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/video/231-touchtable.html

@gnasape:

I think WOPR was talking about 1941, I assume NO and tech from the way he was inferring.  I could be wrong.

Yes. 1941, NO and tech.

@a44bigdog:

Anytime you want to back that statement up WOPR feel free to challenge me at a Play by Forum game. I may not be the best on this website but I can hold my own.

I’ll take a rain check for when we receive a proper software game.

@gnasape:

Same here WOPR, I’m new to AA50 but understand that two IC’s or India IC isn’t that hard for Japan to knock down.  Even in revised unless you are playing no bid and all Allies go KJF holding an IC in India is hard to do for more than couple rounds.

So I’m up for a game as Axis on AA50.  I’m willing to learn.  No sense keeping this big strategy away from the AA world.

If it’s good it should be shared with the forum.  God knows how many people tried or trying to solve the Japan problem.

Well, I’m not exactly eager to present my solution to the Japan problem because I like to play as Japan. I’d hate to play against my own strategy.

Devising strategies is half the fun and I’ve given you the set up already. Play around and see what you can come up with. I recommend TripleA and it’s odds calculator for testing purposes.

@Captain:

I feel very fortunate that my F2F play group will be able to get together once a week to play this game.  You guys don’t think you can convince your play groups to do one day a week so you can play?  Beg if you have to.  Let them have choice of powers too if you have to.  This is going to be awesome.  You can’t possibly buy the two games and NOT play.

The single theater A&A games don’t interest me or my playgroup. We’d be combining the two games for the global experience. The problem with that, as I stated before, is that then the game becomes too big! (for my playgroup)

I’m sure the combined AAP40 AAE40 global game will be nothing short of brilliant but I will probably not buy either component game. If there were a software version I would buy it in a second because it would be easy to find hardcore players online who are willing to invest the time.

For face to face play, AA50 will continue to be my game of choice.

@Omega:

Although I will get AA40E, I might not be interested in playing it at all! If Japan is the only “bad guy”, it will be really boring to see the X people gang on you!

But the global game is very promising. I hope they can playtest it enough so that there aren’t too many balance issues!

Robert

I feel the same way. I didn’t buy the original AAP and AAE because I prefer a global contest. The ability to combine the new games into one global game was stroke of genius by Larry Harris. Clearly though, the global game is only for the most dedicated of A&A players. I know I won’t be able to convince my playgroup to sit down for a game of that scope. Getting them together for a game of AA50 is hard enough. We need software versions of these games!

@P@nther:

Include the optional Fighter escorts and Interceptors rule

That’s what I recommend as well.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf

@Funcioneta:

@WOPR:

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

If allies have the economic advantage against axis, you are not playing axis right or you are having extreme luck (probably a combo of both)

Well only one way to settle this. We’ll have to have ourselves a game. Then we’ll see who is and isn’t employing a good strategy.

@Captain:

@WOPR:

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

WOPR, I would like to know how you are keeping an economic advantage with the allies if you suggest we are not playing them right.  Any insight you can give would be much appreciated because I for one have a difficult time holding the economic advantage in 1941.

Like I’ve said, I don’t like to get into specifics on strategy on the forums. I like playing the Axis more than the Allies so I’m not eager to put effective Allied strategies out into the world.

@Funcioneta:

Obvious. But are the allies who have to run, because axis has economic advantage in this scenario (from round 3 as much). If you send soviets to India, you will lose Karelia, Ukranie and such.

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

@Funcioneta:

There no solution for 1941 scenario puzzle: allies cannot hold Asia, not a chance, due poor setup and very poor, by gaming and historical reasons, China rules (that make China more a puppet for Japan than an aid for allies). If you have a theater lost even before rolling dices, you cannot win the war

You keep beating that “1941 scenario is broken” drum but it’s not true. I think it’s your game play that is flawed, not the game.

While I’m on it what’s with you and China? Why do you think they should be upgraded to a full power? They were not an industrialized nation at the time and were very marginalized. Why should they be producing tanks and bombers?

@Captain:

@WOPR:

You think so? The way I explained the logic is a little confusing maybe but my variation itself is not too far off the official rule. It just switches the order of the steps and adds one exception. Certainly it’s not as complex as China’s rules are and we can handle those.

That is exactly the point, ‘we can handle those’ because we are already familiar with the game as it is.  New comers to the game trying to decipher all the rules and exceptions could make it very stressful to learn.  Otional rule in the game for SBR is interceptor……attacking fighters do this, defending fighters do this, but if fighters don’t defend then they do this, bombers can’t do this…and so on and so on.  Larry has made the optional rule very easy to understand and implement.  You also have to remember that a power would have to leave fighters close enough to home in order to defend against the SBR.  This means they are not in a battle elsewhere.  It is not all bad.

I agree, it’s not all bad. Like I said, I think the existing intercept rule is better than nothing. It can be better in terms of balance however.

Perhaps a simpler but slightly less balanced variation than the one I already proposed would be this: AA guns fire at both escorts and bombers if interceptors are sent up. If no interceptors are sent up, AA guns fire at bombers only. That’s the same as it is now only that AA guns don’t fire at escorts if the defender chooses not to send up interceptors.

@Captain:

WOPR, I can understand where you are coming from.  However, with the escort rule in effect you must choose the right time to do your SBR’s.  If you are closing in and you really need to limit production then losing a fighter just might be well worth it.

Well I think the existing interceptor rule is better than none so if that’s what it’s going to be, I vote it should be standard. What I’m saying is that I think the interceptor rule can be better. Right now, I feel it marginalizes SBRs a little too much. Without the interceptor rule SBRs are too effective and with the interceptor rule (in it’s current form) SBRs are a little too ineffective.

@Captain:

Your variation would work well as a house rule but not an oob rule because, as you stated above, it is more complex.  I bit too complex for an oob rule IMO.

You think so? The way I explained the logic is a little confusing maybe but my variation itself is not too far off the official rule. Certainly it’s not as complex as China’s rules are and we can handle those.

@a44bigdog:

I think the India IC is beyond dead. In my opinion this is a holdover from Classic. In Revised with the production caps the Indian IC was a real pain to pull off. Now with an even stronger Japan it is impossible. If Japan WANTS India it will take it, and there is no way for the Allies to shove enough units there to stop this from happening.

You’re right about that. If Japan really WANTS India, they’ll get it… Eventually. However, if the Allies play it right they can make them pay dearly for it. Both in terms of troops, and more importantly, time. A stalled Axis is a weakened Axis.

@a44bigdog:

WOPR there is always Abattlemap and play by forums.

Abattlemap and play by forums is not fluid enough for my tastes. I can’t get into it.

@a44bigdog:

And I don’t see why Japan has to decide between hitting SZ35 and Yunnan on turn 1. I do both every game I play.

And that’s exactly why if you tried that against me you’d lose.  :-D

@squirecam:

Fighter Escort rule worked very well at Origins. Some bombing was still done, but it wasnt the overall “strategy” it is without the rule.

Well put. It’s only logical that fighters should be able to defend against SBRs and it fixes a problem that needs fixing. The fighter interceptors rule, or a variation of it, should be made standard in my opinion.

That said, I feel the official fighter interceptors rule may deter SBRs a little too much. Say for example the Allies conduct an SBR over Germany with 2 escort fighters and 2 bombers and the Germans send up 2 fighters to intercept. Under the official optional rules the Germans would have 4 rolls at 1, and 2 rolls at 2 or less against the Allied planes. Chances are decent the Germans are going to score a hit costing the Allies 10 IPCs (the cost of one fighter). Meanwhile the chances are not so good the Allies are going to do 10 IPCs worth of damage to the Germans with 2 SBR dice rolls and 2 escort fighter rolls at 1. Thus, in this particular example the SBR becomes too unattractive for the Allies!

A slightly more balanced variation (perhaps) of the fighter escort rule I prefer is as follows:

1. Defending fighters intercept incoming bombers and escort fighters. Escorts have an attack value of 1* and interceptors have a defense value of 2. Bombers cannot fire. One round only. Remove casualties.
2. AA fires at the remaining bombers only, not on the fighter-escorts**. Remove casualties.
3. If any bomber is left, conduct strategic bombing.

• Jet fighters have an attack value of 2.
  ** In the event that escorts are present and the defender chooses not to send up interceptors then the AA fires at both bombers and escorts.

The logic behind this is that if interceptors are present they are going to engage the enemy before they get to the target while AA guns engage the enemy only when they’re directly over the target. In this scenario the escorts engage the interceptors before actually making over to the target and therefore should not be subject to AA fire. If no interceptors are present the escorts must protect the bombers all the way to the target (due to uncertainty of potential interception as Krieghund stated) and are therefore subject to AA fire.

My variation is a tad more complex but I think it’s more balanced.

@gnasape:

WOPR can you provide more details?  It’s hard to imagine that a factory in India would be that much of a trouble to Japan.

I don’t like to get into too much specifics on a strategy in a forum where I may find future opponents. I like to surprise people and try to make them play a game they haven’t played before.

@falconrider:

Something i was trying for a while is to fly US bombers and fighters to Stanovj and Strat Bomb Japan from there.  It’s a big investment for the Japanese to throw 7 or 8 USSR inf + 2 US ftrs out of there.  You can if you can afford it move 1 or 2 USSR arm there and/or fly the UK ftr’s there too.

@Captain:

Hmmm, this has me thinking.  If I get the Axis in our next game (we draw markers every time) I just might try the SBR on Japan from Russia (with US/UK bombers) coupled with a show of US coming after Japan from the West coast.  This would really force Japan to pull their fleet home to help protect since their building would be limited.  This should relieve some pressure from Africa/Australia/India allowing UK to keep some IPC’s for 2/3 extra rounds.  UK might be able to buy an India IC on UK2/3 and hold it if Japan pulls back.  Any thoughts, problems with this?

Regards,
Captain Crunch

“From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step” — Napoleon Bonaparte

@Funcioneta:

@WOPR:

Well I don’t think it will hold indefinitely. I said it will slow the Japanese push to Moscow. It’s also a lot more fun than focusing solely on the European theater.

It will not slow the japs. They simply will stomp indian army and get a free IC

I agree, it’s a lot more fun than focusing only in Europe, but it cannot be done: you will lose India and have to focus on Europe anyway after losing many IPCs and giving Japan a free IC. That’s one of the reasons of 1941 scenario being broken (the other is crappy China, more a puppet for Japan than an aid for allies). And that’s one of the reasons I prefer 1942 scenario all the way: India can hold and China is slightly less crappy, so allies have a chance

I don’t want to hijack this thread with an Indian IC debate so I’ll just say this: When and if we get a software version of the game I’ll show you how it can be done.