Black Elk said everything I wanted to say. ;)

I actually like the distinction.  Your allies don’t capture your land, they liberate it, but you do capture your own land.

Really does not change much of my plans yet…maybe in the future, but not yet.

you could do this, but your next turns contemplation would be from the sick bed at ICU

@templeton:

… but there were nearly 100 players. (http://www.jimwallman.org.uk/tlw/index.htm) That way you simulate the reality of missinterpreted orders, bad briefings…

This looked like an amazing simulation. I can’t imagine having conflicting political and military objectives along with poor communication. What wonderful chaos that must have created. Were any of the German Generals shot for not following orders?

@templeton:

I like to try and do this for Axis and Allies, and hope to get 12 people playing in the new year. This way you can have Japanese Army and Japanese Navy and make them argue over strategy. Ditto the US are split into ETO and PTO - that way you don’t get such a strong KGF, as the other player wants to follow KJF.

Keep us posted on this one. It has some real interesting potential – I’d like to try and get this working with our local gaming group. We can usually muster 10 people or so once a month and get 2 boards going at once so combining it to one group wouldn’t be too far of a stretch.

What kind of white “control” team do you need to pull this off, and how to you keep the dialectic tension at a high level within the teams?

How about America gets the ability to launch bombers from aircraft carriers. (They cannot land on the carriers, but they can launch from them.)

This ability is only available in the Pacific and if at any time the American fleet is stronger in the atlantic than in the pacific, it is lost for the duration of the game. (Fighters are air assets, not naval assets, even on aircraft carriers.)

Ugly Xeno fig to represent China fig.

What the designers did was break up the big Japanese sea zones into a lot of little ones but they left the sea zones close to the US wide open which encourages a policy of harrassment by a smaller US navy. But, the US is unlikely to make it very deep into Japanese controlled sea zones without spending every dime on the Pacific.

However, with a small naval investment the US can usually claim the Midway, Wake, Hawaii, Solomans National Objective and keep a decent portion of the Japanese navy tied up.

Ok I see, I misunderstood your original post. I thought you meant 50 IPCs without NOs 60 with, you meant 50-60 with NO’s

Thanks for the clarification.

Im so hungry to play more, just need to find the time.

@Uberlager:

That’s funny, I thought the colors were:

USSR - brown
UK - brown
Italy - brown
Japan - orangey-brown
USA - green
China - green

:-D

ROFL + 1.

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

I’ve seen a game where the allies lost after they took italy, but this is rather unsuprising due to italy’s small military power and income. I expect this is a rather unrare event.

I would agree

@Krieghund:

Yes, they do.

If the UK is still in control of France at the Collect Income phase of the US.

Revised miniatures on average are better than Anniversary miniatures. I have seen several boxes open (in my playgroup we have three Anniversary boxes overall) and read reports on the net.

I have personally compared the miniatures. As an example Anniversary T-34 is worst than Revised T-34: it is smaller, narrower, lack the details, and its turret is also asymmetric. Ships structures are a mess.
The only Anniversary miniature largely better then the Revised one is the Panther, which is a miniature taken from A&A Battle of the Bulge not specifically made for Anniversary. I already used Panther from Battle of the Bulge in Revised before Anniversary was released.

From a gaming point of view Revised is more balanced than Classic and presents more challenging in planning.

The Revised rules, in my playgroup we use the LHTR, are more clearly written than Classic. We use LHTR also in Pacific and in Europe. Anniversary rules are based on LHTR not on Classic rules.

Teaching A&A with Classic is a waste of time imho. There are few rules that are the same. The remaining rules are completely different. Learning A&A with Classic require a lot of effort for learning Anniversary. Learning A&A with Revised requires only few rules clarification (or complication in case of China) for being ready to play Anniversary.

Revised has been sold as a balanced historical games? I do not trust advertising.
Anniversary Adverstising said that the new nations will have new unique sculpts … and other amenity that are not true, as the release date.

Revised is still a solid light wargame, cheap and quite challenging. I own all the games of A&A series and Classic is less played than Revised. We play Classic only when we feel nostalgic.

Ok it is rigth and interesting.

However, I think that they are too much details for a light wargame like A&A.
There are a lot of things that are different from the real world and from the real History in A&A.
Simply I do not feel the needs for them i nthe basic rules set. Thay could be fine house rules.

OK the US player should have 1 CV in the atlantic to be fair…but you see a carrier = 4-6 such units, and they really have 3.5 carriers representing ( remember the jeep carrier is a very small carrier)

For Japan: 13 carriers which makes 3 pieces (if using the 4-6 per guideline.) I remind you that a number of these carriers are escort class or seaplane carriers.

Shōkaku-class (2)
Soryu-class (2)
Ryujo
Akagi
Kaga
Taiyo
Chiyoda
Hōshō
Unyo ( which was available spring 42)
Zuiho
Shoho

that’s a good point, rockrobinoff. if there was some serious attempts at SBR’s on Italy’s already small economy, then the invasion through Italy becomes much more viable

Let’s do the numbers:

Bismarck class battleship armor: belt 145-320 mm, deck 110-120 mm
Deutschland class pocket battleship armor: belt 80 mm, deck 40 mm
Admiral Hipper class heavy cruiser armor: belt 70-80 mm, deck 20-50 mm

From this, it sure looks to me like the pocket battleship’s armor is a lot closer to the cruiser’s than the battleship’s.

LMFAO!!

…and although their displacement was that of a heavy cruiser, they were armed with guns larger than the heavy cruisers of other nations.

Yea lets do the numbers, except not compare a super dreadnought in the same navy with its own pocket battleship. Instead we compare the pocket battleship to normal warships that could be opposing it ( from England)

HMS Exeter ( Heavy cruiser)

* 3 in
   * 2½-1 in enclosing bulkheads

* 1¼ in over machinery
   * 1½ in over stearing gear

county class cruiser
Main belt:

* 4.5 in with 1 in closing bulkheads (Berwick, Cumberland, Suffolk, Kent & Cornwall only, from 1935-)

Lower deck:

* 1.25 in over machinery
   * 1.5 in over steering gear

Admiral Graf Spee:
belt:  about 3.937 inches–- compared to 3 inches for uk
deck:  1.5 inches-3.5 inches— compared to equal to double uk cruisers

King George V class BB…basically the top of the line Battleship for UK
Main belt: 14.7 in
lower belt: 5.4 in
deck: up to 5.38 in

Kongo Class battleship ( just for example)
deck: 2.3–1.5 in
belt: 8–3 in

OK based on this the German ships should be one hit, but at 4-4 and not 3-3

US starts low on troops and action, Japan has almost no effect (once had +70, but could harm moscow only a little bit, by SBR), chinese get wiped out

UK: has some good lookin ships
Germany: nice tanks, can i borrow them?
USSR: more inf!
Italy: small but fun

@LT04:

@Frontovik:

also: if your troops aren’t on the sohre, how could the battleships killed them?
a question i’m still wondering about
perhaps the battleships shoot birds, with bombs on them, the same way birds carry coconuts

They would have to be swollows.  Now are they African or Europian?

LT

I Don’t know that    waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!

actually, would be hilarious if defenders could fire back at ships who give openingsfire
‘oh no, i missed and that inf now killed our battleships!’
think it’s better now
in revised, japan landed 1 inf and killed 2 with openingsfire
and i also liek the rule : 1unit= 1 openingsfire, 2 units= 2 openingsfire