@cond1024:

I don’t know why it warped so bad, the only thing I can think is that I set it up on my kitchen table, which is next to a huge window
and the sun beat down on it all day long.  That is the only thing I could think, but only the pacific third warped really bad, the other two thirds was very minimal.

Wash and dry it.

@U-505:

Actually, I am the first and only person ever in the history of the game to CHOOSE not to kill the Chinese fighter. Don’t try to deny me. I have proof. :-D

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12958.0

And for the record, what exactly do the designers have against the Flying Tigers that they would put them in such a threatened position in every game they make?

Welcome to the “I-don’t-destroy-the-chinese-figther-in-game-turn-1-club”.

This figther is no risk cause it can’t leave china.

Why do I not enjoy ?  :oops:

no way was a maus worth that many tigers! it may have had an awesome gun and armour, but it was one heavy beast. and slow too! it was so heavy that it couldn’t travel over conventional bridges!

@AxisOfEvil:

what is ASW?

Anti Submarine Warfare.  The anti sub abilities that Destroyers have.

I believe the Italians don’t own that territory because by that point in the war Britian had already re-claimed it.

If i want a game that will last for maximum 5 hours,….i better play wich scenario…and with NO’s? or/and Tech?

@Krieghund:

Enemy subs can be attacked or ignored at will by the acting player.  The only effects that a destroyer has are to suppress subs special abilities and to allow air units to hit them.

‘sub’ stall is not a term we’ll be using in this game.

The only way to force combat or make a fleet stay is to drop a surface vessel.  Most likely a DD.

thanks!

Ok lets count

41 without tech and NOs = Seems more balanced but not this much if KGF 41 with NOs and no tech = Favor Axis if no Full KGF 41 with tech and no NOs = ?!?!?

-42 without tech and NOs = Balanced
-42 with NOs and no tech = Favor Allies
-42 with Tech and no NOs = Balanced?

I would like to listen to people about the length of the game….how long are these options…is 41 longer than 42?

1941 = Very long? about 5 to 8 hours?
1941 = Short like revised

NO’s and Tech favour a long game?

And what about the VC’s…Is 13 a good way to play for a shorter game?

Im Planing to play on december 12…and i want to play…a good game wich can last for maximum 5 hours and some balance…not a perfect balance but some sort of…

Agreed - there’s really no advantage to having a bunch of units compared to keeping the IPCs to produce those units.

And in general there’s no advantage keeping IPCs, unless you want to build a surprise super-navy or something.

@Flying:

I see no strategy evolving that includes fighting Japan with a large enough effort that simulates the real war. It will be KGIF. I do think KGIF can be defeated by Japan buying large quantities of bombers and using them to blast Russian ICs. This would give the Germans an opening to crush Russia.

Japan can make America fight.

In our 5 player AAA, Italy was about to make a breakthru in Africa and thru Transjordan to India. Egypt was being lightly held by the UK, India was open, no units at all, (in Burma), but the UK had earlier begun a move of Australian units and transports to Egypt & literally snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by landing those units and transporting the So Africa by means of the Australian transport.

It was so close for the Italians to be on the verge of a major game changing situation!  If Egypt had fallen on that turn, Africa and India lay open……

@tin_snips:

you could, of course, look at it from the perspective of each side. whichever side controls the oceans, wins the game haha  :-D

glad we agree on that note  :lol:

@TG:

@Romulus:

Casualty system in A&A is part of the success of the game.
Simple enough for not being too much time consuming but at same time allows for cannon fodder and protection of the expensive units.

If we condsider the real battle attacker do not “know” who are they firing. WW2 was not fought with Napoleonic style battles where 2 armies lined up one in the face of the other.
In WW2 units are camouflaged, entrenched and hidden. When and if a unit is discovered by the enemy it can be target of fire, but attacker is not “selecting” the target among all the defending unit, only the one that has become visible.
So to some extent is the defender, positioning an moving its units, that allow the attacker to fire.

The more “correct” way of picking casualties is the one used in Battle of the Bulge, random selection, with the possibility of overkilling one unit and totally missing another.

If we can not have random casualties then we should stay with the “defender pick the unit to be removed” mechanism.

I am Moses Obama and I endorse this message.

Thank you!

I think that in Anniversary it is the right system. House rule or other ruleset may use different casualties removal system  but it is the right thing for the “standard” game.

@Gallo:

@Krieghund:

@Gallo:

2.a) they shoot before the attacker, and if roll at 1, if they score attacking unit sinks before having the chance of attacking – if attacking unit is a BB she can take the torpedo hit and attack anyway, but if it’s a Cruiser she goes to the bottom right there without dropping a single deep charge.

This is true if there’s no attacking desrtoyer.  If there is an attacking destroyer, the sub fires at the same time as the attacker(s) and the results are simultaneous.

yes, as I’ve stated, I was assuming no enemy destroyer attacking.
buy what does it means that “the sub fires at the same time”?
1.Attacker rolls
2.Defender select casualties
3.Defender moves casualties to casualty zone
4.Defender (subs) rolls
5.Attacker selects casualties
6.Everybody removes casualties.

that’s how it is, right?

Yes.

@Gallo:

@Krieghund:

@Gallo:

2.b) can submerge after attacker roll

If there’s no enemy destroyer, subs may submerge instead of rolling.  This can be done in any combat round, including the first, so a sub can submerge instead of firing before the attacker fires if desired.

yes, I’m always assuming no enemy destroyer attacking at this point…
but again, just to clarify:

If an attacking fleet with no destroyer moves into a sz defended by a submarine… the submarine can just choose to submerge without fighting? I mean: nobody fires? not even a first round?
Example: four British Battleships moves into a sz where there is just one single German submarine to attack it (I know that British can ignore it, but say that they want to sink that annoying U-Boat)… and the German sub can chose to submerge avoiding even the first attack?

Yes.

@Gallo:

@Krieghund:

@Gallo:

If there’s a destroyer present, subs can’t do their sneak-attack (2.a doesn’t work), and they can’t submerge

True.  They then fire at the same time as everything else.

again, by firing at the same time you mean the 6 steps mentioned above, right?

Yes.

From what I’ve heard, this game might have to cater to the vets, just because of all the rule problems and stuff people have been mentioning with the game. Might get too frustrating for a noob.

@Bierwagen:

Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any games under 7 hours either.  Ours actually tend to roll longer… lots of drinking and smack talk involved.

LOL It’s funny cause’ it’s true!!

How is the logic as it applies to the real world at all relevant? Is it not simply a matter of game play balance? There are an endless number of unrealistic elements in all axis and allies games, so picking on one, and not another, seems entirely pointless to me.

Oh hell yes! I havent been able to get a game together yet so I’m trying to get all the info I can to update my group so we’re all up to speed.

Thanks.