Revised objectives and Victory Cities chart to correct error spotted by beaudoin996:
Hopefully no more corrections will be required…
Cred
Flashman's Brief Review
-
Buy IL’s copy off of him. He doesn’t want it. Maybe that is a unconscious manifestation of his dislike for you and your ideas, since they are already present in this game. wink
That or he just hates your map- just like he hates the map to Struggle.
What is this? Flashman is my comrade. Sure i chide him for his Rio De Oro antics and fixation of the most minor details, but he has proven that his research is very good. His observations are always correct, except that sometimes the result of the idea is too tedious and restricting to game design.
I don’t like the look of his map. Aesthetically its terrible. I don’t hate inanimate objects. Thats would be foolish. I don’t like Struggle for the game but that map is much nicer. Some of the ideas in the design don’t sit well and the game is truly scripted IMO. Lastly, i don’t like the primary/secondary unit thing and all those limitations.
To be honest I am not too happy with AARHE either. But a new formula for that is in the works. I don’t like flaws of any type and when i see them it grows with dissatisfaction. So basically im always working to ‘fix’ it.
-
Few things:
I agree with the money and carrier’s carrying friendly fighters. I’d think a better rule would be to allow friendly fighters to land on a carrier, but be unable to take off until that carrier gets to a friendly port. But that’s going to be too complicated, so the SIMPLE rule would be to just ban all fighters from carrier decks from other nations.
Secondly, I think China should have the same restriction in terms of xenophobia as Russia has. Only invaders and Chinese forces should be present in China, at least until China falls.
-
Just one question- Why would you ever give Italy Finland?
Just seems very unlikey imo :|
-
@Craig:
@Gallo:
@Craig:
If that is what you wish for, then this is the game for you:
“The Struggle for Europe and Asia complete with all of the miniatures, pieces, charts, counters map and rules for $1,195 plus shipping and handling.” :-o
anyway… I don’t know if that’s the game for me… but pics shown really nice plastic chips: Japanese carriers that looks like the Akagi, and specially, Italian naval units!
Any idea about where can I buy the chips?
You can buy the game without the metal miniatures for just $195. That is the map (3’x8’), the rules, the charts, etc…
I bought some metal miniatures (on the side) for the specialty units that I don’t have plastic parts for. For the rest, I was able to use parts from A&A, Xeno, and Table Tactics.
Craig
You can get the chips from mini-poker chip games too, btw.
And the only thing of interest to me would be the metal pieces. They’d go great with my new gaming table, which I am not done building yet…got a LOT of electrical work to do…
-
you get chips exactly like AH from gamblers wherehouse. They got them cheap in like 12 colors. a bag of like 200 for about $2 bucks
-
IL, are they the 5 gram poker chips?
Their site isn’t intuitively obvious as to how one describes the chips one needs to order for AA?
Do you have a part number we can reference?
-
no part number and the chips are not listed. You need to call and ask for the mini chips and describe them by color and size. That store is huge, but they do have them and they are exactly the same.
Also try EAI education as they have them also.
-
Some counter weight,
China-42, has been very effective at slowing down the Japanese. They lost five Ftrs to the Chinese, last five full rounds. And were attacked every round.
I wounder if players are coordinating with UK factory and balanced push US? This spreads the Japanese, considerably.Terrain-this is a strategy level game, not tactical. I like tactical games, for terrain, not sure it belongs in this arena.
Phase sequence-agreed, collect phase first, would be more practical.
National Objectives- surprise, it has altered our play, we need those extra IPC. It has directed our attacks and strats, lot more IPC, resulting more units in play, faster paced game. Great fun, once you get used to ending your turns by going through the cks for extra IPC.
Italy-agreed, color s/b grey, another little change with great results.
You forgot game mechanics, great changes…
-
I agree with Bluestroke on the Terrain.
Axis and Allies isn’t suppose to be a hex-based, tactical game.
Also, what is the Pripet marsh territory in Russia? I don’t say this in contempt, but what is it really?
-
A large impassable (to all but infantry) swamp covering much of Byellorussia (the real one, not the fictional one on the A&A50 map).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinsk_Marshes
This divided the eastern front into “northern” and “southern” sectors, since moving units through the marsh was impossible. It naturally became the chief centre of Soviet partizan activity. Most operational descriptions of this front speak frequently of areas north or south of the marshes, and there was even talk of the Germans draining the swamp to destroy partizn bases.
My proposal is that this area should be impassable to all but infantry units, making it a pain to take even if defended by just a few units. In a 1942 scenario this would be still held by the Soviets, effectively representing the importance of partizan warfare. Germany has to decide to either leave it to attack more valuable areas, or mount a big anti-partizan attack to rid it of Soviets infantry which could attack their rear areas.
The area also impedes German operations in general as units cannot be transferred directly from Ostland/Baltic States/Poland to Ukrain or vice versa.Aircraft can fly over the territory, but not land there or attack enemy units.
See my map to get the general idea of where it should be.
-
@Krupp:
Just one question- Why would you ever give Italy Finland?
Just seems very unlikey imo :|
Why give Algeria to Germany?
It’s really about balancing up the 3 Axis powers to make them a little more even. It makes more sense for “Italy” to have the French African Empire than Germany, though you could have all sorts of complicated rules for Vichy territory.
Think about “Italy” as a conglomerate of Axis minors, including small nations like Romania, Bulgaria and Finland which had scores to settle with the USSR, but were less than wholehearted in their support for Germany (their armies both started firing on the Germans as soon as they made deals with the approaching Russians, and of course the Italians ended up fighting Germany too).
-
@Imperious:
Flashman is my comrade. Sure I chide him for his Rio De Oro antics and fixation of the most minor details, but he has proven that his research is very good. His observations are always correct, except that sometimes the result of the idea is too tedious and restricting to game design.
I don’t like the look of his map. Aesthetically its terrible. I don’t hate inanimate objects. Thats would be foolish. I don’t like Struggle for the game but that map is much nicer. Some of the ideas in the design don’t sit well and the game is truly scripted IMO. Lastly, i don’t like the primary/secondary unit thing and all those limitations.
To be honest I am not too happy with AARHE either. But a new formula for that is in the works. I don’t like flaws of any type and when i see them it grows with dissatisfaction. So basically im always working to ‘fix’ it.
As you may have forgotten, my map is intended to show certain aspects more clearly, and is not how I imagine the finished map looking (for example the land territories would probably show terrain rather than national colour; it’s easier to show starting set up using colour coding). Oh, and I don’t think you liked all those roundels, either. At least I have correct Axis Italy…
Did you ever settle on a finished map for AARHE? The linked map looks like a very basic early version.
-
yes its called 1939 AARHE
-
Thanks for the response Flashman. _“And now you know the rest of the story.” _
-
In A&A Anniversary it is even possible to go from Mediterranean to Black Sea, using the Bosforous Straits that were closed for the neutrality state of Turkey, why should we have an impassable land terrain?
Moreover other region believed impassable had been militarly used in the WWII. Ardennes for example were the stage for two major German offensive: 1941 and subsequent fall of France and 1944 the last German offensive and the Battle of the Bulge.
I am not saying that those territories are comfortably usable for military operation.
I only think that for this detail level they could not be considered without making a great error. -
Pripet should be impassable for all but infantry. Beyond dispute there were areas where armour or heavy artillery could not effectively operate, and further types of terrain where they had a distinct disadvantage versus infantry (e.g. mountainous areas.)
I believe there is room in A&A for 3 or 4 basic terrain types with different effects; after all planning an invasion of France should be very different from landing in Norway.
Even the simplest wargames have lowland and highlan/difficult terrain, which can have a profound effect on strategy. In a game supposedly set in the real world it’s yet another factor that, properly implemented yet with simple rules, could help produce a playout that feels more like real events.Note that I make Turkey in Asia and in Europe one territory, controlling passage through the straits. Likewise Panama and Egypt; don’t know why they insist on Trans-Jordan co-controlling Suez.
Thinking about compiling a list of potential “partisan areas”, e.g. Alpine Redoubt (German Werewolves), Balkans (Yugoslavs), Rocky Mountains, Scottish Highlands etc, but probably only the Soviet/Pripet combination represents something likeley to have a measurable effect at the level of A&A.
-
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.
Suggested Topics
