@SuperbattleshipYamato
nice, lol
Bad news
-
ugh…you are probably right. Best case sceneario: they use the tanks that japan uses. Those are sorta like the ones from
AA 50 -
@i:
@Brain:
If I see one Italian Panther…
Knowing WOTC, Italy will probably have Shermans.
if were lucky, i’ll bet theyll get t-34s
And Russia will get Tigers.
-
I know this doesn’t take away from or excuse WOTC from the travesty they’re committing, but here is my fix. Keep in mind, this is simply food for thought.
As with the Japanese tac bombers in AAP1940 where I used 1/700 model aircraft for aircraft carriers to supplement them, I have supplemented Italian forces already by using GHQ 1/285 metal miniatures for the Italian tanks and Airfix 1/72 Italian infantry for the infantry. A set of 5 tanks is $10 and the Airfix box of 45-50 infantry is like $7. The big let down is the naval units. I don’t have a great fix there. What I wouldn’t give for an actual Italian Roma/Vittorio Veneto/Littorio class battleship and any of a number of the very nice and graceful looking Italian heavy or light cruisers and destroyers. I’ve been using the ANZAC naval units from AAP1940 as the Italian naval units in my cobbled together version of the Anniversary edition. A nice Macchi MC-202/205 would be nice for the fighter and a nice SM-79 for a bomber. The Regia Aeronautica didn’t really have a very good tac bomber type, but the Breda 65 would get my vote there.
As a side note, GHQ also makes a nice set of Bren gun carriers/Universal Carriers which I use to replace the half tracks for the Brit and ANZAC forces in AAP1940 for a slightly more authentic mech infantry.
-
Brit infantry will need huge Prince Charles sized ears too…
Charlie isn’t British:
His maternal family is the house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha
His paternal line is the house of Oldenburg.
That’s right - he’s Japanese.
-
uh? you had me till you said he was japanese
-
Brit infantry will need huge Prince Charles sized ears too…
Charlie isn’t British:
His maternal family is the house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha
His paternal line is the house of Oldenburg.
That’s right - he’s Japanese.Could you please elaborate?
-
There is no need for a Soviet Navy as UK and US can handle the Germany navy. Maybe a Russian transport to keep Germany honest.
-
@Dylan:
I know. I’ve only ever bought ships for the Russians twice. Once was in Spring 1942 I bought a transport I was going to send it to Africa, but Germany beefed it up though. The Second was 2 Subs in the classic. I always went around insulting their battleship even though only a few games I’ve played had it it’s just ugly.
My first game of A&A ever was a Spring 1942 game and I was Russia/US. I had no clue what I was doing and one turn I bought a cruiser for Russia. :oops: Dunno what I was thinking even despite being a newb, but my German opponent (thechariot1x actually) knew the German tank rush strategy… Needless to say he crushed me and my Allied UK teammate pretty good. :roll:
-
My first game of A&A ever was a Spring 1942 game and I was Russia/US. I had no clue what I was doing and one turn I bought a cruiser for Russia. :oops: Dunno what I was thinking even despite being a newb, but my German opponent (thechariot1x actually) knew the German tank rush strategy… Needless to say he crushed me and my Allied UK teammate pretty good. :roll:
Well I am sure that you at the very least learned what not to do the next time. You can learn a whole lot more from losing than you can from winning.
-
@Brain:
My first game of A&A ever was a Spring 1942 game and I was Russia/US. I had no clue what I was doing and one turn I bought a cruiser for Russia. :oops: Dunno what I was thinking even despite being a newb, but my German opponent (thechariot1x actually) knew the German tank rush strategy… Needless to say he crushed me and my Allied UK teammate pretty good. :roll:
Well I am sure that you at the very least learned what not to do the next time. You can learn a whole lot more from losing than you can from winning.
Exactly.
-
AHH, the good old days of learning…I remember when playing classic, that I thought it was a good idea to bomb stacks of infantry with a few bombers. That will learn ya.
Sorry, back to the topic :-D
-
I missed most of the argument at the beginning but I need to add it now.
P38 = Awesomeness
I guess everyone is forgetting what plane our best ace got his kills in?
:D
-
I missed most of the argument at the beginning but I need to add it now.
P38 = Awesomeness
I guess everyone is forgetting what plane our best ace got his kills in?
:D
We’re not forgetting. The reasons the P38 excelled in the Pacific theater were because they were flying against planes that were the lightly armored without selfsealing tanks, had absurdly long range (so pilots had to use her because it’s the Pacific), was heavily armed with no convergance zone, and it was warm (no problems with freezing and the engines were more reliable). She could fire on a target accurately from further away and so as long as she didn’t turn (or dive until the J model fixed the compression problem) and used her speed and climb rate, no japanese plane could catch her to respond to a head on attack. But once a lightning got into a turning fight, those japanese flying zippo lighters burned her out of the sky.
And in the European theatre, she was completely outclassed by the armoured German fighters, especially once the German’s realized she couldn’t dive or turn.
I think most of us have a problem with the fact that it’s not at all appropriate as a carrier plane, not that it wasn’t a reasonably effective machine.
-
Check out the P38s in the Aleutians, they served well there. USA WW2 top ace kills. P38 FTW!
-
P38’s just don’t look good sittin’ on my carriers.
-
Well of course that is understood. Why would any Army Airforce plane look normal on a carrier?
A set with a P-38, a P-51, a F4U, and a F6F or SBD would be nice.
Suggested Topics
