Worst Alpha Modifications


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @JimmyHat:

    @Cmdr:

    Yes, as I said on the other forums, if you want to go minimalist changes:

    1. Restore the setup to Alpha 3 original
    2. Add a Strategic Bomber to England
    3. Add a Destroyer to SZ 109; SZ 96; SZ 93; SZ 98 (ANZAC)
    4. Add a Transport + Destroyer somewhere in the south pacific for Japan, I’m thinking SZ 42
    5. Kill the American Continental NO replace it with 5 for Iwo Jima, 5 for Okinawa (it’s a helluva lot more logical from both a game play AND a historical perspective!)
    6. Restore the Russian NO to Alpha 3 circa whatever it was when Alpha 3 was released - MAYBE include Italian territories.
    7. +2 Armor in Amur

    That’s really only 5 very minor changes - all of which geared to make naval engagements a bit more deadly and tricky and thus bring the game back down more historical lines.  Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

    5 changes, but the first one is the one I am intersted in.  Why?  What is better about A3 than A2?

    1. Alpha 3 original had an extra fighter in England (much needed! for the defense of London, would love to walk you through some very naughty ideas about what to do to England if you like in another channel.)  It also had airbases in the Med which, upon playing the game, ARE REALLY NEEDED!!!.  It also had some British defenders in France (you know England lost a total of 2 fighters, right?)  I also enjoy the AA Guns and you don’t have them in the Alpha 2 setup…I guess that’s the real reason.

    2. Number 2 is there becuase Larry did it.  I just mentioned it as a “change” since I said restore to original Alpha 3 setup (which did not have the bomber.)

    3. Number 3 is there to add some naval complexity and not just make everything a shoe in for the Germans.  It also forces England to use more than a solitary fighter to clear SZ 96 before sailing for Gibraltar.

    4. Number 4 is really there to balance the 2 Russian armor mentioned in #7.

    5. I despise, with all of my being, that American NO for the Continental United States.  It is the most blatant example of American Exceptionalism (ie Racism) I have ever seen!  Does Russia get it?  No.  Only the Anglo-Americans, but at least you can kill England and Indias by taking some useless tract of land!  Iwo Jima, however, was a desperate struggle against the forces of Imperial Japan, it should be worth more, politically speaking anyway, to motivate the folks at home to work harder, thus, National Objective.  Okinawa really WAS a National Objective, it gave us bombers in range of Tokyo.  Again, major importance ignored.  So make it neutral?  Kill the Continental NO, add the other two.  America has the same number of NOs.  Japan has NEVER kept Iwo and Okinawa…of course, they never TRY TO KEEP THEM either, so maybe this will spread the Japanese a bit more?

    6. Rewarding Russia for annexing pro-allied neutrals seems wrong.  I understand what he was doing, he wanted England killed by round 5 and Russia on it’s own, thus, it needs the extra cash, but I dont think that much.  If you are going to keep neutrals in the NO, then Russia shouldnt be able to collect more than double the territory’s value for their NO.  (Neutral’s worth 0?  Russia gets 0!  Neutral’s worth 1, Russia gets 2.  Etc.)  At least it would stop Ireland!

    7. Yes, I sometimes (fine, almost ALWAYS okay?) send a tactical bomber to the East for Russia, because without one high value attack piece, they can’t push back on Japan.  With it, it means Japan has to reinforce with high value pieces of their own.  Putting the Armor here (and giving Japan a destroyer/transport somewhere else to balance it) would effectively do this without weakening the Russian air force.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @JimmyHat:

    @mantlefan:

    @Young:

    Many, many times I have seen accusations that Jen influenced Larry and his team to impliment her own ideas into the rules. What rules are Jens?

    Whoa there, sir. Where did I say “Jen” in my post?

    Besides you are missing the point. It’s not which changes were accepted, it’s the fact that many of the balance issues were exxagerated IN ORDER TO try to get input.

    People had ideas they wanted to implement. Stating that there were balance issues (whether actually believed or not) was a great pretext. Saying “The game is fine but here is what I want” isn’t very convincing to Larry or anyone else. The excuse needs to be made up before the changes seem necessary.

    I fully agree mantlefan.  We put together a comprehensive test of a G3 Sealion in A2 and proved it wouldn’t work.  I don’t remember that coming up in Larry’s discussions on game balance though.  I have actually tried to go back through the A1 and A2 threads on Larry’s site to figure out what the problems were but there’s too much chafe to find the wheat in there.

    Of course A2 was not perfect, but it was light years better than A3.

    What Larry did was to make Sea Lion even more successful.  He listened to you!  Now you can’t get all those planes home.  You cannot defend the British fleet as well since Gibraltar cannot scramble for you.  Italians have more airpower to can open for Germany to allow them to sink the British fleet if it comes out or at least take Gibraltar and lock them in.

    He listened!  I’m telling you, he WANTS England to die!  That’s why he took the NO away too, figuring since it’s so much easier to get, now you shouldnt get rewarded for it as well.  He gave us a token “Russia can also declare war if London falls” rule, but that’s all it really is at that point.

    Note, India has been falling on R3 for a LONG time, he’s done nothing to bolster that either.



  • @Cmdr:

    I despise, with all of my being, that American NO for the Continental United States.  It is the most blatant example of American Exceptionalism (ie Racism) I have ever seen!  Does Russia get it?  No.  Only the Anglo-Americans, but at least you can kill England and Indias by taking some useless tract of land!

    @Cmdr:

    He listened!  I’m telling you, he WANTS England to die!

    @Cmdr:

    I understand what he was doing, he wanted England killed by round 5 and Russia on it’s own, thus, it needs the extra cash

    These claims are ABSURD! Im not seeing a chorus of people in agreement with you and I do not see these problems in games myself. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the problem is not with the game but with the way you are playing it. Jimmy and Mantlefan are 100% correct about people just making claims that the game is broken so they can have a hand in the game and I think these statments are a perfect example. Also, I wonder why you would bother with a game if you think it and by extension its creator is a racist?


  • 2017

    @Cmdr:

    Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

    I don’t know if this warrants a separate thread, but why is Sea Lion any easier?

    Is this based on an SBR and/or convoy strategy (Germany can do more damage this way than in A2)?

    Edit: I missed your other comment about Gibraltar.  So the main factor making Sea Lion easier is Gibraltar’s lack of airbase to guard UK Mediterranean ships en route to the Atlantic?



  • I wouldn’t be surprised if Larry is somewhere right now, laughing at all the assumtions that people here have the ability to lead his hand regarding his game.



  • @Clyde85:

    @Cmdr:

    I despise, with all of my being, that American NO for the Continental United States.  It is the most blatant example of American Exceptionalism (ie Racism) I have ever seen!  Does Russia get it?  No.  Only the Anglo-Americans, but at least you can kill England and Indias by taking some useless tract of land!

    @Cmdr:

    He listened!  I’m telling you, he WANTS England to die!

    @Cmdr:

    I understand what he was doing, he wanted England killed by round 5 and Russia on it’s own, thus, it needs the extra cash

    These claims are ABSURD! Im not seeing a chorus of people in agreement with you and I do not see these problems in games myself. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the problem is not with the game but with the way you are playing it. Jimmy and Mantlefan are 100% correct about people just making claims that the game is broken so they can have a hand in the game and I think these statments are a perfect example. Also, I wonder why you would bother with a game if you think it and by extension its creator is a racist?

    AHA!!!

    See we have found it.  Larry DOESN’T have a plan for this game, at least not one he is willing to share and so we get these ideas to drive the game in differing directions.  An octopus with no head and more legs desperately grasping….grasping…grasping.

    If we could get an idea as to what he wanted to achieve in the larger picture, and how he intended to achieve balance we could actually provide ideas.  Otherwise we just end up with wonky aa guns and slooowwwww fixes.

    I know there’s no plan because of all the flip flopping.  Germ can sealion, Germ cannot.  Now they can, soon they will not be able to again.  Its all so frustrating because it seems horribly led due to not knowing the ultimate design.  The only part I can truely understand is one aspect of Larry’s intention to achieve balance.  The axis will have superiority in their theatres, especially against Russia, but the US will have the ability to play the cavalry and save the day.  This is sorta historic BTW.

    I think the solution is to put Germany on the horns of a dilemma.  They can either take UK or take on Russia full bore.  But give them the option.



  • @Cmdr:

    Yes, as I said on the other forums, if you want to go minimalist changes:

    1. Restore the setup to Alpha 3 original
    2. Add a Strategic Bomber to England
    3. Add a Destroyer to SZ 109; SZ 96; SZ 93; SZ 98 (ANZAC)
    4. Add a Transport + Destroyer somewhere in the south pacific for Japan, I’m thinking SZ 42
    5. Kill the American Continental NO replace it with 5 for Iwo Jima, 5 for Okinawa (it’s a helluva lot more logical from both a game play AND a historical perspective!)
    6. Restore the Russian NO to Alpha 3 circa whatever it was when Alpha 3 was released - MAYBE include Italian territories.
    7. +2 Armor in Amur

    That’s really only 5 very minor changes - all of which geared to make naval engagements a bit more deadly and tricky and thus bring the game back down more historical lines.  Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

    PLease god tell you don’t actually talk to Larry you are CRAZY! I don’t even need to go into why america gets the extra money. THis is completely historically accurate. Read some history books before you makes statements you don’t understand! All these extra destroyers to make it harder for Germany….  Allies have a huge economic advantage. the axis advantage is in their starting units and where they are placed and what they can attack. 2 more armor in amur would really unbalance things over there. Historically russia never would have attakced japan and visa versa makes no sense. I would like to see another armor and artillery in the east though to make it harder for germany to just pound through russiaso easily. You are saying how easy it is to kill UK INdia T3. If you add a transport won’t this make it even easier?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @mantlefan:

    It’s absolutely idiotic to state that the US Continetal NO is racist. Most of the US NO’s are to express the switchover to a wartime economy, to replace the clumsier system from OOB with a more streamlined one.

    Fine they represent the scattered peoples of Alaska suddenly producing mass quantities of destroyers and aircraft carriers…there were no shipyards there, but whatever.  :roll:

    For much of the war, once it really started (ie when Japan attacked America and I am only referring to the war as it relates to America) the Americans were losing.  If anything, the people should be considered disspirited and thus if all the US has is its own territories or not even all its own territories, it should have MINUS 10 IPC, not PLUS 10.

    However, replacing this NO with Iwo Jima and Okinawa makes WAY more sense.  What is immortalized in bronze?  The fact that San Francisco was never invaded or the Marines taking Iwo Jima?  How is this even an argument?


    And yes, ROC.  If you send Larry an email he will reply to you.  So you can talk to Larry.



  • Please look it up Jen. When America was attacked our wartime economy kicked in. Our manufacturing capabilities rose over 33%. So how in the world is it more historically accurate to go against history? Oh and by the way America produced well over 100 aircraft carriers in WW2. Japan produced soemthing on the lines of 20.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @theROCmonster:

    Please look it up Jen. When America was attacked our wartime economy kicked in. Our manufacturing capabilities rose over 33%. So how in the world is it more historically accurate to go against history? Oh and by the way America produced well over 100 aircraft carriers in WW2. Japan produced soemthing on the lines of 20.

    You added in the women.  Fine.

    I am not comparing production levels.  I don’t really care about them.  What production capability did Germany get for taking Stalingrad?  By the time they got it there was nothing left to USE for production capability.  Right?  So production capability has NOTHING to do with National Objective bonuses in Axis and Allies.  National Objective bonuses are for achieving the mission objectives!

    For instance:  There is no bonus for Germany holding all German territories.  (since there is one for America, this is my basis for the racism of the objective!).  Why not?  Because that did not matter to NAZI High Command, what they wanted was Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, London, etc!

    For instance:  There is no bonus for Japan holding all Japanese territories. (since there is one for America, this is my basis for the racism of the objective!).  Why not?  Because that did not matter to the EMPIRE, they wanted the DEI, to keep America out of the war, to take FIC.

    For instance:  There is no bonus for Russia holding all Russian territories.  Since this is impossible anyway, it should be one!  However, they get one for taking Neutrals…anyway…why?  Spread of communism, NOT, I should point out, productivity!

    For instance:  There is no bonus for Italy holding all Italian territorie. (since there is one for America, this is my basis for the racism of the objective!).  Why not?  Because Italy wanted N. Africa, Egypt, S. Africa, the Middle East!

    I have no established, by induction, that the national objectives have NOTHING to do with productivity at home.  I don’t care what unemployment was, what mean income was, how many widgets were produced.  It’s all not relevant to the discussion.  What matters is that National Objectives, in Axis and Allies, relate SOLELY to achieving military success as defined by the historical govenments and to promote global war.  That’s it.  They have no bearing on anything else.

    Therefore, I submit that Iwo Jima and Okinawa better fit this definition than Continental USA.  Continental USA does not promote global war, it has nothing to do with historical mission objectives and therefore does not fit the definition of a National Objective, as defined in Axis and Allies.  Would it have been a mission if, for instance, Oregon was invaded by the Japanese?  Sure.  THEN you would have a historical basis for this being a government mandated objective!  Oregon was not invaded. (I think some bombs were dropped, but that’s not boots on the street!)  Washington State was not invaded.  The State of Alaska was not invaded!  The State of Hawaii was not invaded!  The District of Columbia was not invaded!

    That’s all I am saying.  NOs have a precedent for conquest or historical government mission objectives.  The British and American ones are “one of these things is not like the others!” as they said in Sesame Street!

    And since those only apply to Anglo-American countries, then I say they are racist.  They dont apply to Russians, Germans, or anyone else!


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Another way:

    The IPC value of a territory is defined by its historical production capacity, with a little balance thrown in.  Game balance tells us England is worth 6 but Japan is worth 8.  I want to say that the great and might world power that is and was the British Commonwealth could probably have out produced the tiny little island of Japan.  History tells us that E. USA probably out produced Moscow, and wow, there it is on the board!

    Now, the actual IPC you hold is not this, it represents this, but it is not that.    If it was related soley as a fixed value as to represent how many widgets your people produced, then you cannot explain a national objective at all!    Some might say you can explain it through morale.  Fine.  I would say that the American people would have worked three times harder if Germany had a few hundred thousand divisions of soldiers in Mexico than they would have if Germany was over there playing in Russia.  (Yes, that is more infantry than Germany had in the entire war, that’s why I picked that number.  Now no one can say “but they only had half a division!” or some other nonsense to divert the discussion.)  So if a national objective was suddenly the people working harder, then America should not get an objective until invaded.  But that is counter-productive for the game.

    Another look at it, why would the Persians suddenly produce twice as much in a month when it was conquered than it did when they were free?  They wouldn’t!  If anything, they would produce LESS, because of local resistance groups and “blue flus” etc.

    So obviously, the national objectives have literally nothing to do with production levels.  Nothing.  So what are they?

    Web definitions
    (Military objective) A goal or objective is a projected computation of affairs that a person or a system plans or intends to achieve—a personal or organizational desired end-point in some sort of assumed development. Many people endeavor to reach goals within a finite time by setting deadlines.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_objective

    (Military objective) The object of an armed attack during wartime.
    www.hrea.net/index.php

    A military objective is attaining a goal from a prolonged set of actions instituted by many people, the culmination of many plans?  How does this encompass keeping the Continental United States free???  There are no plans for that!  There is no system of plans for that!  There was, however, a system of plans to island hop to Japan!  There was, however, a coordinated effort to attain a military objective in the capture of Iwo Jima!  Iwo Jima was the “object of an armed attack during wartime.”  Hell IT IS the definition of objective!

    Funny, so is Stalingrad!  Hey, maybe there is a whole pattern of these!  Hmm…let’s look closer:

    Iraq, yes has to be attacked and conquered.
    C. Persia, yes has to be attacked and conquered.
    All the +3 nos for Russia, have to be attacked and conquered.
    N. Africa?  That’s a “system of plans” to attack and conquer!
    Wait, what about japan?  DEI!!!  Attack and conquer!

    You mean to tell me that ALL the national objectives for Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan require you to attack and conquer something?  Even the British ones require you to maintain ALL your territories as free?  But the Americans only have to manage to somehow, and I know this is going to be hard, but somehow NOT lose one of the 3 territories that can build 10 units a round with a country that makes enough to produce 20 units a round?  I don’t know man!  How will America ever make a system of plans to do that?  (Yes, I’m being sarcastic.  It’s a stupid NO and never should have been there, but even in Larry’s comments to me, he admits he makes America a power house on purpose.  Therefore, this is purely to make America a power house and has no real basis in history or in the definition of military objective.)

    That said…Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Here we go again.  Mantlefan, I am using the definition provided by the dictionary for military objective.  You are using your “anti-jennifer” definition which states that any definition I use is inherently wrong, even if it is the official definition.



  • ah, but who cares?  US needs the unmolestable ipcs in order to be the Damocles sword over  the heads of the Axis.  If those ipcs’ had to be conquered, then US might not be able to get off the blocks let alone take those islands.

    Having US be interested in an island hoping campaign is a good idea though, with its final destination as Iwo or Oki.  I would say Us has to hold 3 or 4 islands plus Iwo to get the 3 ipcs.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @JimmyHat:

    ah, but who cares?  US needs the unmolestable ipcs in order to be the Damocles sword over  the heads of the Axis.  If those ipcs’ had to be conquered, then US might not be able to get off the blocks let alone take those islands.

    Having US be interested in an island hoping campaign is a good idea though, with its final destination as Iwo or Oki.  I would say Us has to hold 3 or 4 islands plus Iwo to get the 3 ipcs.

    Yes.  That is Larry’s argument exactly.

    I don’t think the allies should just GET this money.  If you need to increase America’s buying power, why not increase E. USA by 4 IPC, C. USA by 3 IPC and W. USA by 3 IPC and get rid of the NO?

    In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.  Not saying it’s racism that hurts anyone, this is benevolent racism.  I understand!  We all want our country to be the best, the most powerful, the perfect nation.  It’s even got a term!  American Exceptionalism.  Fine!  I get it.

    My solution?  Increase the land value (at least then if Japan does a hail mary to get W. USA, they GET something for it as well as their NO and America does not lose their buying power…not sure how 10 IPC became the difference between winning or losing the game and thus America had to have it, but I’ll conceed it if I get increased land value instead of NO.)  Then add in Iwo and Okinawa as NOs.  At least those two make sense!  They required a plan or a set of plans to achieve in a military sense! (This is a game of military, as much as Larry may have thought he was introducing politics, he was not.  This is not “Diplomacy” it is “Axis and Allies” and is a military game.)



  • @Cmdr:

    In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

    Pulls the racism card


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Zallomallo:

    @Cmdr:

    In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

    Pulls the racism card

    Not to get into a discussion about racism, but not all racism is bad.  American Exceptionalism is an accepted form of racism in The United States and it basically means we think we are better than everyone else in the world.  This is probably false, but it’s accepted anyway and no one really sees and real harm done.

    This is what I am referring too.

    Back on topic:

    Starting to feel AA Gun rules from Alpha 3 and everything else from Alpha 2 and you’d have yourself a pretty good game!  (Yes, this would mean England has 1 more defensive point, and YES Jim, I know you technically can stop Sea Lion if you dont get even the slightest bit diced, but wouldn’t it be nice to have that one extra hit in there?)

    If we have to tweak it more, then add a couple armor in Amur.  Give Russia that little OOMPH.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Oh, and definitely keep the extended range to Rockets technology!

    Why?  4 Range means S. Italy can hit Egypt and vice-versa.  Egypt can hit S. Ukraine.  S. Ukraine can hit S. Italy.  Etc.  If you dont play tech, then this wont really apply to you.


  • Customizer

    @Cmdr:

    @Zallomallo:

    @Cmdr:

    In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

    Pulls the racism card

    Not to get into a discussion about racism, but not all racism is bad.  American Exceptionalism is an accepted form of racism in The United States and it basically means we think we are better than everyone else in the world.  This is probably false, but it’s accepted anyway and no one really sees and real harm done.

    Perhaps “racism” isn’t really the proper term.  Maybe “nationalism” would be more appropriate.  Basically it’s taking pride in one’s country, patriotism, with perhaps a little “we’re better” ego thrown in.



  • @knp7765:

    @Cmdr:

    @Zallomallo:

    @Cmdr:

    In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

    Pulls the racism card

    Not to get into a discussion about racism, but not all racism is bad.   American Exceptionalism is an accepted form of racism in The United States and it basically means we think we are better than everyone else in the world.  This is probably false, but it’s accepted anyway and no one really sees and real harm done.

    Perhaps “racism” isn’t really the proper term.  Maybe “nationalism” would be more appropriate.  Basically it’s taking pride in one’s country, patriotism, with perhaps a little “we’re better” ego thrown in.

    (sorry for more off topic)
    My thoughts exactly.  Racism is directed at a single race, like Korean, American, English, etc.  Nationalism is for an actual country.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yes, but I was lumping nationalism in as part of racism. As I said, the word got a bad rap because of “bad racism.”  Good racism could be a competition between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to get to the Moon first and the one that loses is “inferior.”



  • @Cmdr:

    Yes, but I was lumping nationalism in as part of racism. As I said, the word got a bad rap because of “bad racism.”  Good racism could be a competition between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to get to the Moon first and the one that loses is “inferior.”

    You said they should just add the IPC’s to USA’s continental zones.  I think Larry wants to simulate wartime economy though.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Zallomallo:

    @Cmdr:

    Yes, but I was lumping nationalism in as part of racism. As I said, the word got a bad rap because of “bad racism.”  Good racism could be a competition between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to get to the Moon first and the one that loses is “inferior.”

    You said they should just add the IPC’s to USA’s continental zones.  I think Larry wants to simulate wartime economy though.

    I get that, but cant that part be represented by the territories of Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway, Mexico, W. Indies and the Aleutians represent that?  At least if you bump the American income then Japan can actually take the money, then America can take it back…makes an American conquest at least entertaining - if futile.  And that’s the real problem I have with America!  Why should America be essentially immune from destruction just because it was not invaded in WWII? (No, taking the Aluetians and Wake does NOT count as invaded the USA, those were territories, not states.)  We could take it in Classic and Revised, I even took it twice in Anniversary, but as of now, I see no possible way to take it in Global.  The one option we did have (in Alpha 2) has been banned by Larry.



  • I think it would have been essentially impossible for the Axis to have invaded the USA in real life.  It’s so far away that whatever they sent at it could be intercepted, or prepared for.  Also, this would take pressure off of nearby enemies, allowing them to gain the upper hand.  The only way it would’ve been possible is after the Axis had conquered Russia and England.



  • You could never have taken america out in revised unless the game was already over and Germany and japan were fighting america alone. I am a pro at revised version. If you want to test your merritt vs mine let’s go.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @theROCmonster:

    You could never have taken america out in revised unless the game was already over and Germany and japan were fighting america alone. I am a pro at revised version. If you want to test your merritt vs mine let’s go.

    Geeze, that was so long ago I wouldnt be able to give you specifics.  I just remember using German and Japan strikes similar to Canadian Shield in Classic. (if you dont know what that is, look up CSUB articles or if you cannot find them, I have them all on PDF.  Interesting, works sometimes if your opponent didnt read the strategy as well!)

    AAR rocked, the Russians were UNSTOPABLE!  (I used a method that bagged 2 German fighters and took 3 territories with a 4th as easy pickings.  It only had an overall 75% chance to work and if it failed it was game over for Russia, but it ROCKED!)


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 47
  • 10
  • 32
  • 16
  • 8
  • 78
  • 2
  • 14
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

70
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts