Disclaimer… I don’t mean to bring down any of you tank fans out there. I’m just more inclined to spend my income on the usual infantry, artillery and biplane purchases.
Posts made by Admiral T
-
RE: Infantry vs. Artillery vs. Tank Builds
-
RE: Users vs. Guests
One more thing!
There are undoubtably thousands of casual A&A fans from around the world. I’d bet my bottom dollar that many of the Guests are simply those people who stumble upon this site.
Also, thanks for the welcome back after my long hiatus CWO Marc! You and I share a similar process for avoiding… ‘unparliamentary language’ :) . As you say, it doesn’t work as well on the smartphone though… :(
-
RE: Users vs. Guests
Can confirm that people don’t always sign in… I am one of them.
I joined this site many years ago and have been a regular visitor since. I love A&A and I the love a lot of the content in these forums. I get plenty of enjoyment/insight from the content everyone posts. I also like to glean new strategies and read about players game experiences. I quickly got out of the habit of posting though, for a number of reasons. In no particular order, here are a few of said reasons for being mostly a forum appreciator rather than contributor:
I am loathe to make a redundant post. Many of my questions about the games/ new rule versions are already answered (I just have to look for them). Why bother cluttering up an already monstrously large forum?
The forum website itself is a little cumbersome and old fashioned. I primarily use a smart phone and I find it is difficult to make posts on a little screen. If there is a mobile friendly version, I am not aware of it… But it’s existence would make things much easier for people like me!
It is sometimes tough to keep track of conversations. In the day and age of things like facebook, twitter or whatever social media you use, this forum lacks a lot of the nice ‘interactive’ and ‘user friendly’ notification features. It takes time to sift through dozens of threads/posts to see if there was a response to your post.
I’m a bit of perfectionist. It takes a while for me to make a post and often I just would rather continue reading or move on to something else.
Some posters can be shy and some can be a little disrespectful. It’s tough to speak your mind about something you are passionate about when people trash you or your friends.
Over the years, I have used dozens of devices/computers and wipe cache for all of them quite often. I guess you could say I’m a little lazy and often don’t bother signing in… In fact, I had gone a couple of years without signing in and had totally forgotten my password!
I think that about covers it. Hope that shines some light for you regular posters.
PS- this thread encouraged me to post once again. Go figure!
-
RE: Infantry vs. Artillery vs. Tank Builds
Tanks will certainly not win you this game. They are expensive and perform horrifically when on defence. Seriously. It’s sad. Weep as your precious 6IPC tin can gets decimated in the least glorious way possible…. Furthermore, they come into play so late that the war is all but over before they can make it to the front lines to prove their usefulness! Okay, okay, I think you guys get the picture I’m not a huge fan of these things.
That being said, they do have their uses:
British stacks of tanks that are adequately shielded by French and American troops are “OK,” and can help to wear down the Germans. I have seen this tactic used somewhat effectively to tip the number balance on the western front. Of course this will only work if they participate in multiple offensive combat rounds. However, a lot of things can go sideways very quickly in this game and it can be easy to see your tanks suddenly in a vulnerable position… You will be lamenting, “Why oh why did I waste six million of man hours on this useless piece of garbage that gets stuck in the mud, barely achieves walking speed and kills its operators with exhaust fumes, when I could have had two whole infantry battalions bravely fighting with machine guns?!” Sorry. Ranting again.
I find tanks are the most useful for clearing up small scale and/or far flung nuisances. A couple of lone infantry causing you problems? Send in the tanks! Want to subjugate a few neutrals against their will to earn some extra cash but don’t want to suffer casualties? Send in the tanks!
And of course… Are you ballin’ out of control with mad chedda? Tanks! Got your enemy on the ropes and want to display your hubris? TANKS! Go for it! You da man!/woman!
-
RE: Heavy (now renamed Anti-Tank) Artillery against Mechanized artillery and Tanks
By the way, CWO Marc, I am a big fan of your detailed responses!
-
RE: Heavy (now renamed Anti-Tank) Artillery against Mechanized artillery and Tanks
If we want a strong defensive unit our game, the Blockhouse from HBG is the best choice.
Blockhouse, cost 8, no movement, zero attack, defend at 4 or less and take two hits to kill (it absorb one hit)
If you still want more ideas for a unit that provides a defensive boost Baron, I do something similar to what Narvik outlined earlier. Blockhouse units represent that extra bit (sometimes a substantial extra bit) of preparation defending forces put into creating bunkers, pillboxes, tank traps, trenches, etc… I however like these units simple, cheap and only marginally effective… You in turn see players encouraged to bulk up some of the classically defended territories (like the coast of France, places in Russia and maybe some Italian territories) without completely changing the nature of Axis & Allies combat system.
BLOCKHOUSES
A: 0
D: 0
M: 0
Cost: 2
Special: Increases defence value of one infantry by +1. Can be taken as a casualty in battle. Limit one per territory IPC value.
Blockhouses are ‘built’ on territories much the same way you would build an industrial complex. -
RE: Heavy (now renamed Anti-Tank) Artillery against Mechanized artillery and Tanks
Hi everybody! This topic caught my attention as I have been toying with expanding the G40 unit list for a number of years now. The following two mechanized units have become mainstays that, for me and my group, really fill some of the gaps you guys have identified without getting too crazy/complicated:
TANK DESTROYER
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: target an enemy land unit on a roll of 1 (in both attack and defence)This unit is meant to represent the wide range of direct fire armoured units like assault guns and anti-tank vehicles (StuG’s, Hellcat’s… )
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gunSELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: provides an infantry or mechanized inf with a +1 attack bonus (essentially the same as the trusty artillery, but it moves two.)This unit is meant to represent indirect fire artillery pieces that were capable of moving into position on their own (Hummel’s, Katyusha’s…)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_artilleryJust my two cents :)
-
RE: Will Larry's changes be official?
I actually like not having paper IPC’s. I found that keeping track of production that way was susceptible to error. For example, you would forget to grab your money, you would lose an IPC here and there or pick an extra one up. With writing everything down it is easy to track how much each country is making, and also it is interesting to see the record of each individual nation.
If you really want paper IPC’s… just grab them from an older game.
-
RE: Liberating Territory Question
Why must an enemy take control of a defunct ally’s territory before you can assume control of it? Wouldn’t it make sense that if a functioning ally moves troops into such a territory, its population and resources could be reorganized and directed towards the occupying powers war effort?
-
Liberating Territory Question
I’m not sure if these questions have been addressed already, and if they have, I’m sorry!
In AAE40, if a power is knocked out of the game, is it possible that its allies can take over its remaining territories to add to their own production totals? Say for example France and/or the UK are taken out by Germany; can the American or Soviet players assume control of their African territories by moving troops into them before the Italian player takes them? Or, must we wait for our opponents to take a territory before we can ‘liberate’ it and add it to our surviving powers income? I feel the rulebook isn’t completely clear on this issue.
My second question… What is the purpose of the Canadian roundels on the map? The rule book doesn’t seem to say anything about them. I assume the Canadian territories contribute to the UK’s income, so why complicate things with the different symbols?
Thanks guys.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
I’m not sure if these questions have been addressed already, and if they have, I’m sorry!
In the global game and in AAE40, if a power is knocked out of the game, is it possible that their allies can take over their remaining territories? Say for example France and the UK (Europe) are both taken out by Germany; can the American player take control of their African territories before the Italian player takes them? Also, can the UK Pacific player still take control of French Indo China before the Japanese like it could in AAP40? Or, must we wait for our opponents to take a territory before we can ‘liberate’ it and add it to our surviving powers income?
My second question… What is the purpose of the Canadian roundels on the map? The rule book doesn’t seem to say anything about them. I assume the Canadian territories contribute to the UK’s income, so why complicate things with the different symbols?
Thanks guys.
-
RE: Operation Seelowe
calvinhobbesliker … He is using the German word for ‘Sealion’… Unternehmen Seelöwe…
I was his opponent in this game. He attacked 3 infantry, 3 artillery, 4 fighters, 3 tactical bombers and 1 strategic bomber. I had 12 infantry and 2 fighters. He also had his battleship and cruiser bombard England. Both of those units scored hits. Other than that, neither of us had extremely lucky or unlucky rolls. I was so shocked to see England eliminated so soon that I nearly gave up. Luckily, I stuck it out and eventually won!
Our running tally so far… Allies: 4, Axis: 0… Or to be more precise, Admiral T: 4, Cornmeal: 0.
-
RE: Disapointed
Sure the cardboard pieces and the map aren’t as nice as the stuff that was in AA50, and not anywhere near the quality of the stuff in Guadalcanal, but the sheer quality of gameplay trumps minor aesthetic issues. I think it’s shaping up to be one of the best A&A’s that has been produced thus far in terms of complexity, detail, balance and over all fun. It is a truly amazing game. Just because the components aren’t as ‘nice,’ it doesn’t mean the game is a disappointment. I’d play this game and be happy if it had the same material quality as that old Milton Bradley Axis & Allies.
Keep in mind that these games we love are expensive to make and produce, and that they aren’t exactly a mainstream product… I’m continually impressed with the quality of these games with that perspective in mind. So, stop whining and enjoy the game for what it is and have some appreciation for what Larry and his crew have done for us. If you’re unhappy with a few things, take some ownership of your possessions and fix it yourself.
-
RE: Quick and easy solution to tac bombers
For IC’s I just use two IC pieces for a major, and one for a minor. There is plenty of room on the board and its easy to upgrade… Just add another building!
-
RE: AA 40 Pacific Setup Pictures
Yeah, the cardboard pieces don’t really tickle my fancy… I think I’ll use two plastic IC’s for major complex’s and only one for the minor complex’s. There seems to be plenty of room on the board for that system.
-
RE: Just How Old Are We Axis and Allies Players?
I started playing when I was 18. I guess that means I’ve been addicted for 5 years now!
-
RE: 1941 or 1942
'41 takes waaaaay too long. I like '42 better.
-
RE: AA50 Bias
I tried KI-WEGJ again tonight. The American submarines ruined the Japanese navy, the Germans were strapped for units due to British landings, and the Italians were mercilessly pounded into the ground. It was glorious.
-
RE: USA Pacific strategy?
Check out the ‘AA50 Bias’ thread. We have a little discussion there that is directly related to this.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12859.30
-
RE: Do We Need Special Capitol Capture Rules? Would We Be Better Off Without Them?
I always thought that losing ALL of your money when losing a capital was a bit too harsh and also a really strange concept. I’ve always wondered if losing only half of your cash would be better. I mean, if a capital city capitulates, it does not mean the entire country is unable to continue working or fighting. Also, losing ones own capital would be terrible for morale, but just because the capital city is in enemy hands, it doesn’t mean that the command structure is necessarily destroyed. It would be disrupted most definitely, but still there. Also, if the Germans took Moscow in 1941 for example, the labor efforts of the Soviet nation for the previous 6 months would not have magically passed over to the German economy. Sure there would be a surge of German morale which might have briefly contributed to an increase of production, but not on the same level as the Soviet national income.
For these reasons I think losing only half of ones income to the rapist of your capital seems to make sense. It gives incentive for capitals to be taken, but also does not totally destroy the nations ability to fight. Thoughts?