Topics created by allboxcars

Eww her face!

Holden how is your next map project coming along?

I hope people can just make a new version of the rules avabile as a .pdf and we would not need to have a FAQ the size of the bible.

And really well done Krieghuad. I hope you are getting paid more than you can even imanage because of all the work you are doing.

@Captain:

Ok, so here is my question regarding Mongolia and the infantry value on them.  If Japan attacks Buyan-Uhaa, I as the opposing power has the option of putting 2 of any of the allies men there, as my choice.  So, does that mean I can use Chinese men or does it have to be US, UK, or ANZAC?  If I can use Chinese, can China then move men into it to try to take it back after Japan successfully captures it or can China still not leave China?

Thanks,
Captain Crunch

I’m pretty sure the only reason you use allied infantry is because there are no dedicated mongolian infantry.  If you use chinese infantry to represent them, it doesn’t mean their chinese, so it doesn’t matter which color you use.

So in the above example, exactly how many IPCs did you spend?

@TG:

@marechallannes:

@TG:

When I was at the Eindhoven Board Game Con, I came across the most remarkable facsimile of Axis and Allies.  It was a Euro-game depicting World War II in Europe.

What’s the name of the game?

Actually, I intentionally left out the name because I’m not 100% sure on it.  It was a German game and I think the title roughly translates in “Europe at War” – but don’t quote me on that.  Maybe our German fans here can help us out on that. ;)

This was at the Eindhoven Gaming Con three years ago.  You might be able to find pictures of the game at the Spellenspektakel website: http://www.spellenspektakel.nl/Home/1/SPELLENSPEKTAKEL.html

@Col.Stauffenberg:

I find it laughable that people think revised and now 42 is some simplistic kids game compared to AA50. So there’s less pieces and territories. Is Chess just a simple game? AA50 is cool but a lot of it is just needless bells and whistles.

Okay, I’m going to have to call you on this one.  Exactly what parts of AA50 did you find “Needless Bells and Whistles?”  Technology?  National Objectives?  Printed Currency?  Because the only missteps I can think of is the placement of the Chinese Fighter and the lack of a Victory City in Cairo.  Other than that, I thought AA50 was a superbly crafted game.

Mainly the extra territories and NO’s. Printed currency is redundant but the Technology was awesome. I’m not bad mouthing AA50, just defending Revised and 42 as no less difficult. (I think AA50 is pretty easy since it tells you what you’re supposed to do with the NO’s)

Just my humble opinion, but seems that the AA50 treatment of subs generates a good chunk of inquiry…

so why not make a sticky thread for all sub rules questions and answers?

Not the tactical kind of question (what do you do with the sub at sz4) or asthetic (don’t the German subs look much sexier than the Russian) but cut-n-dry clarification stuff.

Heck, call it the Sub Pen or something if it “floats your boat” (every pun intended).

@Flashman:

Remember that the USA built up a major bomber base in Chengdu in order to bomb Japan, and this prompted the last major Japanese offensive of the war.  I see no reason to limit the placement of US aircraft on Chinese soil.  Of course they wouldn’t be able to attack in conjunction with Chinese units.

agreed  :-D

7. Life Tile [[i]Game of Life] - Whenever a player captures a Victory City or causes an opponent to retreat from attacking his Victory City, grab a Life Tile and read it aloud. Players may freely conjecture how saving Stalingrad helped to “Find a Cure for the Common Cold” and if the $40,000 payoff has any IPC value.

@Imperious:

Well to make it exactly like AARHE, you would need one difference:

The first round only attacking infantry fire, then in other rounds all other land units can fire.

Also, we allow retreats and each unit doing this is converted to infantry and reembarked.

Naw, not a fan of my arty and armour sitting on their hands for an entire round.
But I do like the Dunkirkian feel of the infantry conversion.

@Cmdr:

Actually, i think I’d like it better for Artillery, not Armor.

Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 2.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 3.

Then again, I like changing Artillery to a 2/1 unit, instead of 2/2.  (attack/defend.)  I mean common, those 88’s on defense have to fire into their own ranks, right?  One would hope the cannoneers would be EXTRA careful lining up those shots!

Good call. Totally agree with:
Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 1.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 2.

But I’d also keep Armour without infantry support - Defend @ 2

After further consideration I no longer feel the fighter escort/interceptor rule needs any fine tuning. In my previous posts I expressed the view that the rule nerfed strategic bombing too much but I’ve since changed my mind. After all, bombing raids over inland German targets without escorts was near suicidal, especially during the daylight. It wasn’t until the Allies had deployed long range escort fighters and had outnumbered the defending Luftwaffe aircraft, that the Allies were able to conduct bombing missions without terrible loses. The same is true with the fighter escort/interceptor rule as it stands now and it should stay that way.

Recently it has like 99.8% been regulated to discussion to that end.

OK so after skimming a number of threads I see a lot of similarities in house rule, can we get a quick run down of all the most popular features to be added to the map?

Not pieces or border changes but stuff like…

1. ports
2. barracks (or other infantry-generating locations)

what else?

@mwindianapolis:

@allboxcars:

personally I’m hoping the new game breathes some new life into these fora.

Yes I am an FNG but still - looking around and just reading some threads more or less at random - this place seems to be stagnant with something wavering between indifference and dogma.

COOL!!! My first Karma point! Negative naturally…

Well, it seems to me if you are going to kling to the same basic game (axis and allies) then not much can be done to send fresh air in. Just how much new stuff could be done…like start trek, they have been there and done that…many times over!

Actually it wasn’t the game I thought needed “fresh air” but this place.

@Imperious:

The OOB rules for AAE describe fighter escorts and defense.

Jet fighters is another matter altogether, not in AAE

I was talking ONLY about how it was done in that game, while ADDING the part of jet fighters so they have an advantage by a factor of 1 in both cases.

uh yeah but your post actually referenced rocket attacks which do not appear in AAE, verbatim or otherwise, hence my confusion

@Imperious:

But fighters defending in the target of a rocket attack, could be given a roll of 2 or less for each plane. That could make sence.

Well the map is not accurate in this respect, but Shanghai would be Japanese original. If it was up to me the VC should be in Manchukuo and that other territory held in Chinese control in 1941. Sometimes you have to just do the best of a bad situation.

@oztea:

Interesting Idea fighter commander, a re-worked tech system with a 3rd and 4th chart, only open to the axis or the allies respectively.

Ive been dabiling with a tech system that locks each country onto a tech tree. It doesnt have to roll for resarch, it just has to pay an R&D fee, as much as it wants each turn, to consistently recive tech.

For example, Germany: for each  3 IPCs germany devoted to R&D, place a tech counter on germany

2 tech counters - Advanced artillery, to represent 88’s
4 tech counters - Rockets, the V2
7 tech counters - Jet Fighers, the Me-109
and so forth

I havent fleshed it out yet, or even gotten anywhere near doing all the other nations.

mmmm personally I think that Wpns Development the general type of breakthru should be elective but the timing of the breakthru should be largely random rather than budgeted

but that’s me… :-D 
And I will confess: I also don’t like NAs unless there’s a reason beyond a strict replay of WW2 (e.g., no Japanese rockets or Russian marines etc.)

@variable:

It doesn’t make things any more difficult for the allies there. It just becomes a balanced trade off. If the allies decide to put resources into it, there is a payoff. If the axis decides to challenge it, the allies end up with an expensive meat grinder that may happen anyway.

Exactly.

I like it.

I will add these to my official house rules.