But now it’s just getting real complicated.
I still stand by the simple fix of keeping all OOB stats the same but only allowing Bombers to participate in the first round of combat.
But now it’s just getting real complicated.
I still stand by the simple fix of keeping all OOB stats the same but only allowing Bombers to participate in the first round of combat.
@Baron:
@Baron:
attacking SB’s cannot inflict battle casualties on fighters
Why not make it more general such as “cannot inflict battle casualties on other planes”?
That sounds even more sensible. Arguably, though, there’s always the chance that bombers could eliminate unprepared enemy planes that are on the ground (as happened in sneak attacks like Pearl Harbour and the first few hours of Germany’s attack on Russia) but as that’s rare it’s probably best to ignore it in favour of a good general rule.
This can be restricted to: “in Naval Combat, cannot inflict battle casualties on other planes”
Except that the same exception occurs there too. I believe in the Battle of Midway Japanese bombers destroyed some planes aboard Yorktown. Maybe allow planes to be hit by bombers only on the first wave of attacks?
You taking my joke seriously has inspired me to actually make a 3 side house rule.
Also note that in that setup it is Europe only and the Russians do indeed have more units.
Thanks for the links, Baron. An interesting read and I’ve got a few ideas that don’t seem to have been thought of so far. In order to limit the use of SB’s in land battles, each attacking SB must be paired with an attacking land unit. This will prevent a weak land power from dominating combat with SB’s alone, stop SB’s from attacking non-front line areas and force a player to buy at least as many land units as SB’s in order to get the most out of his SB’s. Similarly, in order to attack a naval force each SB must be paired with an attacking surface warship. This will stop a weak naval power from dominating the waves with SB’s alone. SB’s can continue to attack infrastructure according to the OOB rules. The logic behind the above is that without at least some form of surface contact to pinpoint a (mobile) enemy location SB’s are blind and therefore ineffective (and it’s also good for play balance). Another idea is that attacking SB’s cannot inflict battle casualties on fighters (in a similar way to submarines being unable to hit planes). Thus if a force of attacking SB’s found itself alone in an area with fighters it would have to retreat or be eliminated. SB’s would defend against fighters as normal and hits from interception combat during a strategic bombing raid would apply as normal OOB.
There goes bombing the mainland/London to prep for an invasion…
Set up all the pieces as shown in the rulebook Page 4-5, minus the UK transport and the pieces on the battle board. Adjust IPC values accordingly.
(http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/A&A_Europe_1940_2ndEd_Rulebook_LR.pdf)
The Soviet Union is neither Allies nor Axis. It is on a team of its own, and all strict neutrals are considered pro-Russia instead of strict neutral. This means attacking strict neutrals does nothing to the other neutrals.
This has never been play tested. Have fun. :-D
I just find the aliens in Star Trek boring. They all look like humans. Vulcans are humans with pointy ears. Klingons are humans with weird foreheads.
Star Wars has more biodiversity in my opinion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
This episode sort of explained away the similarities but saying that life was seeded by some earlier species.
Most Star Wars aliens are still bipedal, with heads featuring eyes/nose/mouth/ears, who communicate with vocalizations. A truly alien creature wouldn’t be able to emote for a human audience.
(and just in case, I didn’t geek out enough already, Star Trek aliens have more deeply developed cultures than Star Wars aliens)
I don’t want to start an argument, but I have to disagree.
Based solely on the movies, I might agree with you, but Star Trek naturally has the advantage given that it’s a TV series and Star Wars isn’t (Clone Wars doesn’t count).
If you include the novels that make up the expanded universe, Star Wars species have cultures at least as defined as Star Trek’s.
A truly alien creature wouldn’t be able to emote for a human audience.
Like these?
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Shard
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Neti
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ergesh
@CWO:
Star Trek. I’ve seen every episode of every television series (including the animated one), plus all the movies, and I have lots of reference books on the fictional Trek universe and on the production history of the franchise. I like Star Wars too, but differently and somewhat to a lesser degree. I’ve seen all six of the films – I loved the original trilogy, but I have mixed feelings about the prequels (a point on which I’m probably not alone) – but I only have a couple of reference works on the subject. Compared with the Star Trek universe, the Star Wars universe has more elements that border on fantasy (the quasi-magical concept of the Force being perhaps the most prominent example), and my preference is for science-fiction that’s a bit more realistic in its approach.
One thing both franchises have in common from my viewpoint is that I have almost no interest in the spin-off stuff: the novels, the video games and so forth. For example, I saw some of the early Clone Wars cartoons but they didn’t interest me. This is one reason why I hope that the forthcoming new Star War film (which I definitely plan to see) won’t depend too much on the materials that were developed for the Star Wars Expanded Universe (if that’s the correct name) because if that’s the case I’ll be hopelessly lost.
First: Clone Wars isn’t a spinoff. Sadly, it’s the real thing (and it sucked).
Second, Star Wars has a lot of really good material in the expanded universe. If you never read Timothy Zahn’s Heir to the Empire trilogy, you should start there.
Fun fact: Timothy Zahn was the first to use Coruscant as the name of the capital planet.
@wittmann:
I took it on holiday and found it an easy book to read at the airport and on the plane. It reads like fiction. (Cornwell is a fiction writer.) Not many historical, battle books can be read that easily. Was a good refresher for me; been a while since I read about the battle.
Book? I thought we were talking about underwear maps?
@SS:
Has anybody discussed using Reconnaissance Planes to find ground troops? I do use them to find naval fleets.
Each country would start out with a certain amount of planes. You also can buy them at C 5. A 0 D 1 M 4
Beginning of turn you would be able to use the plane to find troops in as many as territories the plane can fly. With an air base you would get the extra move. 1 plane could fly over 4 territories and land in its own or friendly territory.
You would roll 1 die for each territory the plane flew over to find troops positions. A roll of 4 or less tells you you have found position of troops. A roll of 5 or 6 tells you you didn’t find troops and your attacking pieces get a - 1 on attack for first round of combat only.
You didn’t find troops right away and your hits missed at first.
AA guns do get a shot at plane.Could have it where art, tanks, and planes ( they can’t find neither right away ) get the -1 on attack first round only do to accuracy.
I know the game is long enough, but what’s another 5 mins.
This is just a thought and I know Patten didn’t attack sometimes until he knew where troops were and after plane strikes.
Could getting Radar eliminate the need for recon planes?
@CWO:
It’s an interesting idea, but I guess what I’m wondering is this. A&A is an open game system in which the composition and location of all the forces on the board is visible to all players at all times. If it had hidden (or decoy dummy) units, I could see the usefulness of doing recon work – but in an open system, I’m having trouble understanding just what these recon planes are meant to be discovering.
You could combine it with the HR about hidden forces using scrabble pieces.
Has any one wondered what the people who designed the Europe 1940 2nd Edition rulebook and box were thinking when they made the photos of the board set up?
When would the board ever look like this:
Nothing in the United States. No units, no facilities, nothing. Just empty spaces.
French Tanks in Africa. How did those get there? The Allies have only one transport total, a UK transport on the other side of the map! Why is France still in the game, when they fall on turn 1? Perhaps France was liberated, but Germany is still in the game, Italy looks pretty strong and the only evidence of an allied invasion is one UK infantry and one US infantry in Normandy.
The United States invading Russia. They have infantry on Russian territory with a US roundel on it. What?
Russian and British warships facing off on the Battle board. Apparently Russia’s at war with everyone in this game? Yet a Russian sub is peacefully sitting with a UK transport on the map.
Missing UK facilities. There are no UK air or naval bases, and South Africa is missing it’s IC.
You think they could have at least set the board up with the starting setup.
http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/A&A_Europe_1940_2ndEd_Rulebook_LR.pdf
@ABWorsham:
@ABWorsham:
Besides the famous Yoda, who is favorite member of the Jedi Council?
In Clone Wars animated I rather like Master Plo. He is a nice in the middle between Obi-Wan and Anakin for Ahsoka.
I like oppo rancisis.
If I was going to choose four Jedi to arrest the Dark Lord of the Sith Sidious, Master Plo would have been one.
I would choose Shaak Ti.
Star Wars.
I just find the aliens in Star Trek boring. They all look like humans. Vulcans are humans with pointy ears. Klingons are humans with weird foreheads.
Star Wars has more biodiversity in my opinion.
@CWO:
Taking these ideas one step further, an interesting concept (about which I’m 100% kidding) would be to offer special badges to members who make a legacy donation to A&A.org through their will after their demise. I think that fundraising people call this “planned giving”. The catch, unfortunately, is that the deceased person would never get to enjoy seeing the badge on their account since they’d first have to die to get the badge.
Or you know, they could fake their death, start a new account, and look at the badge they earned…
Long time Axis and Allies player here. Are there any other rules to this game like how Global 1940 had the Alpha 2 and Alpha 3 and all that? Sorry if this has been posted before.
Welcome to the forum!
I’m pretty new here, but I’m sure someone else knows where to find the alpha 2 and 3 rules.
A few weeks ago, I was brainstorming ideas of how to add a new historical influence into 1914. I have seen topics in forums for G40 of what each infantry unit represents. For G40 with many units on the board, I guessed with a number at 20,000 for each infantry unit or one chip. For each year of the war I kept track of the amount of units I took off the board infantry wise. I got up to the year 1919 before my Cavalier King Charles Spaniel decided to walk across the board. But I thou I’d share the statistics I got up to that point to hear what you guys have to say. By the end of 1919, the Allies had lost approximately 3,400,000 men, while the Central only 1,940,000. If you’re rea interested in how a country did individually, just ask and I’ll let you know, but please comment on how you feel about this and any adjustments I’m all ears.
Thanks,
SJS063
Only 3,400,000? Seems pretty low compared to real life.
What country had the highest casualties?
Nazis, Soviets, terrorist groups. Not a whole lot of difference. :)
The difference is there aren’t many Nazis and Soviets around these days. Terrorists, however…
@Young:
This post is not meant to be political in any way.
ISIS & ALLIES
A Modern Take On A Classic Board Game!Extremists threaten the globe!
Lead the coalition forces of Iraq, Syria, the Peshmerga, and Hezbollah into battle!
Or rally foreign fighters to join the cause of Islamic State!
As the coalition, order US airstrikes.
As ISIS, win the war on the internet to radicalize the West.Change the course of history… as it’s being made!
What do think? It could happen, right?
Anything can translate into a board game, but sometimes you just gotta wait a few years while things blow over, and this idea might be one of those times.
Obviously, in real life this would have to be done way after the events, to avoid it being called pro-ISIS or offending ISIS or anything. It’s one thing to make board games featuring Nazis or Soviets, another to make one featuring terrorist groups. You’d have to do it carefully.
Will it be made? Probably not. Could it? Yes.
@CWO:
It’s interesting to note that they appear to stack… Could one be used as a Minor IC and two stacked be used as a Major IC?
I’d call such a unit an Industrial Skyscraper. It would represent the corporate headquarters side of a nation’s economy, as opposed to its factory side.
But what would it do?
This post is not meant to be political in any way.
ISIS & ALLIES
A Modern Take On A Classic Board Game!Extremists threaten the globe!
Lead the coalition forces of Iraq, Syria, the Peshmerga, and Hezbollah into battle!
Or rally foreign fighters to join the cause of Islamic State!
As the coalition, order US airstrikes.
As ISIS, win the war on the internet to radicalize the West.Change the course of history… as it’s being made!
What do think? It could happen, right?
Anybody else interested to see CHAPPIE ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyy7y0QOK-0
Looks pretty good to me.
I plan to.