Posts made by Black Fox

@FieldMarshalGames:

Ok, here is the HONEST low down.

I can now say 100%… no going back…  CONFIRMED…

This product IS ready, Will be shipping in the month of October, And it is REALLY REALLY COOL!  I just got the first full set and to see all 150 of them in their glory is something to behold!

Our Freight Company will be picking up the Goods from the factory on Oct 9-10th.  There will be about a 5 day transit time, then we will be shipping like mad.

The Battle is finally over, we are now nearing the Victory we have fought so hard for, for the last 16 months+

FMG

Are you ready to accept money for additional purchases at this time or do you want to wait until it is in your hands?

@FieldMarshalGames:

@Black:

A little education for you folks.  I used to import about 3 to 4 tons of airsoft BBs about every 1-1/2 months from Japan.  It used to take and average of 4 weeks but after Homeland Security implemented new procedures for importing it increased it to6-8 weeks on average.  That’s getting it to the US.  Then it has to go through customs.  It takes about 3 to 7 days on average if all goes well.

FMG, I don’t know if have a customs broker or not but I would strongly encourage you to get one if you don’t.  If you run into any snafus, they can be very helpful and can save you a lot of time, headaches and possibly money.

Also ask to never have your items shipped with food.  On a couple of occasions I had my BBs held up for over 2 weeks because it was shipped in a container with food.  The assshole who owned the food forgot to submit his paper work to customs so they quarantined the whole container.  They wouldn’t release my stuff even though it was plastic.

If you need any help in this area, feel free to contact me.

Back to shipping.  Once the cargo is release it can take 1 to 7 days for it to arrive depending how far you live from the port it arrived at.

So in short if all goes well, you can have it at your door in 4 weeks.  If not, 8 weeks or more.

Thanks.  We do have a Customs Broker and I import product regularly for my other business.    This is just from a different region and getting things straight between the factory/warehouse and our Freight forwarder is taking a few extra days. (EVERYTHING over there takes longer than estimated)

There is a Chinese National Holiday from Oct 1st - 7th, so we are working hard to get the product moving BEFORE that holiday.

Roger that.

I hope they get their ass moving before the 1st then.

A little education for you folks.  I used to import about 3 to 4 tons of airsoft BBs about every 1-1/2 months from Japan.  It used to take and average of 4 weeks but after Homeland Security implemented new procedures for importing it increased it to6-8 weeks on average.  That’s getting it to the US.  Then it has to go through customs.  It takes about 3 to 7 days on average if all goes well.

FMG, I don’t know if have a customs broker or not but I would strongly encourage you to get one if you don’t.  If you run into any snafus, they can be very helpful and can save you a lot of time, headaches and possibly money.

Also ask to never have your items shipped with food.  On a couple of occasions I had my BBs held up for over 2 weeks because it was shipped in a container with food.  The assshole who owned the food forgot to submit his paper work to customs so they quarantined the whole container.  They wouldn’t release my stuff even though it was plastic.

If you need any help in this area, feel free to contact me.

Back to shipping.  Once the cargo is release it can take 1 to 7 days for it to arrive depending how far you live from the port it arrived at.

So in short if all goes well, you can have it at your door in 4 weeks.  If not, 8 weeks or more.

Enough with the conspiracy theories.  Personally I don’t give a rat’s asss if they look similar to some other pieces.  As long as they look good, that’s all that matters to me.

@moralecheck:

The 88 was indeed versatile and was purpose built in both the AA and AT roles.  It was usable as artillery, and shells were made specifically for that use.  Nonetheless, it was primarily assigned to AA/AT units and the Germans did not classify any model as artillery.  My objection was not based on shell size.  In fact, I think for the british that the 25 pounder (88mm) would be their ideal artillery piece.  There are lots of pics of Russian infantry riding on T-34’s, that doesn’t mean it should be the mech inf piece.  

Ja, the Germans loved the 88mm so much that they stuck it in their tiger tanks!

@ABWorsham:

Great post Black Fox.

Reading about the air war in the Pacific, if an aircraft was off a few degrees could lead to a watery grave hundreds of miles out in the vast Ocean.

Thanks

Thinking of the Pacific.  I knew a guy who was a B-25 waist gunner in the Pacific during WWII.  He told me a story where his squadron was sharing the air field with Richard I Bong when he was flying the P-38.  At the time their version had the eight .50 cal in the nose.  He said those guns we just vicious.  However, the high humidity was causing problems with the electrical circuits that controlled the guns.  When it got bad enough the moisture would connect the firing circuits and the guns would sometimes start firing by themselves.  One day they were getting ready for a mission.  Just as they were walking out to the planes, one of the P-38s guns went off.  The airplane starting bouncing and spreading lead all over the field.  It hit a few other planes and their guns went off too.  At this point they now had 5 fully load P-38 with guns just blazing away and planes just started exploding all over the place.  He said by the time it was all over, they had 45 planes destroyed on the ground!  I’m sure this is just one of many such incidents that added to those mind blowing statistics.

WOW!  Those airplanes look fantastic!!!  Now that’s the kind of quality that I was expecting from FMG.  After seeing the sample of the Enterprise I was beginning to wonder.  My concerns have been erased.  Job well done!

@crusaderiv:

My point is if you are gonna make the torpedo bombers youre gonna only have them availible for certain countries simply
Yes of course. Only UK and USA can get torpedo bomber.
Same thing for the dive bomber. Only Germany, USSR, Japan and USA may built this kind fo unit.
Japan has both at the beginning of War II.

It’s why I decided group them as tactical bombers.  That way everyone has a use for them.

@crusaderiv:

There’s no challenge if you focus too much to balance the game.

You are absolutely right.  A game that is too balanced is no fun.  What I meant to say is that you want a balance between the game pieces in a sense that when you do add new pieces, it enhances the game but at the same time it doesn’t diminish another units usefulness or make it obsolete.

@crusaderiv:

_No, medium, bombers move at 6.  When you look at the average stats of medium & heavy bomber in WWII carrying a full bomb load (and this is the key point), both had about the same combat rage.  The only difference was that medium bombers typically carried half to 2/3 of what a heavy bomber could.

Yes but not before 1943.
So if you want a medium bomber with better performance (mosquito is a good example) that must be a special unit or a special weapons.

That’s not true.  Americans had the B-25, German the Junker-88 and the Japanese the Betty’s as an example.  When you consider stats for a unit type, you need to combine the units from all the nations and then base it off the average performance of that type.  Yes, you can always find exceptions.  But unless these exception were produced in great numbers, then it really doesn’t effect the strategic equation. A&A is a strategic game but people sometime tend to forget that when trying to create new units.  They get too focused on the tactical abilities of a few units rather than looking at the overall picture.  On top of that you also have to consider game playability.  Some capabilities have been fudge to make for a balance game play.  Aircraft not being able to attack sub unless there is a friendly destroyer is an example.

Through out the war, everyone’s unit’s became better and better.  In general though, these improvements increased fairly equally on all side.  However, there were some improvements that were exceptional and these are usually represented in the Tech Rolls._

@450thMSAF:

heavy bombers had side top rear foward bottom gunners to

That’s a defensive issue and it’s already at 1.  Medium bombers had guns too and you really can’t go lower than that and zero is not an option.  Personally I would give heavy bombers a Def-2.

@crusaderiv:

I was rewriting my last post and you posted before I finished.
sorry if I’m faster

Super Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).

I think medium must be: defend at 2 and movement 4.
Also medium may attack sub and warship but heavy and super bomber can’t

No, medium, bombers move at 6.  When you look at the average stats of medium & heavy bomber in WWII carrying a full bomb load (and this is the key point), both had about the same combat rage.  The only difference was that medium bombers typically carried half to 2/3 of what a heavy bomber could.

@crusaderiv:

Strategic & heavy bombers are one and the same.
I agree

A heavy and even a medium bomber are both capable of strategic and tactical bombing.
Yes but the heavy bomber is more power ful than a medium.
So you must make a category if you want a realistic game.
For example, Germany cannot build heavy bomber at the beginning of the game whatever you play 39,40,41 or 42.

I agree with you that 7 IPc for a fighter is cheap. 8 or 9 sounds good to me.

I was rewriting my last post and you posted before I finished.

In my game use the following when it comes to bombers.

Super Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).

@lnmajor:

also, stratigic bombers should be 15 ipcs.
fighters = 7 ipcs
torpedeo/dive bomers = 10 ipcs
strategic bombers = 15 ipcs
heavy bombers = ?
what do you think?

Strategic & heavy bombers are one and the same.  A heavy and even a medium bomber are both capable of strategic and tactical bombing.  The only bomber that was ever restricted to strategic bombing was the B-29.  Although it did see some tactical use in the Korean war.

I think bombers should be left at 12 IPC.  It makes them more playable.  At 15 IPC, they are very difficult to replace.  I would make a super bomber, such as a B-29, 15 IPC.

In my game use the following when it comes to bombers.

Super Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).

Fighters at 7 IPC & T/D bombers at 10 IPC would throw the game out of whack.  Fighters are just too strong for 7IPC and would pretty much would make buying T/D bombers worthless.  Why buy a plane that cost more but does less.

@lnmajor:

i think its a good idea to reduce fighters to 7 ipcs. keep tacs at 10 or 11 ipcs. these planes need to be cheaper to encourage people to buy them. once your airforce is gone its too hard to replace them. reducing cost on planes will have more aircraft on your carriers and on the board in general. that makes for a better game. people would take more chances with fighters, like tanks and destroyers.

Yes, my thoughts exactly.

It is the main reason why I wanted to create a second class of aircraft that is more economical.  There are areas of the map that could use fighters but simply don’t get it because of cost.  The Pacific islands are one example.  In the games I’ve played, I’ve never seen a player base a plane there that was not in transit.  Most of the time there are just one or two infantry on an island and most people don’t want to spend 12 or 10 IPC to protect 3 or 6 IPC.

One of my reasons for giving the tactical bomber a Def-2 is to make it more playable.  If you included ground attack aircraft in the tactical bomber group, it give a stronger reason to give a Def-2 and it would not at all be unreasonable.  Because ground/dive & torpedo bomber on a strategic level are all primarily built to attack ground/surface target.  If it is left at def-1 then they will always be in the rear with heavy protection.  With a Def-2, there would be more incentive to use them closer to the front line or for protection for more remote areas such as Australia.

@crusaderiv:

Dive bomber  
att = 3 (4 in the first round)
def = 1
move = 4
cost 8

torpedo bomber
att = 2 (3 in the first round and can choose his target)
def = 1
move = 4
cost = 8

Crusaderiv/450th

Thanks for your input.  However, I’m not sure I would agree with the attack values for the torpedo bombers.  Just looking back at what the Swordfish aircraft did to the Italian fleet would be a good argument against that.

Anyway, for simplicity, I’m just going to combine both dive & torpedo as one type of aircraft.  Because on a strategic level I don’t really think there is a big difference between the two.

As for defensive value, I see good arguments for both a “2” and “1”.  What needs to be considered here is what is the average defensive value for all tactical bomber aircraft?  If I were to go with a Def-1 though, I would almost feel compelled to reduce the IPC value to 7.  Maybe my “Version-2” option is the best solution.

Gent

I want to add Dive/Torpedo Bombers to Spring 1942 but I’m torn between 2 version.

Version-1:  3-2-4-8

This is basically a simplified version.  However, it is generally known that such aircraft can inflict much more damage if there are no opposing Fighters but on the other hand can suffer great losses if there is an opposing Fighters and they have no escort.  So I was thinking of a rule to reflect this.

Version-2: 3(4)-2(1)-4-8

If there is no opposing Fighter it can attack at 4.  If there is an opposing Fighter and has no fighter escort it defends at 1.  If both sides have fighters it attacks normally.  This reflects closer to reality but is more complicated.

What version would you prefer?  If you have other idea for this rule, please share them.

@GCar:

vessel - Word History
Date of Origin 13th c.
Latin vascellum meant ‘small dish or utensil’. It was a diminutive form of vas ‘dish, vessel’ (source of English vase). It passed into English via Old French vaissel and Anglo-Norman vessel, on the way acquiring the additional meaning ‘ship’.

And a small world history class (US schools should really put more emphasis on world history before 20th century):
In 1066, William the Conqueror, the Duke of Normandy (part of modern France), invaded and conquered England. The new conquerors (called the Normans) brought with them a kind of French, which became the language of the Royal Court, and the ruling and business classes. For a period there was a kind of linguistic class division, where the lower classes spoke English and the upper classes spoke French. In the 14th century English became dominant in Britain again, but with many French words added. This language is called Middle English. It was the language of the great poet Chaucer (c1340-1400), but it would still be difficult for native English speakers to understand today.

The amont of english words whose ethymology comes directly from french being about 30 %, and from old french + french 60 %.

So even though english is a germanic language from origin, it contains more french words then anything else

Cgar

You know my last comment was total bullshit right?  You should have smelled it coming off your screen.  I was joking with you.

The comments are drifting way off from the original topic and was a humorous attempt to break away and get it back on track.

@Imperious:

I cant get to it before the weekend.

No worries.  It’s not urgent.

Thanks

@djensen:

Amazon’s lawyers must disagree because they no longer offer the program to any resident of California.

Djensen

I’m a little confused at what you’re trying to say.  I basically said the same thing

@Black:

In the mean time, Amazon decided to ban all California businesses from selling on Amazon.

@GCar:

@Black:

When I was in the Navy and served aboard the USS Midway, there was no question about it.  I was Carrier Vessel.

If the above statement is true, I’m sure it’s original meaning disappeared a long time ago.  My guess is because the Navy didn’t want to use a French word.  We know how the French fight.

For reference vessel was originally a french word. It comes from the latin vāscellum.

Just like 30 % of the english vocabulary which comes directly from french.

A gift from a couple centuries ago when British aristocracy was french speaking

What are you talking about?  It’s an English word that the British made the French think it was a French word so they could infiltrate the French

Alright, were starting to drift from the original topic.  I’ll leave it alone now.

@Imperious:

I have to dig up the rules on that…its been years since they were made.

I would appreciate that IL.

Thanks

@Herr:

There’s some debate about the meaning of the “V” in “CV”, actually. Quoting an explanation from http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm:

The following is taken from “United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16:  US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations”:

On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type “Z” and heavier-than air craft by the letter “V”.  The reference also speculates that:  “The use of the “V” designation has been a question since the 1920s.  However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter “V” was chosen.  It is generally believed the “V” was in reference to the French word volplane.  As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by “Z”) used.  The same case may be regarding the use of “Z”.  It is generally believed the “Z” was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin.  However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption.”

When I was in the Navy and served aboard the USS Midway, there was no question about it.  I was Carrier Vessel.

If the above statement is true, I’m sure it’s original meaning disappeared a long time ago.  My guess is because the Navy didn’t want to use a French word.  We know how the French fight.

Being a resident in California, this is becoming a hot issue.

For now, I wouldn’t really be concerned with the new California law.  The law was intended to collect taxes from big online businesses like Amazon.  California was claiming that big online businesses like Amazon that have no sales tax have an unfair advantage over brick and mortar stores in California and this law was intended to level the playing field.

Under current CA law, if an online store has a physical presence in CA and sells a product that is shipped to a CA address, then CA can collect sales tax on that transaction.

Now Federal law clearly states that one state can not tax an item that comes from another state.  However, what California is trying to claim is that even though Amazon’s physical corporate address is in another state, because they have a partnerships with businesses in California that sell through Amazon, this constitutes a physical presence in the state and therefore CA is claiming it has the right to collect sales tax on those items that are sold in California.  However, there is a lot of debate whether this violates Federal law and/or constitutional.

In the mean time, Amazon decided to ban all California businesses from selling on Amazon.  So, now CA can’t claim any right to collect sales tax and Amazon is giving CA the middle finger.  Needless to say, a lot of CA businesses that sold through Amazon are a bit pissed right now.

Now the only thing I see the A&A is actually selling is T-shirts.  If the A&A web site is listed with a California address, you should be paying sales tax anyway.  (Out of curiosity, what state is this web site listed in?)  Now let say that you’re not in CA but you sell a a T-shirt to me and it’s shipped from a CA address.  CA might claim they have the right to collect sales tax from you.  But if you want to be a prick, you can give the T-shirt away for free but charge $28 for shipping  Sales tax are based on the price of the sale and not shipping.

Now I see the Amazon link at the top of the web site.  As far as I’m concerned, this is advertisement.  Amazon is paying you to advertise on your sight.  You are not involved in the sales transaction.  So I don’t think will affect your revenue.

I also discovered that CA law only requires online stores to collect sales tax if  they have an annual sales of $10,000 or more.

So as I said in the beginning, I wouldn’t be too concern with this new law.  I have a feeling that this will end up going to the Supreme Court.  So sit back and watch the show.

Here’s the link to the law.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx1_28_bill_20110628_enrolled.pdf

@Speusippus:

Sorry, what’s a CV?

CV = Carrier Vessel.  CV is the abbreviation the Navy uses for Aircraft Carriers.

Just for educational purpose, here are some other CV designations.  Most are no longer in use.

CV: Fleet Aircraft Carrier (1921–1975), Multi-purpose Aircraft Carrier (1975–present)
CVA: Attack Aircraft Carrier (category merged into CV, 30 June 1975) (Conventional-Propulsion)
CVAN: Attack Aircraft Carrier, nuclear (category merged into CVN, 30 June 1975)
CVB: Large Aircraft Carrier (category merged into CVA, 1952)
CVE: Escort aircraft carrier (retired)
CVHA: Assault Helicopter Aircraft Carrier (retired in favor of several LH-series amphibious assault ship hull codes)
CVHE: Escort Helicopter Aircraft Carrier (retired)
CVL: Light aircraft carrier (retired)
CV(N): Night-Operating Fleet Aircraft Carrier (Used only by the former USS Enterprise (CV-6)[5][6])
CVN: Multi-purpose Aircraft Carrier (Nuclear-Propulsion)
CVS: Antisubmarine Aircraft Carrier (retired)
CVT: Training Aircraft Carrier (changed to AVT (Auxiliary))
CVU: Utility Aircraft Carrier (Formerly CVEs) (retired)