At no point does bombing become any less useful than it originally was in the real world (well, untill the entire territory is destroyed). Tournament rules do make for a better game, but they destroy my machine-like play, so I don’t like them. You people out there should get them. Anybody have a link? Let me look for one…. Found one: http://daak.de/regeln/eng/lhtr.pdf
Posts made by BobbyChicken
RE: An introduction and a question about Strat. bombing
RE: How many of you prefer a game where you can develop weapons?
Heavy bombers are a must for me with Britain. My dad does them with the US when I play him. We crush anyone who doesn’t research them when we play the Axis. The game doesn’t work without them. Step your game up a notch and you’ll see (unless you play tournament rules). I have seen so many people gasp and tell me I’m a machine when I systymatically industrial bomb. Yep, I’m a machine; that’s why I won, I tell them.
RE: How many times did you approximately play A&A Revised till this day?
I’ve played in between 10-20 times completely. But the hours are much more impressive, well over 200, maybe over 300, with hundreds of hours of outside thinking involved. These are serious, evenly-matched games. Anyone know why the box says three hours? Maybe that’s set-up time. Or so I thought until I found I had the set-ups memorized. I don’t have them memorized anymore beacause I’m kind of burned out after playing with my ultra-serious dad but i still love to talk about it. Oh my, I am so far off topic. I better cut before I start talking about my dad’s friend’s salmon-cooking ability.
RE: Number of victory cities?
Here’s and interesting take. We play for the mainland: Africa, Europe and Asia. The first person to control the whole thing wins. This is really very simillar to 9 victory cities, but it prevents a lot of BS stratagies that turn a losing Allied (or even Axis in rare cases) team into a team with a 30% or 40% chance of winning and cause the game to drag on for 100+ hours in a crummy, weird manner. Sometimes, we take out the Africa part because it’s not really important. But in a game between two honorable parties, a specific victory clause is not necessary.
RE: What is your favorite country to play?
I say Russia. I like it because I’m so good at it. I can’t remember the last time I made an error as them. Somehow, I’m able to sit back, play the IPC game, and then make a sweeping advance into Germany every time. I feel the power of building slowly until my forces, as far as sheer numbers are concerned, outnumber those of everyone else on the board combined. My second favorite is Japan. There is just no resistance until Moscow. No one is even paying attention to you, yet you come across Asia in a manner rebellious to history. Very interesting part of the game. Germany, at least in games played my-family-style (which is an game of heavy industrial bombing and slow combat which is familliar to us implants who played the revised edition first and which, I am proud to say, crushes the Axis just as it did in the real war), is bogged down in a dreary economic game in which the English speaking varmints such the life out of you. This is awful. Some may like being the center of attention but being Germany, to me, is like being the bulls eye, the center of bad attention. Britain was fun until I realized that when I played a Japanese player like myself who does not fight in the Pacific long-term, an Indian industrial complex is destroyed first turn, second turn if I’m lucky. In my games they are a one unit wonder: heavy bomber, heavy bomber, heavy bomber; important, but it takes all of thirty seconds. And the US never really enters the action. They either fail, or the Germans see their doom and surrender.
RE: Transport capacity and the dissappearing artillery
Before, transporting a tank was a joke, something you didn’t do unless you had extra transports. It was a 3-2 unit, so a 2-2, 2-2 artillery infantry combination was better. Now, tanks are on par; amphibious invasions are much more like land attacks. So the end result of the increased defense and transport ease is that the artillery is what it should be: a supplement unit both amphibiously and not. I applaud avalon hill’s new rules on land units because it is both realistic and feasible. I don’t really see that one of the poll options adaquately shows my view. I would say “it’s all about the money”, but when in this game is it not always about the money?
RE: Attacking Subs with Air Units
Subs are unimportant supplements. I build one or two every once in a while in the mid-game with the US. It’s pittiful. But so is the rest of the fleet action in Axis and Allies. The real problem is not the sub rule: its Mr. Heavy, Long-range Bomber combined with a map with sea zones that allow him to dominate, obsoleting naval forces. As much as that, it is the elimination of the convoy, one of the highlights of Pacific and Europe for me. Though I am a land-lubber in the Axis and Allieis arena, I’m dissappointed with the loss of the tricky art of naval combat. Anyone else agree?