Navigation

    Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    1. Home
    2. Cobert
    C
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 11
    • Posts 247
    • Best 0
    • Groups 0

    Cobert

    @Cobert

    0
    Reputation
    62
    Profile views
    247
    Posts
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined Last Online
    Age 22

    Cobert Unfollow Follow

    Latest posts made by Cobert

    • RE: Large Set of House Rules (+ Italian National Advantages)

      Any critiquing of these would be nice.  I know some of these are old tricks, but at least discuss some points about the new ones.

      Version 1.1 should be posted up here - it’s mostly rewording and some slight rules changes.  Italy needs to be totally reworked.

      posted in House Rules
      C
      Cobert
    • RE: Dardanelles Straight open/closed I

      I would prefer to keep it closed, but if you are going to make a rule for opening it, I would say that it shouldn’t involve buying a die to roll for a chance to open it.  If you have 3 of those territories that border it, you’re probably not going to need it to move into Caucasus with some force.  Or, alternatively, the forces used to surround Turkey would have been better used as a direct strike to Caucasus.

      I’d say once you have 3 territories surrounding Turkey - and as long as you have 3 territories surrounding Turkey - the strait is opened.

      posted in House Rules
      C
      Cobert
    • RE: New flak rules for AA gun

      @Imperious:

      In the game the AA gun IS not ‘planes’

      Thats like the old often defeated argument that “transports are also warships and not just transports”

      or “Battleships are also cruisers”

      Each piece is what it is and not a hybrid of different types of units.

      Only the artillery could also include tanks in terms of self propelled artillery.

      How is that often defeated?  I have actually never heard anybody argue against that and make sense.

      With land units I think it makes more sense that there is a slight mix of unit types in each piece.  With naval units, however, a battleship simply represents battleships and carriers are carriers and so on, but each unit would probably also include a very small amount of support ships.

      In a game that isn’t very detailed, like in Axis and Allies, its foolish to have very specific rules applying to one-off moments in history or to minutiae like this rule involving AA guns.  It’s like when people try to incorporate the rules from Europe involving bomber escorts into Revised or AA50 - with each turn representing a period of several months and each territory representing miles upon miles of land or entire countries, I think it’s insane that they want a rule that makes a unit shaped like a fighter accompany a unit shaped like a bomber to actually mean that there are fighter escorts with the bomber.

      SBR doesn’t represent one bombing run, it represents a month long campaign and its effects.  A bomber piece is assumed to have escorts fighters with it already - without them the bombing runs would be far less effective.

      Likewise, If a piece is destroyed, it doesn’t necessarily represent EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THAT DIVISION dying, it represents a significant enough number of them being taken as casualties, making the unit is ineffective in combat.

      Sorry to go on this rant in this thread, but back on topic.

      All above said: AA guns are not planes.  That simply doesn’t work out right.

      I don’t really like this rule, at least not for AA 50 or revised, but maybe for a game that has a lot of focus to detail.  I feel like Germany and possibly UK would be the only powers to throw money at it, and even then, nothing more than two levels.

      posted in House Rules
      C
      Cobert
    • RE: AA50: Battleships and the hit that never was

      Jennifer’s second rule is the best.  I always see people either using the first, or a combination of the two (having to pay at a port) but I always thought that nobody would be willing to move a battleship out of their naval campaign to repair and would rather just use it until it dies before building another (if necessary).

      I do, however, think that you should be allowed to choose not to pay and allow the battleship to sink.

      posted in House Rules
      C
      Cobert
    • RE: Air Supremacy

      I devised my own rule for air superiority that was the exact same thing as rule 2, so I chose that.

      posted in House Rules
      C
      Cobert
    • RE: AA50: Burma Road

      @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.

      posted in House Rules
      C
      Cobert
    • RE: AA50: Mech infantry as a tech

      Mechanized infantry should not be its own unit.  As said, each piece represents a varied mix of units.  Once a unit becomes mechanized enough to be considered ‘mechanized infantry,’ it has moved into the realm of being covered by a tank.

      On the other hand, ‘mechanized’ does not necessarily mean ‘armored.’  If there were a breakthrough for mechanized infantry, it would represent a country developing a cost efficient truck design that would allow all infantry to move 2.

      posted in House Rules
      C
      Cobert
    • RE: Making German Infantry Meanigful

      I basically did this move (inf/art, 1 turn tank/inf, 1 turn all tanks) in my last game as Germany and I only failed to take Moscow because I got diced HARD.  Having infantry (turn 2 buy) and aircraft available on turn 6 after the Moscow attack provides a solid counterattack if Russia retakes or if the first fails.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      C
      Cobert
    • RE: Just How Old Are We Axis and Allies Players?

      I’m 19 and I probably started playing about 4 years ago.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      C
      Cobert
    • RE: AA50 Game Play Review

      Well he’s saying that that same old game has the potential to be avoided because the US should focus a bit on the Pacific.  In revised, splitting your forces was almost always bad for the allies, but in this game splitting your forces is necessary to avoid an all too powerful Japan.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      C
      Cobert