Ceylon and Madagascar do indeed occupy strategic positions in the Indian Ocean, but in order for a hypothetical Japanese occupation of these islands to have had a serious effect on the Allies the Japanese would have had to establish large and well-equipped naval and air bases there, keep them regularly supplied with food and fuel and ammunition, and defend them against Allied countremeasures (such as blockade and/or invasion). Considering how far these islands are from Japan, and considering how much trouble Japan (which had an inadequate marchant shipping capacity and inadequate convoy defenses) had with the logistical support of its much-closer holdings in the Pacific, I doubt that a large-scale, long-term Japanese presence in the Indian Ocean would have been a realistic proposition. Note by the way that Japan did occupy the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which are south of Burma and west of Thailand; the effects of this occupation were marginal (except to the local population) and by the end of the war the garrison was starving.
Best posts made by CWO Marc
RE: JAPANESE OPERATION C
RE: Dec 4
The unlucky POW has the unfortunate distinction of being, as far as I know, the only British battleship which was involved in two famous and important naval actions of WWII, one against Germany and one against Japan, and of ending up on the losing end of both engagements (fatally so in the second case). On the more positive side, she was the venue for the August 1941 Churchill-Roosevelt summit in Newfoundland, which among other things resulted in the Atlantic Charter. The document would be called a “communique” today (when summit meetings are common events, and post-summit communiques are a routine element of such meetings), but back in 1941 this sort of thing was rather novel. The Atlantic Charter was referenced at various times during WWII, either pleasing or embarrassing Churchill depending on the circumstances (such as when he argued that the Charter article which expressed respect for “the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live” didn’t apply to British-rule India), and it ultimately helped to lay the foundations of the United Nations charter.
RE: Chicago NFL Team (Bears)
Of the seven numbered suggestions, I think Axis & Allies MB would be the best option. It has the twin virtues of being concise (it’s the shortest of the seven options) and of including the unambiguous reference to Milton Bradley, the only manufacturer of that version of the game. In fact, it even replicates the initialism “MB” found on the box itself, which is a nice touch. The options which mention the Gamemaster Series element strike me as being a bit long, and also unnecessary: the Gamemaster Series didn’t contain any other A&A games, so in my opinion referring to the series simply complicates the picture without adding any information which clarifies who produced this version of A&A; the MB part does that quite satisfactorily.
RE: Pearl Harbour Attack
Well said Argo, that’s what a “gambit” or “stratagem” is— we will be taking a large risk in order to reap large gains. However, a more flexible, reactive and conservative strategy outlines only general goals, assumes the game will take the full 12-15 turns, and hopes that by refusing to take big risks that solid play will prevail and your opponent will hopefully give up before being constricted to death.
Dave has a bit different philosophy; “go bold”. He focuses his air and naval attacks in a “schwerpunkt” fashion–maximum force applied at the critical place. I think that’s why we make a good team, I take the more general and conservative approach, and start the game with few assumptions or plans.
Here’s an equivalent, from the world of chess, of these two contrasting philosophies:
Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian was a Soviet Armenian Grandmaster, and World Chess Champion from 1963 to 1969. He was nicknamed “Iron Tigran” due to his almost impenetrable defensive playing style, which emphasised safety above all else. […] Petrosian was a conservative, cautious, and highly defensive chess player who was strongly influenced by Aron Nimzowitsch’s idea of prophylaxis. He made more effort to prevent his opponent’s offensive capabilities than he did to make use of his own. He very rarely went on the offensive unless he felt his position was completely secure. He usually won by playing consistently until his aggressive opponent made a mistake, securing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own. This style of play often led to draws, especially against other players who preferred to counterattack. Nonetheless, his patience and mastery of defence made him extremely difficult to beat. He was undefeated at the 1952 and 1955 Interzonals, and in 1962 he did not lose a single tournament game. Petrosian’s consistent ability to avoid defeat earned him the nickname “Iron Tigran”. He was considered to be the hardest player to beat in the history of chess by the authors of a 2004 book.
Jorgen Bent Larsen was a Danish chess grandmaster and author. Known for his imaginative and unorthodox style of play, he was the first Western player to pose a serious challenge to the Soviet Union’s dominance in chess. He is considered to be the strongest player born in Denmark and the strongest from Scandinavia until the emergence of Magnus Carlsen. […] Larsen was known as a deep thinking and highly imaginative player, more willing to try unorthodox ideas and to take more risks than most of his peers. This aspect of his play could even manifest itself in his choice of openings. “He is a firm believer in the value of surprise. Consequently, he often resorts to dubious variations in various openings. He also likes to complicate positions even though it may involve considerable risk. He has a great deal of confidence in his game and fears no one. His unique style has proven extremely effective against relatively weak opponents but has not been too successful against top-notchers.”
RE: Global or Anniversary for better 6 player game?
Given that your players are a mixed group with different levels of experience at various other A&A games, I think your best option would be a two-part strategy: start with Anniversary, play a few games to get everyone up to speed, then make the jump to Global. In terms of size and complexity, Anniversary is nicely positioned between the 1942 game and the Global 1940 game, so it’s a good tool for transitioning from the former to the latter. Jumping straight into the deep end of the pool might be less comfortable for the less-experienced players in the group; ideally, you want to set up a situation where the whole gang gets into Global with more or less the same level of skill and enthusiasm, so that nobody feels like an odd man out.
Wreck of USS Hornet Located
WW II aircraft carrier found more than 75 years after it sank in the South Pacific
The Hornet was best known for its part in the Doolittle Raid in April 1942, the first air attack on Japan, and the Battle of Midway.
RE: ✅ Forum Migration To Do List
So the task is to find a solution for correctly displaying text when many badges are present.
Not a task for us, that’s a bug and needs to be reported to the NodeBB team.
Hmm…interesting problem. It would be nice if the NodeBB folks could find a solution to this problem, such as by having an excessively long line of badges display as two superimposed shorter lines if it goes over a certain length limit. Badges are an incentive for members to donate funding to support the forum, and it would be a shame (and ironic) if contributors ended up having to hide the record of those incentives because of a design problem in the software of the very forum that they’re supporting. A further irony is that the members most affected by the problem would mainly be the ones who have the longest record of supporting the site.
RE: ✅ Forum Migration To Do List
@CWO-Marc I think we have a unique use of badges in our community. BGG aside most other services just give you a badge for your subscription period and don’t date stamp it. What I would like is tick marks (maybe 3-5 pixels wide) for “hidden” badges and they expand when you roll over them. So you could have 1-2 primary badges and the rest are small blocks of color.
Yes, our community’s use of badges does resemble what could be called the “Marshal Zhukov aesthetic” (a uniform covered in medals, orders and decorations), which isn’t surprising in view of the WWII theme of A&A.
At any rate, your idea to have the badges normally display as small images which could individually expand to full size (such as when you roll over them or put your pointer on them) sounds like a good approach. Rather than using an abstract tick mark, however, I’d suggest using some sort of small circular rosette, which would be similar to the practice which is often used for civilian decorations: the full-sized decoration is only worn on certain formal occasions, but in day-to-day life the recipient can wear a miniature version of the insignia, which is essentially a lapel pin. See the attached picture as an example. The full-sized A&A badge could (and I think should) keep its traditional horizontal rectangular form, which has the advantage of being similar to a military service ribbon but has the disadvantage of having a space-consuming shape even when it’s reduced to a tiny icon.
RE: ✅ Forum Migration To Do List
To follow up on my last post, here’s a rough example of what the miniature rosette concept would look like. I used my own string of badges as a prototype, and the mini version ended up being about 50% shorter than the full-sized string. The minis are squared-off versions of the rectangular badges, which actually works better than circular rosettes – it’s equivalent in compactness, and it reflects more effectively the angular (rather than circular) shape of the full-sized badges.
RE: A&A Unit Identification Charts
This is a great idea!!
Thanks! I like the unit identification charts in the A&A rulebooks, but there are some things about them I find less than optimal, so I created my own unit charts (mainly from the perspective of sculpt organization rather than game play). The pictures in the rulebook unit charts are a bit small and not all rulebooks have them – for instance, the 1914 rulebook has no such chart, it doesn’t have proper unit profile silhouettes for the submarines and transports, and (if I remember correctly) the rulebook even refers to the battleship as a cruiser on one of the maps. The 1940 (2nd ed) rulebook chart uses identical silhouettes for the British and ANZAC cruisers, even though the sculpts are different. Some of the names given in the rulebook charts are problematic: for example, some designations are vague (“Baltic Timber Ship” rather than “Volgoles type”), some use the name of a non-lead ship as the ship class name (“Ray” rather than “Gato”), and some are arguably wrong (“Hilfskreuzer” – which is incorrectly spelled with a “ue” in the rulebook and which refers to an auxiliary cruiser rather than a transport ship – instead of “Dithmarschen type”). There have also been unit name inconsistencies from one rulebook to the next, as in the case of the Yak fighter which some rulebooks identify as a MiG. And of course, for obvious reasons, the rulebook charts for a given game exclude sculpts from other games – for instance, the trucks from BotB aren’t found in the 1940 rulebook charts, which is perfectly understandable. So I tried to address these issues as much as possible in the customized charts I made.
Continuing from where I left off yesterday, the first two charts for today are the Allied and Axis tactical bomber charts.
A&A Unit Identification Charts
After looking at some WWII aircraft recognition posters this summer, I decided to put together some similar unit identification charts for the Axis & Allies sculpts, using actual photographs of the plastic pieces. I shot the photos in close-up, using a high-contrast lighting arrangement, then converted the pictures to greyscale black-and-white to produce colourless silhouettes. The pictures are shot pretty much from an identical distance, so the sculpts should all be more or less correctly scaled relative to each other (though the aircraft pictures did come out a little larger than the other units because I was shooting them with a different camera setup).
I haven’t tried printing the picture files directly, but as an experiment I copied-and-pasted one of them into a Word document, in landscape page layout, with the four margins reset to 0.5 inches; the page came out fine when I printed it. I used black-and-white printing for this test, but the next thing I’ll do is print out the full set of 23 charts in colour to display the roundel colours.
I’d like to share these charts with my fellow A&A enthusiasts, so I’ll be posting them in this thread, two at a time, over the course of the next couple of days. For the sake of variety I’ll be jumping back and forth between land, air and sea units; the filenames, however, give a more systematic arrangement under those three broad categories.
Please note that the charts only assign one primary country roundel to each sculpt, even when a sculpt is used in multiple plastic colours by multiple countries in various A&A games. The main purpose of the charts is to differentiate between the various unit types and to identify specific models and classes within each type, regardless of which A&A game features them.
The first two charts for today are the WWI and WWII infantry charts.
RE: A&A Unit Identification Charts
Here’s the page order that I used in my binder, along with a couple of extra pages which I created for the binder after seeing that they’d be useful. The two-page pairings (except for the front and back pages, which are on their own) are:
1: Cover sheet (use whatever title and/or graphics you wish)
2a: Infantry (WWI)
2b: Infantry (WWII)
3a: Equipment type list (see attachment below)
3b: Mechanized Infantry Vehicles / General Transport Trucks
4a: Tanks: Allies
4b: Tanks: Axis
5b: Anti-Aircraft Artillery
6a: Fighters: Allies
6b: Fighters: Axis
7a: Tactical Bombers: Allies
7b: Tactical Bombers: Axis
8a: Strategic Bombers: Allies
8b: Strategic Bombers: Axis
9a: Aircraft Carriers: Allies
9b: Aircraft Carriers: Axis
10a: Battleships and Battlecruisers: Allies
10b: Battleships and Battlecruisers: Axis
12b: Transport Ships
13a: Generic-Design Units: World War I
13b: Generic-Design Units: World War II
14: Player Nations and Unit Colours (see attachment below)
RE: A&A Unit Identification Charts
Here’s an example of what an unprocessed shot looks like. The original raw image was 1.46 MB in size, but for purposes of posting it here I reformatted it to reduce the file size.
I should have mentioned in my previous post that the aircraft sculpts had to be shot from above with the lit paper below them, not from the side with the lit paper behind them.
Some of the sculpts, by the way, were slightly translucent in my lighting set-up. This was particularly so for the beige UK units, and especially in the case of the thin-winged Spitfire.
RE: Customizers: which A&A games do you own?
The only figure I can quote off the top of my head with complete confidence about its accuracy is the number of A&A games of which I own just a single copy: two titles, specifically Guadalcanal and Zombies. For every other A&A game I own multiple copies, ranging from a low of two copies (in the case of Bulge and of the old Milton Bradley edition) to a high of “I stopped counting when I went over six copies” in the case of 1941. For the past decade or so I’ve typically bought at least three copies of every new A&A game during the week following their initial release (one copy from each of three local hobby shops, in a “support your local merchants” spirit), and I typically take advantage of annual Boxing Day specials to buy myself an extra copy of an in-print A&A game, whose choice varies from year to year; last year, it was 1942 second edition. My favourites of the bunch are the 1940 games, which I always buy in Europe + Pacific pairs: I have three (or is it four?) copies of the first edition, and I have four (or is it three?) copies of the second edition; in retrospect, I wish I had grabbed more copies of the first edition when it was in print because I like its map board better, and because its unique grey-coloured, British-design ANZAC sculpts were replaced by ANZAC-specific designs in the second edition. I’ll also sometimes, as a niche purchase, order online a second-hand copy of an out-of-print A&A game, but I don’t do this very often.
All of this is very much what the military would call “in excess of requirements” from a conventional perspective, but as an A&A sculpt collector I don’t see it quite from the angle of conventional requirements. For one thing, I like the fact that having multiple copies of multiple games, ranging across the publication history of A&A, provides a vast range of variant shapes, colours and shades for the sculpts, with the differences ranging from the trivial (e.g., the hatch shape on the turret of the American Sherman tank) to “so-flagrant-that-it-qualifies-as-a-new-unit” situations (e.g. the two versions of the German 88 AAA gun and the Stuka dive bomber, which actually served [incorrectly] as field artillery and fighter units in the older games). And I’m intrigued by the fact that accumulating so many sculpts produces wildly different frequency-distribution statistics: at one extreme I have huge quantities of US infantry sculpts (which are present in every A&A game ever made), while at the other extreme I only have small numbers of pieces which are unique to certain out-of-print games (like the green and orange generic AAA guns from Guadalcanal).