Where can I find actual examples. My rule book only has examples without altitude changes.
If I want to go down just one altitude, is that really a special movement. So you can’t go down one altitude and then do a tight turn?
Posts made by eddiem4145
RE: Anyone know where I can buy plastic stands for air force minatures
Actually purchased stands that were not compatible. They were to thin. I have the angels 20 starter set. Any help welcome.
Anyone know where I can buy plastic stands for air force minatures
Anyone know where I can buy plastic stands for air force minatures
RE: Axis and allies minatures, where and how to get
Just had time to check this post. I will look into what you sent me. Thank you very much. MOst helpful.
Axis and allies minatures, where and how to get
The avalon hill website seems to no longer sell or have any information on miniatures. I found some on amazon but not sure exactily what I am getting.
Anyone know a website where I can see all the minatures they sell.
I bought a minature set for the planes intending to use them for the overall ground war, but it seemed the set was designed for planes alone battles. The were huge and the stands took up the entire hex,
Also lost my rule book.
Can anyone help.
RE: Carriers attacking
I’m sorry, I didn’t ask the question clear enough to satisfy the argument.
A carrier with 2 planes on it can both move (Both meaning not both planes, but the planes and the carrier) into an enemy sea zone, attack, and if it wins, the planes can then land on the carrier.
The argument is if the carrier has two planes on it, the carrier can’t move into combat or the planes that took off the carrier into the enemy sea zone cannot land on the carrier if carrier also moved into the hostile sea zone and conducted combat.
The rule book only states “Any fighters belonging to the aircraft carrier owner move independently of the carrier. These fighters can make a combat move from the carrier’s original sea zone, or they can remain in the original sea zone until the Noncombat Move phase…Your aircraft carrier can move to or remain in a sea zone where one of your fighters will end its noncombat move (and in fact, it must do so if it is able).”
I think that last part, “Your aircraft carrier can move to or remain in a sea zone where one of your fighters will end its noncombat move” Is where they get that idea.
Please give me a good answer although it is hard to argue that you can do something without a specific rule stating that you can. Of course doesn’t say you can’t in any way.
Advanced Axis and Allies?
I was looking through the posts on the “Harris Game Design” forums and I saw something about a new Advanced Axis in the works with detail way beyond Global, like retreat rules, sub hunts, victory points (each city has a different point value) ect,
The posts are old, any word on what happened?
I posted this question twice on the forum with a automatic reply that my post will first be reviewed by moderators and then posted if appropriate. The question was never posted and I don’t know why, any one with some insight?
RE: Carriers attacking
There are other versions where the aircraft carrier has an attack value of 0 and a damaged carrier can’t be landed on.
Making sending in a carrier to attack useless. So I think they got used to playing that version and assumed a carrier cannot attack. Although even in those versions if you know you are going to loose your planes or there is an island you can land on, you can still send in the carrier as cannon fodder, but they played that version as though you can’t send in a carrier.
They looked up the rules and tried to argue that in certain places of the rule book, in was implicit that you can’t send a carrier to attack. It was a pretty weird conversation but nevertheless, I agreed to post the question.
Naval Units avoiding battle
When I enter a sea zone with my capital warships, and the sea zone is occupied by other enemy capital warships, do I have to conduct one round of battle, or
can I just stop my movement, then if on the enemy’s turn they do not attack me, on my turn again I get to keep moving, essentially, the enemy does not stop my movement, they only slow me down.
Two Moscow adjacent territories are under CP control. One Moscow adjacent territory in contested. Another territory not adjacent to Moscow is contested. Moscow is contested and about to fall removing the Russian Revolution option. If the Moscow adjacent territory goes under CP control, the Russian Revolution happens saving Moscow.
On Moscow’s turn, knowing it can’t hold Moscow, simply withdraws his troops from the one Moscow adjacent territory that is contested back to Moscow.
The question, the instant it withdrawals its troops back to Moscow that was contested, does that territory immediately goes under CP full control, thus fulfilling the Russian Revolution condition at the end of the Russian turn, saving Moscow.
The argument against this is: The minute Russian troops pull out, the CP power in that territory can’t place his marker and gain its income until that CP powers next turn, thus allowing them to attack Moscow the next turn, taking Moscow and avoiding the Russian Revolution.
RE: Bidding for OOB
The one thing that can change to give balance and a major oversight by the creators are the submarine rules. Even before the Germans began unrestricted submarine warfare, they did major damage to the British. After they began unrestricted warfare, they did even more damage before the with US assistance, they removed the threat.
The submarine rules are way to weak for the Germans. Submarine damage should be automatic, no rolling. It should be $1 damage per sub to start, $2 once they begin unrestricted submarine warfare.
This can easily be thwarted a turn or two after the US comes into the war and before that, the Germans can’t put to much into submarine warfare due to the demands on the eastern front. But it will slow down the US and British.
Fighters attacking naval units.
Can a fighter fly one space, attack with ground troops, then fly back to where it came from?
Can a fighter fly one space over a sea zone, attack warships, then fly back to where it came from?
Important as Austria is about to send its navy and a fighter from the Balkans against the Italian navy in my current game.
RE: Invading colonies or countries with colonies
OK so I saw it say that if I take the capital, the colonies of that capital don’t go to me. That makes sense.
But it doesn’t say what happens if I take a colony. Wouldn’t take a nations colony by force be tantamount to a declaration of war.
RE: What Makes For The Most Balanced Game?
How a cheaper Navy helps the allies is this. The US comes in after turn 4. With a cheaper navy, namely transports, Japan could be a real threat to Australia, forcing the US to pay attention to it, making it historically accurate.
The US paying some attention to Japan helps the Germans.
Lastly, IMHO, the game is close enough that these changes don’t ruin the game. But seeing your point, to go along with this, you would also have to fix the sub problem which is horrible. The advantage Germany had in the beginning of the war with their subs just doesn’t exist in the game. They need to make the subs more stealthy, like rolling the dice to locate them before attacking them, (destroyers would have a better chance than other units) and greatly expanding the areas they can convoy. Also giving the Germans a wolf pack advantage that the US copies and made use of much later in the war against the Japanese.
This whole incredible aspect of WW2 was somehow left out of the game. A real shame. That would bring some balance.
Fixing the submarine rules without drastically changing the rules is pretty simple. The idea comes for the World at War game which specialized in rules that were extremely historical.
The basics of that rule were that planes, capital warships had to roll to find the sub on a 1-2. That represented the chance they caught them on the surface. Destroyers had a much better chance of finding the subs on a 1-4. Representing finding them on the surface and tracking them underwater.
Convoy raiding zones stretched across the Atlantic. Sub also could not defend or attack with capital warships.
They also had different levels of radar and counter radar technologies that the allies and Germany competed. If Germany had level one counter radar, it was harder to located the sub. If the allies had radar level 1, it made it easier to find the subs. They also had sub pens that gave them greater protection when parked along the French and German coast.
RE: Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…
The answer is simple. The game World at War had it right. You had to roll to find subs first. Destroyers had an advantage at finding subs. Also the convoy disruptions sea zones covered much of the Atlantic. They also included sub pens that made it hard to attack them when stationed along the German and French coast.
Once found, you basically had one chance to attack them. Historically, the vast majority of subs in the US who submerged against destroyers and were followed for a great length of time, ended up escaping.
In Germany, most of them that were destroyed were destroyed while on the surface. The US and Britain were also able to cover to much of the sea by the time they came up with longer range aircraft.
Also, they developed more sophisticated radar towards the later part of the war that made it much easier to locate subs even when they submerged, but that is technology. In fact, the game World at War incorporated Radar and counter radar in their technology.
Please someone send me some info or links regarding subs coordinating attacks with friendly capital warships.
My post was completely misunderstood. I didn’t mean subs fighting against capital warships, but subs fight with, that is on the same side.
Another words, US subs coordinating with US capital warships. I always understood subs fought by themselves and never with capital warships.
If anyone has a link to videos or webpages please let me know. Just the info would be OK and then I can look it up.
I always have been disappointed in what I see as the minimization of subs in this game. Although it is much better now, still, playing other versions of this game, (World at War) and expansions for Axis and Allies throughout the 90’s still leaves me disappointed.
Does anyone have any links to anything that indicate subs fought with capital warships. My influence has always been that subs only fought or conducted operations among subs only and there were never any naval battles that were coordinated with subs.
I know some subs were used by the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, but since no capital warships were involved, they really did their own thing. They certainly did not coordinate with the air craft.