Posts made by Mak Lake PD

I must have another game with you soon, Saburo.

Played a couple here in camp and busy with other things. Time flies by.

pdelaney@celticminerals.nf.net. Thanks. I’m half ready to PBEM an AAP, but don’t have the dice roller yet. Won’t download.

kyrial, Not much on posting jpeg knowhow so you can either advise me on that or give me you email. The bottom of my copy is pretty much perfect. I can take some shots with a digital camera and you can whatever detail you’d like.

Would anyone have a link to obtain the module used in the MOT Mapview program for PBEM for the original “Classic” A&A? I have one for AAP, even though I designed one myself, and may do the same for A&A Classic, but the regular module would be nice I think.

Also I tried to download a dice roller from an AAP site, DOI, but the link went the wrong way. It was a roller by Cloud Tops. Any help there would be appreciated.

Right on. I’ll let you know. I have to do some downloading I guess. But while sitting here in an isolated camp awaiting the other guy who was going to play to return to camp, I drew up the entire gameboard in a program we use called Mapinfo.  I just did it to be able to save the game in case I needed the table for something else, but would also be useful if moving around with it. So I don’t actually need a board to play especially by email, (but I will download the Mapview). I just type in what units are in each place, change them easily when turns end, can change the colour coding or borders of territories to indicate ownership, etc. The dice simulator is a nice idea, although the link at DOI goes somewhere else. So have to sort that out.

Thanks, I actually figured out what PBEM meant after a second!! I’ll check out some of those other sights and maybe have a game with you some day. Bit busy at the moment, but usually not a problem to get a turn done.

Being new to the internet end of it I have to ask what is PBEM and the other things you mentioned?

I have played quite a few games of the original A&A, but not as many as I’d like to have played. Not sure if my game is some type of 2nd edition as it’s not nearby. I’ve only recently played Pacific, on my third game all against the same guy who had never played before. He did Japan first and it was over early. I did Japan and won, but there were touchy moments. I’m about to lose as the Allies after making a bad choice. So far I see some decent possibilities for variation in games. Just as in the original version I think that if a few critical battles and/or just different losses go one way or another then the actions by both sides often are forced to change. The reason I like A&A so much is the variation in what happens, so different from Risk which I’ve played tonnes of growing up, but not overly complex that a novice can’t have a good go at it and fun the first game. In all the games of original A&A I’ve played while there has been the natural similarities one gets with playing on the same board with the same victory conditions, I can honestly say I’ve never played a game that was the same as another. Always something different happened to make that game a little special. I hope Pacific works out that way, and I can see that happening, especially with more than one enemy player. So far I’m enjoying it.

Yup, page 14. Looks good. Doesn’t specifically say it’s OK, but I guess if it doesn’t ban it then it must be OK. Less complications the better in any regard.

Must have been an earlier post I can’t read now, but what were these new house rules you refer to? I can sense that one of them is no Japanese first turn advantage against UK targets. Any others?

frimmel, Thanks for the comments and strategic considerations. My main concern was whether anyone thought that more or less “attacking” with transports in this manner as cannon fodder not for naval but for air force was acceptable within the rules. One can make whatever strat decisions he wants, smart or otherwise, but I was wondering if people thought this is/should be allowed or not? I get the impression it’s OK by your comments and that is the way we played it.

As for strategy I know the guy could have used those two transports he lost, plus one fighter, later in the fight. However, I also lost a battleship, destoyer and transport(?) which I would liked to have kept, but since I won the game and that sector then it certainly hurt him more than I.

While I’ve played enough games of the classic version I’ve only recently played the Pacific version. Certainly more naval action in the latter. A couple of questions had come up but were usually solved. One that came up that I never really noted from the classic was about use of transports as cannon fodder. In fleet attack situations, even without any intention of making an amphibious assault or even the presence of land forces in the fleet transports, it was always normal to move with a bunch of transports to take hits for more valuable items, whether attacking or defending. Recently, I had a small squadron attacked by 3 land-based fighters and 2 transports. No other naval units. Now while I can see an example in the Pacific rules of transports going into an attack situation with some destroyers, the example doesn’t happen to have any losses for the attacker, so whether they can be used as cannon fodder isn’t addressed, but it was considered as having been in combat so I can only assume it can be a casualty as I’ve always played. I always assumed they could be. But just moving unescorted transports into an enemy occupied zone seemed a bit wrong.

Any comments on this?

On another note I guess a few people have noted that the rules say it costs 4 for marines while the reference charts say 3. It clearly must be 4.