Posts made by Micoom

How is this game? What i see at their site looks very nice! Years of playtesting most have count for something… And with all the painted metal figures  8-)  But before spending a thousand…  :roll:  I like to hear some comments on it…

Ok, what ParagonGames offers sounds really good…

You could also make some adjustments yourself? not…  It is for personal gameplay… Why not change the color or spelling errors yourself… It is not to hard to figure out…

I’m curious how people will compare/ rank this version of A&A with the A&A enhanced version of the AH boards.

IL, Could you also mail me the player aids? (after adjustments)  Thanks!  :wink:

For the Victory conditions of Italy that include control over Spain and Turkey, I think that it should say in controll by Italy or Germany. Just as the “Seize Mideast Oil” condition for Germany mentions Italy. this because it seems nearly impossible for Italy to take control over these territories on its own. They have no diplomacy rolls, and attacking them seems madness and favouring the Allies.

have a look at this link;http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/japan_paratroop.html
maybe it helps for some info

I received my shipment this. Those V1 are great!  (thx would not have found them otherwise!)  I also bought those Katusha rockets. These Skytrex tanks look far better for our kind of gaming then GHQ or CinC. I had recently also purchased the CinC A&A set… and while i do like the detail… their guns are far to small… GHQ are best detailed (from what i have seen, have only a few) But these Skytrex are much stronger and have bigger guns.  I also purchased some ships on the 1/3000 line… Well the Yamato and the Essex carrier seem a little to big… But on my big board it’s no problem. The Cruisers are great, while the Subs are way to small  :-P

@Imperious:

OK what does this tank idea supposed to recreate historically?

The extra shot, reflects to the breaktrough and exploit of the lines by tanks. Tanks were the first to breaktrough the enemy lines. And to put them more in the same category as fighters for strength, this because build totals had been the same in WWII.

Yes, but i would like to see the tank make a extra shot, if the first was a hit… Or will this make them to powerfull?

Y’re correct, US had to service a big navy also. Germany was all about infantry the last years. Y’re numbers are per turn/round right?

If you look at builds in WWII then in total the powers build more fighters then tanks. But in A&A that will never happen because of the costs…  This is just a thought I came up with…

Tanks and self-propelled guns

Soviet T-34Soviet Union = 105,251 (92,595)
United States = 88,410 (71,067)
Germany = 46,857 (37,794)
United Kingdom = 27,896
Canada = 5,678
Japan = 2,515
Italy = 2,473
Hungary = 500
Note: Number in parenthesis equals the number of tanks and self-propelled guns equipped with main weapons of 75 mm or larger. Smaller producing nations do not have this differentiation.

Fighter aircraft
United States = 99,950
Soviet Union = 63,087
Germany = 55,727
United Kingdom = 49,422
Japan = 30,447
Italy = 4,510

Attack aircraft
Soviet Union = 37,549
Germany = 12,539

Maybe you could change the value of the tank more to that of a fighter. Allthough I think this is better suited for a D12 use. But on D6 make a tank 3+3/3/9.

Example; When a tank scores a 3 or lower on it’s first shot, he gets to roll another roll of 3 or less. This to reflect the possible breaktrough of lines by tanks.

You could also choose to give tanks the extra shot if first is a hit, but not change the value. Only reducing the fighter cost from 10 to 6 or 7… If both are made more expansive… then it could help to see more infantry stacking, and you don’t want that. IMO…

I found this on the net;

World War II’s basic statistics qualify it as by far the greatest war in history in terms of human and material resources expended. In all, 61 countries with 1.7 billion people, three-fourths of the world’s population, took part. A total of 110 million persons were mobilized for military service, more than half of those by three countries: the USSR (22-30 million), Germany (17 million), and the United States (16 million). For the major participants the largest numbers on duty at any one time were as follows: USSR (12,500,000); U.S. (12,245,000); Germany (10,938,000); British Empire and Commonwealth (8,720,000); Japan (7,193,000); and China (5,000,000).

and;

The human cost of the war fell heaviest on the USSR, for which the official total, military and civilian, is given as more than 20 million killed. The Allied military and civilian losses were 44 million; those of the Axis, 11 million. The military deaths on both sides in Europe numbered 19 million and in the war against Japan, 6 million. The U.S., which had no significant civilian losses, sustained 292,131 battle deaths and 115,187 deaths from other causes. The highest numbers of deaths, military and civilian, were as follows: USSR more than 13,000,000 military and 7,000,000 civilian; China 3,500,000 and 10,000,000; Germany 3,500,000 and 3,800,000; Poland 120,000 and 5,300,000; Japan 1,700,000 and 380,000; Yugoslavia 300,000 and 1,300,000; Romania 200,000 and 465,000; France 250,000 and 360,000; British Empire and Commonwealth 452,000 and 60,000; Italy 330,000 and 80,000; Hungary 120,000 and 280,000; and Czechoslovakia 10,000 and 330,000.

What really catches the eye, is that the USSR did mobilize the most men, but at one moment in time in duty, the US had just as much. What should be used to reflect history for infantry limitations? 1)Total, 2)or total on duty at one time? I think option 2

When we you take that, and say that an A&A infantry unit reflects 2500000 men than the following limits could be used based on history;

USSR 50 inf
US  50 inf
UK  35 inf
China 20 inf ( if a player)

total 135 inf without china

Germany 45 inf
Japan 30 inf
Italy 14 inf (if a player) ( not in list but Italy had about 3 to 3.5 million man mobilized)
Minor Axis 6 inf (ad to Germany)

Total 95 inf

Axis 30% less then Allies… that will probably hurt the Axis big time…

Thanks! Made some use of it  :-)

I don’t like Japanese bombers… in the North African Express… Commando Frogmen and Gustav Line look good. Dessert Tracks, sounds also nice… But is there a reason for it, to be a Italian NA, instead of UK’s to name one…??

2 sounds better…

Germany had Already Radar in place to defend the “Atlantic wall” in Early 1941, long before “Barbarossa” would begin… So Radar shouldn’t be a UK advantage at all in a 1942 scenario. Only in a 1939…

We are working here on a Historical edition for A&A, so for this game timelines are essential and therefore more important then game flexibility, IMO.

From the company sites… Skytrex, CinC etc…

Isn’t there anyone here that has suggestions on what are the best buys etc…??

I like it.

Also according, this site http://www.combinedfleet.com/torps.htm  It’s really correct for Destroyers instead of planes. Plane Torpedo’s  were much smaller and had a max. range of only 2000m…

A table would be great  :wink:  But I have to say: Duke, your last rules on Infantry placements and the reasoning behind them, seem to be really good.