Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Patchman123
    3. Posts
    0%
    P
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 1
    • Topics 12
    • Posts 46
    • Best 8
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by Patchman123

    • RE: Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?

      @Striker said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

      I think black_elk was referring to 1942 3rd edition, not a 1940 europe/pacific/global 3rd edition.

      I a bit a of side rant, but I doubt updated French pieces will be a priority even if there is a 3rd edition for 1940. It would be cool purely for a collectors stand point, but only that, as from a game standpoint France falling is a forgone conclusion in Europe 1940 and feels more like busywork after the novelty of doing it the first time. The interesting strategy/decision making is everything else. The balance of destroying british navy/threatening sea lion/Blitz Russia/aiding Italy.

      Yes, France does in fact fall, but after liberation by the Allies, she becomes a pain in the neck to Germany and Italy, with the help of the other Allies on the Global board.

      France returns after liberation, so it’s not a complete loss.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?

      @DoManMacgee said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

      If we’re going to talk about the G40 line, I might as well throw out my personal wish. Give us a 1939 (or even 1936) scenario. I love the idea of having a few turns to prepare for the war in your own way, as opposed to being handed a largely predetermined set of units by the developers.

      It would let you explore zany what-if scenarios to your heart’s content, too.

      This guy has one right here.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?

      @Black_Elk said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

      For a long time now I’ve been hoping to see an official digital platform for A&A (one with at least some kind of connection to the designers and publishers) that could be used for alpha testing a new game before its actually released in print. I mean like a tandem release, where the new physical game follows the online drop.

      Analog playtesting the way A&A has been handled in the past is pretty laborious and time intensive, as a cursory look back at the larry boards will reveal. Even with an open alpha and tons of feedback on forums and such for each proposal, its still a challenge to aggregate everything and to rely on anecdotal after action reports. I get the impression that there is never really enough time to hold the kind of informal FtF tournaments that would be required, or to get enough people all going gangbusters at the same time to actually get enough data beforehand to determine whether its fully cooked before running it to the printers in china and pushing it out on the shelves.

      With a digital alpha you could speed up the whole process considerably and have gamesaves to use as evidence, to help parse the overall play-pattern and player experience in each iteration.

      I think A&A online could provide a real opportunity, if ever we got a shot on a re-issue of 1942. Even a re-release using the same base map could be fun. I admit new maps get me more excited than the existing ones (there were a couple changes from Spring to 2nd Ed so least there’s a precedent), but even using the same map as 2nd ed, with set up changes or a rules change or two there are a lot of ways to get at a new take on things.

      I guess what I’m hoping for is that A&Aonline goes beyond just offering a way to play 1942.2 or any of the existing A&A games digitally, and might eventually serve as a hub for developing the next A&A games. A place where the players could actually be more involved with that process, and provide feedback on things when it might still make a difference, e.g. before its shrink wrapped and sent off to stores.

      I know there are some core table toppers who would probably never really play A&A on a computer, but who might reconsider doing so, if hopping online also meant possible glimpses at the next upcoming board. Or having other ways to get involved, provide feedback while it might still influence the basic set up/balance design, or otherwise engage with something that they eventually get to put on an actual table. I think we could see a pretty strong 3rd edition going at it that way.

      Anyhow, just a few thoughts. To me the real longer term promise of an online A&A project would be something like that. And why I get exicted about things like possible toolsets or map/scenario editors.

      How about a 3rd edition with more historically-accurate pieces for France? I was basically thinking “No more Soviet pieces painted blue for France!” I think that France should have its own molds. I think that it is rather silly for France to have Soviet Union molds repainted blue for France. France didn’t exactly like the Soviets, either. Dewoitine D. 520 for a fighter, Breguet 690 for a tactical bomber, Char B1 bis for the tank piece, Farman F. 220 for the strategic bomber piece, Schneider AMC P16 for a mechanized infantry piece., Canon de 75 modèle 1913-17 Schneider for France’s AAA piece, The French 75 for an artillery piece, Dunkerque class for a battleship, Béarn class for an aircraft carrier, La Galissonière Class for a cruiser piece, Redoutable class for a submarine, Le Fantasque for a destroyer, and so on.

      If anyone has anything different, I’m all ears. :grinning:

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: A&A 1940 Global 2nd Edition - Setups & Components

      @Young-Grasshopper said in A&A Global Setups & Components (under construction):

      50th ANNIVERSARY EDITION COMPONENTS

      COMMON UNITS & ACCESSORIES:
      1 - Rulebook

      3 - Game Boards
      1 - Battle Board

      6 National Setup Charts (one for each power)
      1 National Production/Research & Development Chart

      6 Nationality boxes
      2 Community Boxes

      70 Plastic Chips (Gray)
      10 Plastic Chips (Red)

      7 Black dice
      7 Red dice

      22 Damaged Factory Markers
      18 Researcher Tokens
      18 Victory City Tokens

      24 - Factories
      24 - AA Artillery Guns

      30 One IPC Bills (green)
      30 Five IPC Bills (red)
      30 Ten IPC Bills (blue)

      GERMANY:
      20 - Control Markers

      25 - Infantry
      12 - Artillery
      14 - Tanks

      12 - Fighters
      6 - Bombers

      8 - Transports
      12 - Submarines
      10 - Destroyers
      6 - Cruisers
      2 - Aircraft Carriers
      4 - Battleships

      SOVIET UNION:
      20 - Control Markers

      25 - Infantry
      14 - Artillery
      14 - Tanks

      12 - Fighters
      4 - Bombers

      6 - Transports
      6 - Submarines
      6 - Destroyers
      4 - Cruisers
      2 - Aircraft Carriers
      2 - Battleships

      JAPAN:
      20 - Control Markers

      25 - Infantry
      10 - Artillery
      8 - Tanks

      12 - Fighters
      6 - Bombers

      10 - Transports
      10 - Submarines
      10 - Destroyers
      8 - Cruisers
      6 - Aircraft Carriers
      6 - Battleships

      UNITED KINGDOM:
      20 - Control Markers

      25 - Infantry
      10 - Artillery
      10 - Tanks

      12 - Fighters
      8 - Bombers

      10 - Transports
      10 - Submarines
      10 - Destroyers
      8 - Cruisers
      4 - Aircraft Carriers
      4 - Battleships

      ITALY:
      20 - Control Markers

      20 - Infantry
      6 - Artillery
      6 - Tanks

      6 - Fighters
      4 - Bombers

      4 - Transports
      6 - Submarines
      6 - Destroyers
      2 - Cruisers
      2 - Aircraft Carriers
      2 - Battleships

      UNITED STATES:
      20 - Control Markers

      25 - Infantry
      12 - Artillery
      12 - Tanks

      12 - Fighters
      8 - Bombers

      10 - Transports
      10 - Submarines
      10 - Destroyers
      8 - Cruisers
      6 - Aircraft Carriers
      4 - Battleships

      CHINA:
      15 - Regular Infantry

      Where’s France’s total number of pieces?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: EXACT pieces count for Pacific/Europe 1940 Second Edition

      @Midnight_Reaper said in EXACT pieces count for Pacific/Europe 1940 Second Edition:

      @Patchman123:

      What am I looking for is NOT a combined count for Pacific and Europe 1940 put together as one whole game, but rather, how many infantry there are in Pac. 1940 Sec. Ed? Not just infantry, but ALL pieces.

      How many pieces for all the games? PER GAME, NOT combined.

      Question already answered: @Midnight_Reaper:

      -Midnight_Reaper

      Where is it exactly? I notice that there are pieces with nummeration on the bottom for sorting them out all by country, minus ANZAC, which has none on any of its infantry pieces in Second Edition.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Infantry Pieces and Numeration/Nomenclature

      @Midnight_Reaper said in Infantry Pieces and Numeration/Nomenclature:

      @Patchman123:

      @barney:

      Hi Patch

      You can’t post pics until you hit 10 posts or something i think. Good Luck with your project.

      Well, here’s my 9th post and one more shall make it ten.

      The other catch with posting is you may need to find hosting for your picture(s) before you can post them. I dunno if the forums here store pictures for posts.

      -Midnight_Reaper

      PHTO0673.JPG

      I’m talking about this. The number “17” with the words “MADE IN CHINA” and the abbreviation “AM.”

      posted in Player Help
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: 1914 Map grievances

      @Carolina said in 1914 Map grievances:

      This map has a few dozen changes - any of these are welcome.

      new_1914_15-12-med.jpg

      I will be sure and add Hejaz to the map and make Portugal controlled by Britain, instead of France. Montenegro and Serbia were largely under the tutelage of France after 1917, when Russia collapsed, due to the October Revolution.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: 1914 Map grievances

      @The-Lion-of-the-Trenches said in 1914 Map grievances:

      @Patchman123

      I like what you have done with the map like fixing some Europe issues and adding lots of islands I never would have thought of (Rat islands). Dividing Spain is a nice touch. I only have two complaints, as they are actually consequential to the game:

      1. Why a port in Singapore? I know it was a very important port for the empire but in this game ports mean mines and also the ability to construct naval units. Singapore did not mine the region nor was it capable of constructing naval vessels.

      2. Why is Mexico Pro-USA? In 1914 the Carranza government of Mexico wasn’t even recognized by the United States and tensions were high. At the same time, Mexico would never enter a military alliance supporting the United States. Mexico should be neutral in the game.

      Mexico was mad at us for supporting a faction in that whole revolution, but Mexico knew that they could not just turn their backs on the United States because they needed to do business with their main trading partner, the USA. We’ve always had rather turbulent moments with Mexico and Trump’s whole wall plan is just the tip of the iceberg. The United States and Mexico have not always been the best of friends and Mexico refused to ally with Germany because they knew the consequences if they were to do so and the US had invaded Mexico many times before. Parts of Mexico were under American occupation, such as Veracruz. In Axis & Allies, even if 1 infantry occupies a space, they occupy the whole territory. Mexico sold oil to the Allied powers. If you look at Latin American in the Trenches, you will see for yourself how turbulent our relationship was with Mexico 100 years ago.

      100 years later, Trump wants to build a wall.

      “Carranza was not so much pro-German as he was an anti-U.S. Mexican nationalist.”

      The whole relationship with Mexico is just a whole new can of worms. Carranza knew that if outright supported Germany that the US would fall upon him like a ton of bricks!

      “With the Revolution still being fought across the country, Mexico never declared war during the First World War. In addition to the internal conflict of the Revolution, it also experienced external pressures during the war, the most notable incidents being the Tampico Affair, the Pancho Villa Expedition, and the Zimmermann Telegram.”

      “[Tensions with the United States resulted in direct military conflict in several instances of varying severity. In addition, while Mexico rejected Germany’s overtures to join in war on the United States, a telegram intercepted by the United Kingdom in 1917 hastened U.S. entry into World War I.”

      These facts marked the participation of Mexico in the Great War.[3][4]

      The Carranza government was de jure recognized by Germany at the beginning of 1917 and by the U.S. on August 31, 1917, the latter as a direct consequence of the Zimmermann telegram in an effort to ensure Mexican Neutrality in the Great War.[8][9] After the United States occupation of Veracruz(This is precisely why I have Mexico under US occupation on the map. Mexico is not so much as pro-US, as it’s under US occupation.) in 1914, Mexico would not participate with the U.S. in its military participation in the Great War, so ensuring Mexican neutrality was the best deal the U.S. could hope for.[5]
      Carranza granted guarantees to German companies for keeping their operations open, specifically in Mexico City,[10] but he was at the same time selling oil to the British fleet. In fact, 75 percent of the fuel used by the British fleet came from Mexico.[4][11]
      Carranza rejected the proposal of a military alliance with Germany, made via the Zimmermann Telegram, and he was at the same time able to prevent a permanent military invasion from the U.S., which wanted to take control of Tehuantepec Isthmus and Tampico oil fields.[2][3][12] Mexico was producing 55 million barrels of petroleum by 1917.[13] Because 75 percent of the fuel used by the British fleet came from Mexico, Carranza gave the order to destroy and set fire to the oil fields in case of a U.S. invasion.[12][14]
      Carranza’s troops confronted and defeated the John J. Pershing Punitive Expedition in the Battle of Carrizal. General Pershing was furious at this result and asked for permission to attack the Carrancista garrison at Chihuahua. President Wilson, fearing that such an attack would provoke a full-scale war with Mexico, refused. The Battle of Carrizal marked the effective end of the Punitive Expedition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_in_World_War_I#Extent_of_involvement_in_the_war).

      75% percent (3/4) of all British oil for their ships came from Mexico. Mexico was in a tough spot at the time. It was incorrectly believed that Mexico wanted to outright ally with Germany. I’m sorry, but I think that having Mexico as pro-German flies in the face of the facts.

      Mexico did not want to join either side and thus Mexico would be a strict neutral or even a pro-Allies neutral in basic A&A parlance. Franco was sympathetic to Hitler and Mussolini, but Franco did not outright enter WWII because he knew that the Allies would not have hesitated to invade Spain and its territories. Mexico was in an unfavorable position in World War I.

      “The United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution was varied and seemingly contradictory, first supporting and then repudiating Mexican regimes during the period 1910-1920.[1] For both economic and political reasons, the U.S. government generally supported those who occupied the seats of power, whether they held that power legitimately or not. A clear exception was the French Intervention in Mexico, when the U.S. supported the beleaguered liberal government of Benito Juárez at the time of the American Civil War (1861-1865). Prior to Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration on March 4, 1913, the U.S. Government focused on just warning the Mexican military that decisive action from the U.S. military would take place if lives and property of U.S. nationals living in the country were endangered.[2] President William Howard Taft sent more troops to the US-Mexico border but did not allow them to intervene in the conflict,[3][4] a move which Congress opposed.[4] Twice during the Revolution, the U.S. sent troops into Mexico.”

      Mexican territory was being occupied by the United States of America. In basic A&A mechanics, the United States would control Mexico. Mexico is under US occupation.

      And Singapore did not have the ability to build ships, but I believe that the British had mined that area because they were at war with Germany and German ships were attacking their Asian ports in their British colonies.

      The military expenditure (the colony paid on this account 20 percent of its gross revenue to the British government by way of military contribution) amounted in 1906 to $1,762,438; $578,025 was expended on upkeep and maintenance of existing public works, and $1,209,291 on new roads, streets, bridges, and buildings.[10]:981

      “Many deemed that "Mexico…was the doorway to all of Latin America’s riches, but only if the neighbor remained under U.S economic tutelage.”

      Mexico is indirectly controlled by the United States and it’s just foolish to give Germany the option of being able to station troops in Mexico to threaten the United States because Mexico was rather wary of Germany’s intentions.

      Well, Mexico was already invaded by the United States a few times and I am simulating the intervention to capture Pancho Villa after he attacks American towns along the US-Mexican border. Parts of Mexico were under occupation by the USA.

      “From the end of World War I onwards, Britain had begun to build up its defences in Singapore in light of the growing military threat from Japan. A naval base was constructed in Sembawang and huge guns were emplaced in strategic locations along Singapore’s coastline to fend off possible naval attacks.”

      “The Battle of Penang occurred on 28 October 1914, during World War I. It was a naval action in the Strait of Malacca, in which the German cruiser SMS Emden sank two Allied warships.”

      Of course we all know just how unreliable Wikipedia and Quora can be.

      “The 1915 Singapore Mutiny, also known as the 1915 Sepoy Mutiny or the Mutiny of the 5th Light Infantry, was a mutiny involving up to half of a regiment of 850 sepoys (Indian soldiers) against the British in Singapore during the First World War, linked with the 1915 Ghadar Conspiracy.”

      Might I recommend this book?

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: 1914 Map grievances

      @Flashman said in 1914 Map grievances:

      Correct the Bulgaria-Greece border (Greece did not have a border with Turkey in 1914).

      Have more tts in Hungry e.g. add Banat & Transylvania so Budapest does not border Russia.

      East Prussia should border Livonia; Poland should not have a coastline.

      Move SZ18 border south to intersect Albania-Greece.

      Extend Rome east to have an Adriatic coastline.

      Place a production city in Munich.

      Albania should be neutral.

      Give Lorraine-Marseille a border and move Paris to the “Burgundy” tt.

      Rename tts so that only those containing an actual city are so named; otherwise give them tt names. The map is too obviously based on Diplomacy.

      I have created two new and better versions.
      http://www.mediafire.com/view/uxthbc2z97q3w5x/Modified World War I Game.jpg

      http://www.mediafire.com/view/v4v0way8nr77re0/1914_global_map_whole.jpg/file

      I modified Lion in Trenches’ original map to include Mongolian territories and to add territories for Spain to make Spain more playable, a la Global 1939 on HBG.

      Original version of Global 1914.

      I removed the impassable thing from the Amazon rainforest and I decided to rename the territory “Amazonas” because it’s the largest Brazilian province west of Rio de Janeiro and many antique maps called the territory “Amazonas.” (Selvas das Amazonas in Nat Geo maps). I just thought that it was rather silly to have an impassable Amazon jungle. HBG just makes refuses to fully implement and market this game as a second edition board game, like their Global War 1939 game.

      Why can’t they just finish it? I have finished it and I am praying that Historical Board Gaming will finish it by Christmas or something.

      God, I feel so impatient! Sorry, guys! :confused: I renamed “Brest” to its correct name of Brittany because Brittany is the actual name of the French province where “Brest” lies in the game. It’s like calling the whole of Pennsylvania as Philadelphia, which I think is rather silly.

      I gave a name to the province where Paris is centered in the game and that’s called “Ile de France” like it is in real life.

      I made Franz Josef Land a Russian territory, since Russia seized the territory in the 1914 to prevent the Central Powers from having a base to attack Russia from the north.

      I renamed “Crimea” to Taurida because Taurida was the name given to it by Russia at that time.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Global War, 2nd edition - due 1\. November 2015

      @Patchman123:

      Can you add the Italian Maiale submarines and the British Long Range Desert Group LRDG to the game? I originally proposed a World War II game with Maiale submarines from the Decima MAS flotilla with my hand-drawn map of World War II, but since I found out about Doug Friend’s map, I decided to add my ideas to it. I would like to see the Special Air Service (SAS) in the game, too.  I think that Italy should have the Maiale submarines and have a bonus point against any Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean. The Maiale submarines will only be allowed to operate in the Mediterranean and they will have bonus points and warships will not get to roll against them. It will sort of be like the Italian equivalent of the Japanese kamikaze tokens. The Italian player will of course be limited as to how many Maiale submarines that they will get to roll per turn.  The Maiale will be any Italian submarine and the infantry aboard the submarine will attack the Allied surface warship in the Med.

      I am not sure how to even make it work within the game. I was proposing a game with Maiale submarines against any ANZAC, French or British surface warships in the Mediterranean.

      I also propose adding the Ariete Division for Italian elite units and the Folgore Parachute Division as Italian elite units. The Italians also had volunteers from India and the Middle East in their armies. I have a book on Italian elite units of World War II from 1940-1943.

      Italy not only had Bersaglieri, they also had the Ariete Division and the Folgore Division.  You could add paratroopers to the Italian player.

      You could also add torpedo bombers to the Italians. The Italians used the Savoia Marchetti SM. 79 as a torpedo bomber in the Mediterranean. You could also add torpedo bombers to the Germany, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Japan and the United States weren’t the only nations to have torpedo bombers.

      I have another suggestion.

      You could also add a Bearn class aircraft carrier to France. France’s only aircraft carrier in World War II was the Bearn class aircraft carrier.

      The Bearn was out in the Atlantic when France surrendered in 1940. You could add torpedo bombers to the Soviet Union, too. The Soviet Union had torpedo bombers in the Baltic and Black Seas.

      You could also add a plastic P-40 painted in China’s paint color to simulate the Flying Tigers.  There is so much that you could add there.

      Patchman123.
      [/quote

      See, everyone! It’s not so bad. There’s Historical Board Gaming for that.
      http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces–US-Exp--P-47-Thunderbolt-Fighter-x5_p_2090.html
      http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces--Allies--P40-Warhawk-Early-War-Fighter-x5_p_1168.html

      If anyone’s interested.

      posted in Global War
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Any gamers in the Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Youngstown/Erie/Buffalo Area?

      @jonathan.rost:

      I’m willing to do the Play by E mail (PBEM) variant on Triple A.  I might be travelling to Cleveland , could also stop by for a game.  Best way to reach me is through the email address below.

      regards,

      Jonathan Rost
      [email protected]

      My email is [email protected].

      posted in Player Locator
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Remake

      @Imperious:

      You know im thinking of making a free WW1 game using some ideas from my upcoming game. I’m tired of these delays.

      Well, you had mocked and insulted me previously some 8 years ago, but I have a WWI game for free that Historical Board Gaming has.
      http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Global-War-1914-Axis-Allies-WW1-Variant-Map_p_728.html

      It’s free, if you want it. You can get it from Historical Board Gaming. It costs nothing.

      posted in House Rules
      P
      Patchman123
    • Irish Republican Army (IRA) rules and musings about Russia

      I was thinking about having a rule for Ireland in dealing the Irish Republican Army, the IRA, which was just forming in 1914-1915 to fight the British for Ireland’s independence. Ireland still has 6 counties which are under British rule as we speak, in the northeast of the country.  I know for a fact that many Irish nationalists want to see these counties belong to the Republic of Ireland, owned by Catholic Ireland, instead of the Protestant United Kingdom.  Of course, the UK isn’t exactly as religious as it once was and neither is Ireland. I’m not gonna get into the whole gay marriage and abortion debates.  I steer clear of that.  Of course, the UK isn’t exactly Protestant anymore. Maybe it will become Islamic? All those immigrants? Who knows? Who cares? I listen to that Pat Condell guy and that Computing Forever guy.  Of course, we aren’t allowed to discuss politics on here.

      I was thinking about having 1 (German) infantry piece to represent the Irish Republican Army and the Irish Republican Army will rise up in turn 2, if there are no British forces in Ireland. It’s strange that the current set up has no British forces in Ireland.  Of course, the Irish Republican Army is considered to be a terrorist organization, like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Hey, if there was a War on Terror board game about the current wars that the Western nations are waging against the Islamic terrorists/fundamentalists I’d have Al Qaeda and ISIS in there, even though I do not agree with their Islamist ideologies.

      The Irish Republican Army will revolt in Ireland against the British in A&A. I am puzzled as to why the game has the Bolsheviks revolting against the monarchy and overthrowing it. I think that the subsequent civil war should also be depicted.  I wonder why Russia east of the Urals is not depicted? Every A&A game, except Europe (1999) and Pacific (2001) have depicted only European Russia, which is west of the Urals.

      Why is there a territory called Tatarstan? Shouldn’t it be called the Kazan Governorship? I believe that this is the English translation of the word “Губерния” оr Губернія if you REALLY want to go old school.  Kazanskaya Gubernia is its Russian name.  I think that Sevastopol should be renamed the Taurida Governorship. Of course, that Imperious leader was all too keen to make of fun for using the transliterated names of the Russian territories in the Soviet Union.  There’s Evenkiyskiy and it is called by its full name of Evenkiyskiy Avtonomnyy Okrug or whatever they called it back in 1940.

      Why is Bessarabia part of Ukraine? Of course, Prussia (in the game) does not border Livonia, as it ACTUALLY did in the real war on a real map. That’s why Hitler was so keen to get back that piece of land from Lithuania that used to be called the Memel territory in 1939.   Should we have Moskovskaya Oblast? Stalingradskaya Oblast? If we are doing Evenkiyskiy?  Of course, let Imperialist leader make fun of me again!

      Why is Moscow the capital and not Petrograd? Petrograd was the capital in 1914, NOT Moscow.  Of course, Moscow was made the capital in 1918 or so when the Soviets were ruling that country which once was Russia, until 1991.

      Of course, I think that the Soviet Union was the continuation of the old Russian Empire, except that the Christian Orthodox Tsars were replaced by brutal, naked atheist commies until '91.

      Many of the old lands that were a part of Russia became their own countries, like Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

      posted in House Rules
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Inaccuracies with the Eastern Territories of the Soviet Union/Global 1940 map

      @SS:

      @Patchman123:

      @SS:

      @Patchman123:

      @SS:

      Well I thank the people That make these maps and if something’s not right oh well I don’t have the time or sources to make my own maps.
      If there’s stuff you don’t like then by all means fix it yourself.
      😉

      I have my own maps for download if you want them, I have modified A&A Europe to have Bessarabia moved to its correct location and so on.

      There’s a few problems with the map you have presented me. For one, Bangladesh did not exist until 1971, after it gained independence from Pakistan. It only existed after 1971, after it ceased being “East Pakistan” and instead became Bangladesh.

      Im good. I don�t use G40 map. Thanks

      What do you use then?

      This map I use for my 40 game and HBG 39

      http://www.mediafire.com/?f5hpt6bws4gylpz

      I have something better. I got rid of the Canadian maple leaf roundel because that was not adopted until 1946, well after World War II and the Canadians (RCAF) used the British roundel during World War II. I changed the Dutch roundel to the Dutch flag roundel made famous in the East Indies that the Dutch used to denote the fact that they were at war and thus, no longer a neutral country, but in fact a member of the Allied powers.

      http://www.mediafire.com/view/utpmq6b7f3zoiu6/Global_1940_Sec_Ed.jpg

      posted in House Rules
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Piece count

      @knp7765:

      Yeah, I’ve gone kind of piece crazy myself. I have a specific set of pieces for each nation in Global 40 I call my gaming sets. Here is what comprises each nation set:
      100 Infantry
      50 Artillery
      50 Mechanized Infantry
      50 Tanks
      40 Anti-Aircraft Artillery
      40 Fighters
      30 Tactical Bombers
      30 Strategic Bombers
      40 Transports
      40 Submarines
      40 Destroyers
      30 Cruisers
      20 Battleships
      20 Aircraft Carriers
      100 Control Markers
      And that is just OOB units! The only exception is China, but they still have 100 OOB Infantry units. I also have some HBG units for China for artillery, tanks and fighters (some house rules allow China to have tanks).
      To get these totals, I actually got several copies of the game when they came out and cannibalized them for pieces. I was able to sell off extras which helped me make back some of the money I spent, but it was still pretty pricy. 
      On top of this, I have huge collections of HBG’s sets in just about every color available. This part is really silly on my part because I pretty much use the Olive Drab for US, Dark Grey for Germany, Burnt Orange for Japan, Maroon for Russia. Basically the OOB colors. So all of those other colors, like the Axis Minors, Neutral sets, US Supplement for Allies and alternate colors for the Japanese Supplement and Expansion sets just basically sit there in their containers. I keep thinking I will use them in trying out the HBG 1939 Global variant because it has all these little countries and you can use all the variant colors to represent them, but I never get around to doing so. My group simply prefers Global 40.
      When I think back on how much I have invested in all these game pieces, it almost makes me sick. I enjoy my games and it’s a fun little hobby, but there is such a thing as too much.
      Obviously having such large sets is not necessary. You can always use chips which in some cases you simply have to because of space limitations on the board. I hope you are able to find your balance. However, I must agree with YG, the pieces in a single game are simply not enough.

      How many PER game, NOT total. What I mean by total is counting Europe 1940 Sec. Ed. and Pacific 1940 Sec. Ed separately, instead of as one game.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      Patchman123
    • EXACT pieces count for Pacific/Europe 1940 Second Edition

      What am I looking for is NOT a combined count for Pacific and Europe 1940 put together as one whole game, but rather, how many infantry there are in Pac. 1940 Sec. Ed? Not just infantry, but ALL pieces.

      How many pieces for all the games? PER GAME, NOT combined.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Inaccuracies with the Eastern Territories of the Soviet Union/Global 1940 map

      @SS:

      @Patchman123:

      @SS:

      Well I thank the people That make these maps and if something’s not right oh well I don’t have the time or sources to make my own maps.
      If there’s stuff you don’t like then by all means fix it yourself.
      😉

      I have my own maps for download if you want them, I have modified A&A Europe to have Bessarabia moved to its correct location and so on.

      Im good. I don�t use G40 map. Thanks

      What do you use then?

      posted in House Rules
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Infantry Pieces and Numeration/Nomenclature

      @barney:

      Hi Patch

      You can’t post pics until you hit 10 posts or something i think. Good Luck with your project.

      Well, here’s my 9th post and one more shall make it ten.

      posted in Player Help
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Infantry Pieces and Numeration/Nomenclature

      @Ichabod:

      When sorting your numerous pieces (sounds like a lot all jumbled in a great stack), were you able to find the needle?

      I have been sorting it out for days and I have made some headway because France has its own infantry sculpts for 1st Ed. and 2nd End.,  but I have so far been unable to figure out which ones go to which game, after I sold one of my A&A 1942 First Edition (before 2nd Ed) to a guy in eastern Pennsylvania in Hughesville, PA on Ebay.

      It’s a nightmare trying to figure out everything.

      His name is Eric and he lives in Lycoming County in the eastern part of my state, Pennsylvania and I live in Western PA, in Crawford County.

      posted in Player Help
      P
      Patchman123
    • RE: Inaccuracies with the Eastern Territories of the Soviet Union/Global 1940 map

      @SS:

      Well I thank the people That make these maps and if something’s not right oh well I don’t have the time or sources to make my own maps.
      If there’s stuff you don’t like then by all means fix it yourself.
      😉

      I have my own maps for download if you want them, I have modified A&A Europe to have Bessarabia moved to its correct location and so on.

      posted in House Rules
      P
      Patchman123
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 2 / 3