Great Tank choices, FMG. The Pershing tank didn’t even get a chance to fight in the war. Tank destroyer all the way.
Don’t forget the US Mechanized unit. How about the LVT? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked
Great Tank choices, FMG. The Pershing tank didn’t even get a chance to fight in the war. Tank destroyer all the way.
Don’t forget the US Mechanized unit. How about the LVT? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked
This is cool but if its expensive it seems kind of pointless. I mean you already have boxes for the games. :|
The ammo box is for FMG’s Combat Units. They are not for the cheap junk that comes with the board game.
Enjoy this picture of the completed GERMANY Artillery Piece.
It is an 88 with a blast shield.
beautiful
You know what they say:
If you want if fast and cheap it wont be good
If you want it fast and good it wont be cheap
If you want it good and cheap it wont be fast!I’m ok with that.
+1
indeed. words of wisdom
Love all the pics.
When do we get self-propelled artillery as well :wink:
Just make the trucks a 1-2-2-4 unit with the ability to tow artillery.
New Picture - Italian Armor
Dude, that’s hot.
You know, I’ve been thinking about what FMG said about nixing the 2 US tanks and going for 2 fighters. For Japan, maybe there should be 2 battleships as opposed to two tanks: 1 Yamato Super Battleship, and 1 regular. However, now that we know the tank turrets can move, I don’t think anyone will want to make that trade……unless the turrets on that second battleship can move…shudders
If I were to go Navy on G1, it would be Carrier, Transport, Fighter.
huh…, ack, my head hurts…dude, how long have I bee out? I had the most awesome dream……where the turrets on FMG’s tanks could mo-…oooo…
YES!
So much for the wrong facing turret of the Armored Car…
When we said QUALITY…
…… :-o drops to the floor
The submarines can stand on their own. Hazzaaaa!!!
Same goes for the USSR’s Pacific units. They had Tanks, Mechanized Infantry, and 1,500 planes. Perhaps add 1 tank, mech, and tac bomber to each stack of six?
quote oztea:
It would seem that Larry went this way with it because of the side to which the people of the country were leaning as opposed to their governments. Why? We don’t exactly know.
It seems so, but isn’t this in contradiction to the rest of the board?
Surely control in A&A is about military and government power, not the shifting sympathies of the proletariat.
You may as well make Egypt pro-Axis, as it was under a shaky and unpopular pro-British government.
Larry justifies his Pro-Allies Persia by the fact that Persia traded most of their oil with the Allies. Iraq had the same economic relationship with Germany that pre-dates WWI, hence the Alliance with the Ottoman Empire. It seems clear to me that Larry was considering neither the governments, nor public opinion, but the economic relationship of each country.
@Cmdr:
Given that my navy strategy is working great in a 1941 game against an oppenent on this forum, I really can’t say it’s an error, but maybe not the greatest idea of all time either.
Currently we have Germany with:
4 Fighters
2 Carriers
2 Battleships
2 Cruisers
3 Destroyers
7 Submarines (Super)
4 TransportsAnd the allies with:
6 Fighters (2 American)
3 Carriers
2 Battleships
1 Cruiser
4 Destroyers (1 American)
5 Submarines (1 Russian)
3 TransportsBoth sides have one bomber on the mainland they could bring when they attack.
England is completely out of Africa, tho it remains not 100% captured.
Russia is pressed on all sides, though will liberate Karelia for the first time since Round 2. But the Germans, Japanese and Italians are posed for a three pronged attack on Caucasus should the Russians stack there.
Japan’s got two decent sized forces flanking the northern and southern approaches and has eliminated china as any real threat.
America;s attempted two naval incursions into Japanese waters, both have been repelled causeing the Americans to have to rebuild. This could be why the German naval strat is working so far.
I admit, it was very risky putting two full rounds of income into the water for Germany on Rounds 5 and 6, but I think it paid off since the entire allied force has to sit in SZ 6, cannot sink SZ 5 (without major additions to their attack capabilities - film at eleven) and Russia has been on her own for 6 rounds.
As I see it, 50% of Germany’s income goes to negating the Allied fleet at this point. And half of Japan’s income does the same to start rebuilding to fight off the third American incursion.
Thus, we have:
Japan (62) = 31 IPC
Germany (56) = 28 IPC
Italy (24) = 24 IPCvs
Russia (26) = 26 IPC
Virtually each attacking nation has more income than Russia makes each round and the Allies have no ability to land a serious force in Euro-Africa.
For the record: With an NO, England is making 29 IPC, so Germany’s 28 IPC to counter is equivalent to what he can build in a round.
America is making 48 IPC which out strips Japan’s income, but America has to come over to attack Japan, I can sit in a defensive position and build fighters to juggle and attack should he get close. (Launch 4 from the ground, 4 from carriers to get 8 fighters, etc.)
While I realize the above is a case study, much as my much acclaimed game of Kill Japan First in AAR against NCSC_Switch where he claimed over and over and over again that Russia could never hold it’s own against Germany without American’s assistance and I pulled off the Russian triple and pounded the snot out of Germany with the British demonstrating it could be done, case studies do not prove the rule, they only demonstrate that it is possible and anything that can be done once, can be done again.
Yes, I know maybe you got lucky dice…well, over 37 turns, lucky dice should have evened out somewhere.
Thus, my claim is, even in 1941, a German flotilla can be built and maintained denying the Russians their 10 IPC National Objective and, in fact, assuring Germany at least two of their National Objectives every round, and, in my case, all of them for at least half the game.
I will, however, admit that my opponent did not go full aircraft, and if he had, things might be different. I do not know, we would have to play another game and find out. The issue that would be raised is the same one that I ran into with Mr. Switch. Namely, your opponent would know your tactics prior to the game, you could not evaluate the board and decide to change strategies to compensate for the dice here or there, because you are testing a specific strategy. These two flaws may nullify your test. Luckily for me, Mr. Switch was a formula player and when I did not play by his formula, his entire strategy rolled up and died. (Coincidentally, this was also why he started to hate me and eventually left the boards altogether.)
Anyway, I only use that game to demonstrate that not all strategies that may not work against some players will work exceptionally well against others. Mr. Switch was considered a very strong player, yet, he was unable to shift gears from an Allied KGF strategy to an Allied KJF/Slow Germany strategy and thus lost the game in very short order. Similarly, my opponent expressed surprise to my German opening with a navy build and may not have been practiced in repelling such a strategy, thus chose the route he chose to counter it. Of course, I cannot read his mind and he may have a dastardly trick up his sleeve, fact remains, we are in Round 7 and the Allied forces are not in Grey territories (I lost Scandinavia between England 6 and Germany 7, but it was immediately reclaimed.) The allies have never invaded Africa (though the Germans stand in silent vigil awaiting the day Patton or Montegomery do!)
It is my, most humble of opinions, that it may be a proper opening for Germany to put a Carrier and a destroyer in the water round 1, see what the allies do, and if America goes after Japan, then keep building to stay equivalent to what England builds (remember, you should have a naval advantage at the start of England 1, one in which he will have to overcome to sink your fleet whether with submarines, fighters, surface ships or whatever.)
If America comes after you, well, your transport has lived for at least 3 rounds before your fleet is sunk, and you can pull the fighters before that happens minimizing your losses if you want too. (or if the battle is close, I sometimes leave them there, to inflict damage and perhaps, allow me to win anyway.) Meanwhile, that puts immediate threat on Karelia, and ability to reinfore Scandinavia.
Wow, you went that heavy on ships and Russia hasn’t steam rolled you yet?
Play me as Russia with those buys, and I’ll be in Poland by R3.
G1: Build major IC in Netherlands-Belgium. Take France.
G2: Build all transports and mass all units in Netherlands-Belgium.
G3: Build major IC in Norway. Attack UK with everything.
G4+: If Russia attacks, use navy to advantage and hold in Europe while attacking through north. Russian Army may be cut off and destroyed, or bypassed and go straight for Moscow after Leningrad falls. Build Tanks in Leningrad and Mech infantry in Norway.
scratch that. west Germany boarders zone 112.
G1 Attack into 112 w/ fleet. build 4 transports in 112.
G2: Attack
Are you planning for the Allied player to be a moron?
G1: Build major IC in Netherlands-Belgium. Take France.
G2: Build all transports and mass all units in Netherlands-Belgium.
G3: Build major IC in Norway. Attack UK with everything.
G4+: If Russia attacks, use navy to advantage and hold in Europe while attacking through north. Russian Army may be cut off and destroyed, or bypassed and go straight for Moscow after Leningrad falls. Build Tanks in Leningrad and Mech infantry in Norway.
@Imperious:
OMG!!!
You are correct the set up says major factory, but it is a 2 IPC territory…
hahahahah!!
Uh oh… bad sign… we are finding mistakes already.
looks kind of fuzzy to me, but I think it says “minor”, not major.