Posts made by vontysk

Well, ignoring Gargantuas fantastic contributions to this thread and focusing on the actual question: I take that as a no then. Or at least not many people have tried alpha+2 out for just Europe?

If you have how did it go? Is it balanced?

@ThomasJefferson:

The Ruskies used the t34, which was by all definitions a medium tank. In fact, the only faction to make heavy tanks was Germany.

Not quite true. The KV series of tanks were Heavy tanks, the the USSR had those in 1941. And the later IS-2 was definitely a heavy tank.

The biggest problem, which you all seem to be ignoring, is that neither the war, nor A&A, START IN 1942. How can you claim the Italians and Japs should get worse tanks for the whole game, when in RL the tanks they used in 1939-1941 were, for all intents and purposes as good as the tanks other nations used in that period? Only once other nations upgraded to better tanks from 1942 onwards did the Italians fall behind.

If you want to add a ‘light tank rule’ for historical purposes everyone will need to use light tanks for the first few turns, then be allowed to buy normal tanks after, say, turn 3. Otherwise you are just adding compexity for no reason, or at least no historical one.

While the Italian tanks were obsolete by the time American forces arrived in the war, during the early stages (1939-1941) they were actually comparable to the British and German tanks of the day.

The M11/39 and M14/41 were both on the lighter side of medium tanks, but armed with a 47mm (heavier than the 3.7cm Main gun of the early panzer IIIs, and similar to the 5cm Weapon on later models (the Panzer III J to M)).

The M14/41 could hold its own against Crusaders IIs (40mm gun) and (to some extent, IIIs, with their 57mm weapon), which were their main opponent until the US lend-lease tanks began arriving in large numbers. And even then the serious draw backs of the Grant - hull mounted weapons were of little use in the desert, as you had to expose yourself to return fire more than a tank with turret mounted weapons could (even the Italians learnt this lesson before the Yanks) - allowed the M14/41 to compete with them, albeit with serious disadvantages in terms of main armourment and armour.

The Italians problem was that they didn’t keep upgrading their tanks. When compared to a Panzer II or III, or a Crusader II the M14/41 was a decent tank. However, it was outclassed by tanks from 1942 and later. Compared to a Sherman, Panzer IV or T-34 it is pathetically under-armoured and under-equipt.

But how could you represent this in A&A? The Italians get normal tanks for the first few turns, then start paying less and get weaker ones once the US joins in? Or ingnore the bits of the war before the Torch Landings?

Plus, A&A is not meant to follow history exactly. What if the Italians had put more effort into the P40, with its 75mm gun? Or if they had been Lend-Leased Panzer IVs by their Allies, and relied on foreign-produced tanks like the British?

The problem with things like this is who decides what he does is illegal? American and European Arms Dealers sell weapons to huge numbers of countries around the world. Why is there nothing illegal about those trades?

Or is it only illegal when the weapons are being given to ‘baddies’? In that case who decides who is the ‘bad’ side? The UN? The USA? If all it takes to be an illegal Arms Dealer is to sell weapons to a country that ignores international law and the UN then a lot of the CEOs in the US Military–industrial complex, and a lot of people in the DoD need to go to jail. And the same goes for the heads of other Arms producers worldwide.

It seems like the current setup is that it is only illegal to Deal in Arms if you are selling them to someone the “West” (specifically the US) isn’t on good terms with. And being from the former USSR certainly doesn’t help your case.

@crusaderiv:

The Boer War

???

Post WWII conflit…
Boer war is before WWI…dude!!!

From what I have seen of his posts ‘Idi Amin’ is just a troll. And a poor one at that. I try to ignore anything he says and await the day he is banned.

Well its not a foolproof strategy, but I don’t think such thing exists in A&A, but it usually goes pretty well. The Romanian IC let’s you put a lot more pressure on the 2 ukraines, since they are both 2 steps from Romania. And therefore you can put much more pressure on Stalingrad. Stalingrad is more important to Russia than leningrad, as it is only 2 steps from Moscow, rather than 3. So the Russians can’t send as many reinforcements to leningrad, esp infantry, as they will be 3 turns from Moscow if needed due to a German advance on the city. So leningrad is easier to take, which makes it easier to advance further into Russia & hold Norway.

All in all I think its a good build for the Germans. But as I said above, the Ukrainian IC added in alpha +2 might mean its not as important as in oob.

In all three games I have played the Germans have build an IC in Romania in G1 or G2. It gives them more power on the southern front, and makes a drive on Stalingrad much easier. However now with the IC in Ukraine it may not be needed. An Italian IC in Egypt is also common, since it is just a matter of time until their fleet either  dies or flees the Med for the Indian Ocean. Without an IC in Africa they cannot hold Cairo.

We also had one game where the Americans build an IC in Spain, the British build one in Egypt, the Italians in Turkey, the Germans in Romania and the Caucasus. It was quite interesting, since areas of the board that aren’t normally fought over became the key battlefields of the war: the Italian push into India and Syria; the Battle of The Aegean, with the British Med fleet vs the (much smaller) German Black Sea Fleet and Air Support etc.

Fun Game.

Not to question your wisdom, but in the rulebook it says tanks can "blitz by moving through an unoccupied hostile territory as the first part of a move that can end in a friendly or hostile territory.

So in the above situation it could go Bessarabia to Romania, then to USSR controlled Eastern Poland (ie going to a hostile territory, and then on to a friendly one.) Or it could go Bessarabia to Romania, then on to a UK controlled Yugoslavia, or on to a German contolled Yugoslavia. Why can’t it carry on to a Pro-Allies Neutral Yugoslvia?

No. They are not part of the “Allies” until they join the war, so their are no countries friendly to them until they do, anyway.

@lamdan:

That is awesome!!!
But I have a question? Please tell me if I am wrong, been wrong before.
I thought US can declare war at the beginning of INCOME phase of round 3 preventing them from any combat until combat phase of turn 4 unless axis attacks them earlier.
In this game US invades normandy on combat phase of turn 3. I know that just delays the US invasion for a turn but who knows?

Yes, that is correct. The US enters the war in the collect income phase of turn 3. It gets its bonus 30 IPC for being in war this turn, but cannot attack untill turn 4.

-have the remaining movement points from the combat move phase to land.

So if a fighter moves 2 spaces to get into combat, it can move 2 more to land.

The M14/41 gets my vote. Not the best tank by any means, but it’s just plain cool.

With A&AE’40 and the inclusion of the French, it seems like there needs to be at least some way of dealing with the French after the fall of Paris. So here’s my idea: constructive criticism would be helpful.

-After Paris falls Southern France, Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia and Syria become Stirct Neutral. Southern France is defended by 3 Armies if invaded and the others by 2. Normal rules for Strict Neutrals apply*.

-Any units inside these tts dispand, and are removed.

-All other French Territories become Free French. Units in these territories (or in non-French territory) stay on the board, and fight the Axis. Each Turn France can place 1 infantry unit per turn for every 3 territories they contol or one artillery unit for every 4 territories they control. These can be placed in any Free French Territory, with a limit of 2 per territory per turn.

-The French Navy remains fighting for the Allies.

*Exeception to the Strict Neutral rule: If Free French forces invade a former French, now Neutral, Territory, there is no combat. The Free French take control of the Territory, but do not gain the free infantry units.

Its hard to properly represent what happened with Free French and Vichy French Forces during WWII in an A&A game, but at least this way the French can remain a fun part of the game until Frence is liberated and all neutral French and Free French territories are returned to its control, along with all Free French Forces.

What do you think?

1. On pg. 10 of the rulebook it says the US “may declare war on any or all of the Axis powers at the beginning of the Collect Income phase of that turn…”

I read this to mean it is not actually involved in the war until the END of it’s third turn, so cannot take part in any combat moves during this third turn, and all the restrictions on where it can move apply, correct?

2. On pg 9, the rule book says the SU may not declare war before its fourth turn. When does this declaration take place? During the Combat Move phase, like the Germans, or during the Collect Income phase, like the US?

Thanks

First off, the game is great. The Changes from the Anniversary Edition are awesome, especially the rules for neutrals.
But I have a couple of questions:

1. Are the NOs optional, like in the Anniversery Edition? I ask because my next planned game is against someone new to A&A, so I want to keep it simple.

2. The American rule giving it an extra 30 IPCs seems a bit much, no? With an income of 65, and the ability to land in Spain in one move, the US, in our game at least, was able to get a factory just 2 steps from Paris that could crank out 10 tanks a turn, with their own and British fighters joining them each turn.