They are not the wrong size. IMO
you can use the tigers as heavy tanks
the fighters
all the naval pieces
the infantry
artillery
factories
basically only the bomber and maus tank are too big . thats only 2 pieces so stop complaining.
Buy the game and stop being so cheap.
Will the new national pieces have the equivalent of the 190 and Maus? Only the Maus is a terrible choice; a useless pet project of Hitler’s that never saw action.
Given that the game specifically encourages the development of new units, I think medium and heavy tanks would have been far better than Heavy and “Too heavy”. I want Panzer IVs!
Hoping the new units are not designed yet, hopefully feed back on the game will produce the new pieces people really want.
My choice would be tech units, even if tech is not officially part of the game:
SS inf - Australians, Indians, Romanians etc. rather than “elite” units
Nebelwefer - Heavy Artillery
FW 190 - Long range fighter
me262 - Jet fighter
Maus - medium/heavy tank (PIV, KV1, Pershing, Comet)
Heavy bombers - are the WWII pieces too big even for this?
The subs will do for long range subs
Rockets
Radar installations
These are already in the game:
Nebelwefer - Heavy Artillery
me262 - Jet fighter
Maus - heavy tank
–---------------------------------------------------
Heavy bombers - are the WWII pieces too big even for this?.. the bombers are quite large
they are not worrying about other new pieces and as i said if your waiting for them you will wait 10 years. It will take a number of 2,000 print runs to recoup costs and thats what they plan to do before breaking the bank, with 100 new molds just so you can totally change the game to suit your needs. They are going after real customers and not piece junkies to sell this game. Just buy it and play it and stop finding ways to change a game you never played before. The game is very good for what it does.
@Imperious:
Buy the game and stop being so cheap.
I am a poor noob, can only afford one monster-map, wich should it bee ?
I like the mountains in WWII:Struggle map, and the rules too, but have an issue with the ruined Africa.
I like the War Game Massive map too, but miss convoy zones and mountain territory, and are annoied by the art in Atlantic.
I also like the deluxe maps from IL, but disagree with the IPC income.
I need to sleep on this one.
@Imperious:
they are not worrying about other new pieces and as i said if your waiting for them you will wait 10 years. It will take a number of 2,000 print runs to recoup costs and thats what they plan to do before breaking the bank, with 100 new molds just so you can totally change the game to suit your needs. They are going after real customers and not piece junkies to sell this game. Just buy it and play it and stop finding ways to change a game you never played before. The game is very good for what it does.
But the very fact that the extra semi-official pieces are listed in the rulebook demonstrates that the designer knows full well that his target audience (expereinced A&A players) very rarely play games “out of the box” for more than a few times before introducing their own rules and changes. This is not a criticism of the game, merely a recognition that it is clearly created with customisable rules and pieces in mind.
Aldertag: you’ve criticised the IPC values on my maps too - do you have your own map or list of values to compare with others?
I don’t think convoy zones are relevant on a WORLD map, as they were introduced in E and P to represent income from areas off-board. This should be represented by the transportation of actual units and the ability of opponents to sink them.
Aldertag: you’ve criticised the IPC values on my maps too - do you have your own map or list of values to compare with others?
I don’t think convoy zones are relevant on a WORLD map, as they were introduced in E and P to represent income from areas off-board. This should be represented by the transportation of actual units and the ability of opponents to sink them.
Hi englishman
I got Mark Harrisons book about economics on WW II, and know presicely how much GDP income each had, and how much they used on military outlays, and how many guns they made etc. All I want is a game that reflects the historic facts. Before the release of Revised in 2004, AH had a series of articles where Mike Selinker said he would give the Axis something they did not have in real world, he would give them money. Now if I wantet a balanced game I would buy Attack ! from Eagle Games, there every player start with 10 inf, 6 tanks and 4 artillery, and can pick 4 territories each to start with. Its even more balanced than Risk.
As for convoy zones, in my head they represents “wet territories” that give the controller some economic advantages. They may represent international trade with neutrals, or the benefit of using ships instead of trucks to move resources. I think one of the first WiF editions had a very correct system where you moved every resource with a ship, but it booged down the game, so in the latest ed they used convoy zones.
But the very fact that the extra semi-official pieces are listed in the rulebook demonstrates that the designer knows full well that his target audience (expereinced A&A players) very rarely play games “out of the box” for more than a few times before introducing their own rules and changes. This is not a criticism of the game, merely a recognition that it is clearly created with customisable rules and pieces in mind.
Not correct. The extra pieces have always been part of the ‘full’ version of the game that we play as well. These pieces form the optional rules for the game. They should be already posted somewhere on the site or will be soon. The extra pieces add complexity to the game and the designer doesn’t believe in ‘house rules’ his original concept has not changed since the late 1980’s with the sole exception of various set up changes and rules for 1939 which are seldom played and are very scripted.
Hi Norseman.
I wonder about the accuracy of your information, for example does German income include any for conquered territory like Ukraine, Belarus and France, or any money for places that invited the Nazi in like Norway? :-o
Does Japan’s figure include the vast resources captured in Burma, Malaya and the East Indies, not to mention Manchuria and China? Remember also that to make a tank in the USA cost a lot more than making one in Russia. All these have to be factored in and I doubt if reliable figures are availabe anywhere.
Actually there are other ways to balance a game up by changing history. For example, codebreaking. The Allies knew virtually everything the Axis was going to do before they did it. Remove this and it becomes a lot harder for the Allies.
By the way, being from Yorkshire makes me half Danish. But even though our last King was a Norwegian I don’t think there’s much Norse blood in us, so we’re more cousins that brothers.
Aldertag: you’ve criticised the IPC values on my maps too - do you have your own map or list of values to compare with others?
I don’t think convoy zones are relevant on a WORLD map, as they were introduced in E and P to represent income from areas off-board. This should be represented by the transportation of actual units and the ability of opponents to sink them.
Hi englishman
I got Mark Harrisons book about economics on WW II, and know presicely how much GDP income each had, and how much they used on military outlays, and how many guns they made etc. All I want is a game that reflects the historic facts. Before the release of Revised in 2004, AH had a series of articles where Mike Selinker said he would give the Axis something they did not have in real world, he would give them money. Now if I wantet a balanced game I would buy Attack ! from Eagle Games, there every player start with 10 inf, 6 tanks and 4 artillery, and can pick 4 territories each to start with. Its even more balanced than Risk.
As for convoy zones, in my head they represents “wet territories” that give the controller some economic advantages. They may represent international trade with neutrals, or the benefit of using ships instead of trucks to move resources. I think one of the first WiF editions had a very correct system where you moved every resource with a ship, but it booged down the game, so in the latest ed they used convoy zones.
Ill save him the trouble:
German economy in 1942:
GDP in billions:
Denmark 20.9
Netherlands 44.5
Belgium 39.6
France 185.6
Norway 11.6
Czecho-Slovakia 30.3
Greece 19.3
Poland 76.6
Baltic 12.9
occupied USSR 134.2
Yugoslavia 21.9
Minor Axis Allies:
Finland 12.7
Hungary 24.3
Bulgaria 10.5
Romania 19.4
Allies:
USSR 318
USA 1,235
UK 353
Italy 145
But does IPC value represent soley GDP?
For example Romania was worth a lot more to Germany than these figures suggest because it was far and away the biggest supplier of fuel oil the Germans had access too.
This is another balancing factor; the Axis was always running out of fuel while the Allies had a surplus. This was a huge factor towards the end of the war as the Axis had intact aircraft and crews but no fuel to keep them in the air. Since A&A doesn’t feature fuel it doesn’t count, but if it were to be included the Axis would really suffer; not only would it be limited to fewer missions but it’s strategic moves would be obvious, e.g. Caucasus.
P.S. does the UK figure include Commonwealth? India was hugely important, despite being worth a measly 3 IPC in most A&A versions (remedied on my map of course).
This is another balancing factor; the Axis was always running out of fuel while the Allies had a surplus. This was a huge factor towards the end of the war as the Axis had intact aircraft and crews but no fuel to keep them in the air. Since A&A doesn’t feature fuel it doesn’t count,
AA does represent this by SBR the loss of income from SBR is your shortage and the loss of territories to an increasing degree limiting German buys.
I have fuel centers in most of my games with different rules covering them, also depending on the level that the game is abstracting.
Lost allied colonies:
uk lost colonies 14.4 ( includes Burma, Borneo, Hong Kong,Malaya)
us colonies 23.9 (Philippines)
french 10.9 (French indo china and some very minor payments from Vichy france to Germany)
British can draw up to 284.0 from her colonies ( Canada, India, Australia) not including those occupied by Japanese and not to the total degree of that number those colonies had their own concerns so the 284 is not a realistic figure… probably realistically 150 is possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0_d7VXeoK0
video showing an older version of the map ( i have this map)
But does IPC value represent soley GDP?
No, they should not.
In 1938 Germany had $ 350 mill in GDP income, and used 40 % of that to military outlays.
Same time USA had $ 800 mill in GDP income, and used 2 % of that to military outlays.
The GDP income for all countrys stay pretty much the same, but the military outlays increase, Germany used 70 % at the most and USA used 35 % of the most. This is due to political reasons, if US homeland was under invasion they too would have used 70 %. WiF had a sophisticated system to reflect this, for each minor the Axis occupied, the US IPC income would increase by 0.25 % making a very complex game far from the historic correct scripts you often see. The best way for Germany to win was to be a nice guy and do nothing.
Mmmm, didn’t get much of a look at the map there!
IL, are you the ginger one with the beard and spectacles?
IL, are you the ginger one with the beard and spectacles?
im not in the play which is what thats taken from. don’t believe in beards or eye glasses either.
I was this close to buy, then I had a glimpse of the map again. The map have 5 sea zones between US and Europe, and 5 sea zones between US and Japan. The only problem with this is that in real world the Pacific is twice as big as the Atlantic. Now I will have a look at the Struggle map with the mountains and ruined Africa. The money is burning in my pocket, burn burn
Can’t read all the IPC values so will withhold comment on that.
As a qualified gameboard surgeon the following issues have to be addressed:
I don’t think the equal Atlantic/Pacific anomaly is much of a problem. At least the Atlantic is sufficiently wide to produce an interesting theatre, a big improvement on Revised. The Pacific was largely empty of units, and if it was realistically larger it would discourage any significant Pacific action, already a problem in Revised. Nevertheless it does look wrong, but not something that can be cured with acrylics.
I would:
add impassable zones of Amazon and Congo Basin
separate Algeria from Algerian desert
restore Sinai (and hence Suez canal) to Egypt
India needs major surgery to remove Pakistan and add sensible divisions
There are too many petty states in Africa
As IL has pointed out there are too FEW areas in western Russia; at the very least
add impassable (to armour) Pripet to southern Belarus
divide “Caucasus” n/s
divide “Central Russia” into 3; Moscow(west), North bordering Leningrad, and East between Moscow and Urals
They have impassible zones. The picture does not pick it up however. You have to roll to cross and if you fail you lose infantry. When you cheap people finally buy a copy you can add whatever zones you want and screw it up as you like.
I would add some western Russian zones. India needs to remain as one, when you play you will understand wh
Adlertag… if theirs anything i will ever say to you for your own good…PLEASE buy a copy… once you open the package you will thank me very much as i will make your year complete. This game is as close as possible in this moment to an advanced axis and allies game. Trust me.
Your true Heydrich.
Poor old India, the whipping boy of Axis and Allies maps.
A sub-continent which houses the second largest population on earth reduced to a measly single territory with a putrid 3 dollar value.
To make matters worse, a completely fictional slice is carved off from Sind, NW Province and Punjab and called “Pakistan”.
There’d BETTER be a damned good reason for doing this. See my next map for further “comment” on the pestilent “Pakistan Syndrome”.
Sorry to sound negative about the game, generally I have to admit this is the best map I’ve seen (apart from my own, obviously). But historical inaccuracies really bug me; why continue the error of having Sinai in Arabia?
The rules I like; something along the lines of the naval pass-through has been badly needed, and (although nit-picking nay-sayers claim the scale is wrong) a land based equivalent to replace the redundant blitzing rule is a logical addition; hence my 2-1 armour breakthrough rule.
Defender retreats
neutral armies
diplomacy
D12
separate air combat hit allocations
better national unit costs
many new ideas are used.
