I sent a personal e-mail.  Did you get it?  I would be interested in getting together.  Global 40 is fine.

I have recently located to Hamilton from Northern Alberta.  I don’t have space to host, while I do own all A&A versions from Original 2nd Edition to Global, 1st Edition.  I have played formal board war games for over 40 years, although life and location have limited my opportunities.  I have no difficulty playing with any age or experience level; most of the last group I played with in Grande Prairie, Alberta were younger than my adult children, and they regularly gave me a lesson. As a retired teacher I would be willing to teach the game to new players; I taught the game at my school. I’m looking for fun and relaxation and am available at any time: normal awake hours - although lately, my naps seem to occur any time in the day! :-).
Mike55

@crusaderiv:

The UK had 82 DD (Destroyers) (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsStartEurope.htm) in and around the UK in 1939.

False….
Royal Navy had 184 destroyer (Including torpedo boat) in august 1939.

May I ask what your source is?  Note that the 82 DD was in “Home Waters” only and does not include units in the Atlantic or ships not classified as DD such as Destroyer Escorts, Corvettes, Mine Sweepers and Torpedo Boats.  According to the Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War II, (1972) p. 121, the Royal Navy had a total of 243 Destroyers and 52 Escorts in 1939. The naval-history.net site lists the DD numbers as about 140 world wide for the Royal Navy not including Commonwealth ships.  The notes under the charts on the web site indicate that these numbers do not include escorts.  The encyclopedia includes ships “built and launched”  which would include most units brought on line in 39 and 40.  The encyclopedia also lists 11 carriers (CV) for Britain, 2 for France and 1 for Germany.  The German carrier was never finished and never brought into operations.  I suspect that the difference in total numbers relates to operational (web site) versus all vessels launched.  Vessels are launched without necessary equipment installed to make the ship operational.  Hopefully this clears up any misunderstandings.

The scale of most A&A games would preclude the use of small units like the PT boat.  A single Destroyer in A&A represents flotillas of Destroyers and Escorts.  The UK had 82 DD (Destroyers) (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsStartEurope.htm) in and around the UK in 1939.  The 1941 set-up in AA50 calls for 2 DD and 1 BB in Europe and Atlantic to represent over 130 actual units including 4 carriers and 21 CA (give or take a few for builds and losses).  I could see the PT boat being used in localized battles such as Guadalcanal, but not on the strategic level that most AA games represent.

I don’t get the “hoopla” over the box art.  What does the box art really got to do with what is in the box or how good the game is.  I say wrap the box in brown paper, save a lot of money and reduce the cost or put in more units.  As it is, I generally trash the box and put all my units into fishing tackle boxes.  My game boards go into a large Rubber Maid tub with a lid that seals.  I have books of war art; I don’t need or care for something on a game box.  Maybe I’m just an old curmudgeon or my patience has been worn thin by my junior high students (one week left!), but “I don’t get the “hoopla” over the box art”.

I think you have nailed the Axis strategy, Wild Bill.  So how does UK and France counter this strategy? Obviously Germany gets the first shot and all France may have is some navy and units in Africa.  Does the French player try to hold Africa as long as possible or retreat its land forces via transports to British tt  and mass its fleets with British fleets in a circle the wagons approach?  Or does the French fleet do a kamikaze to damage the Italian fleet as much as possible?  Of course all this will depend on initial unit set-up.  Any thoughts?

Hey BD, I just read this thread ( I don’t follow all of them; I actually have a life, unlike some who seem to be on this forum all of the time.)  and I’m responding to an old point you made.  Who says the city of AxisandAllies has to be in the US?  I think it should be in Canada.  Just think of the advantages: we have universal health care, so if people got into an argument and a fist fight broke out, the injuries would be repaired regardless of your rank or stature.  However, health care doesn’t cover dental work, which means we would have to make a Canadian house rule on no punching in the mouth.  Kicking or gouging anywhere else would be fine, well, except eye damage, which may or may not be covered depending on the type of corrective procedures.  Furthermore, putting AxisandAllies City in Canada would be a clear recognition of the important role we play in the global gaming community. AxisandAllies, Canada has a certain ring to it!

@Brain:

@Krupp:

I know what  you’re saying maverick :-P

We need to get some new friends or maybe we can all move to the same city. Hell, let’s start our own city called Axisandallies, USA

@trackmagic:

Mike, Is that you in the MSU uniform?

No, unfortunately not. I wish I had played pro-football.  It’s Chris Szarka, Canadian born fullback in the uniform of the Saskatchewan Roughriders of the Canadian Football League.  The Roughriders will be celebrating their 100th anniversary in this 2010 year.  Training camp starts soon, as league play begins in June and the 98th Grey Cup Game, the CFL Championship, occurs in November.  It is professional football.  I had considered using Szarka’s nick name, the Cannuck Truck, as my handle or whatever one’s identity on the forum is called, but decided to go with my first name and year I was born.  I love the Canadian version of the football game and I referee amateur ball in my area in Northern Alberta. I was raised in the province of Saskatchewan and became a devoted fan of the Riders.  I’m afraid I don’t follow American football, college or professional, so I don’t know what MSU is.  [Dare I mention that I am more devoted to my Riders than I am to A&A, and I’m an A&A fanatic having played it since the first MB version.]

I generally ignore Tech development.  I prefer NAs.  As has been said by others, I find Techs to be a gamble and overweighted in their influence of the game. I totally agree with the KurtGodel7 and his scenario.  In my European hex game I make techs into NAs that are timed.  For example, I have Light, Medium, Veteran and Heavy Tanks.  I use the original AA tanks as lights, and I mark or paint the individual sculpts for the other three types.  Veteran tanks are mediums such as the T-34 and the Panther.  Lights are the Grant, Pz ii.  Mediums are the Sherman and Pz iii & iv. Heavies are the Churchill, Tigers and Soviet KV-1 & IS-2.  For dice rolls, I use D-12s: Attack and Defense: Lt 5-3; Md 6-4; Vt 7-5; Hy 8-8.  Heavies are 2 hit, but move at one.  Light have a movement of 3. In my view tanks were designed to attack; defence goes to the infantry.  How does this fit into my NA/Techs?  All countries in 1939 have Light tanks.  Only UK, Germany and USSR have a limited build of medium tanks.  France and USSR also have a limited build of Heavies.  In 1941 USSR gets to build Veterans (T-34).  In 1942 the US gets Mediums and the Germans get Veterans.  The US and UK never get Veterans, while the Germans get Heavies in 43 and the US in 1945 ( the US heavies get to move at 2 - the T26 Pershing).

I think what you are meaning is realistic battle results.  And you’re correct, in that an entire division of infantry or a wing of aircraft don’t just disappear. Just off the top of my head without playtesting, I think a couple ways of approaching this are:  1) Paint a different colour on the base of some infantry units, and these become cadres (the surviving members of a unit depleted below combat effectiveness).  They have an attack of 0 and a defense of 1.  Replace a cadre for every unit hit, but place the cadre in an adjacent friendly tt. During the next build phase, replace the cadre with a full unit at cost minus 1 or combine 2 cadres to form one full unit.  or 2) Allow units to retreat one tt when hit with the maximum number.  With any result that is less, the unit is destroyed as usual.  An example:  A tank rolls a 3 and an infantry takes the hit.  Retreat the infantry.  At the same time an artillery hits on 1 (less than the maximum two) and the next infantry is destroyed.  However, if there was only one defending infantry in the first place and he gets hit twice and he’s dead…dead…d-e-a-d!  Both ideas may need some tweaking but would represent a possible solution without encumbering the play too much, I think.  However, at this point these ideas are just untested theories.