As i have been playing a lot of Command anbd Colors Napoleonics i thought a good idea would be a Napoleonic themed Games.
During the various coalitions Russia and Austria etc were neutral it could be played with perhaps with these
countries taking sides with or against the French
@Hunter:
First off, thanks for watching it helps a lot.
Extra Pieces:
Austria: 5 - 10 control markers, 2 planes
Russia: 5 or 6 infantry
Germany: 5 - 7 infantry, 2 planes ,5 -10 control markers
France: 2 more of all land units , 2 planes
UK: 3 Transports, 5- 10 control markers
Ottoman Empire: Nothing extra
Italy: 5 Infantry
USA: Nothing extrathank you.
These are just rough estimates of what you will need. This list is based on what I need. I suggest that you play it a few times before buying extra pieces to see what you need.(Germany still needs more Infantry and control markers)
You are right about how this game draws so much criticism. When this game first came out, it sold for 100 US Dollars. Now you can get a copy for 60 US Dollars on amazon. There is not a lot of unit originality with this set. The only unit that is different from nation to nation is the infantry. All the other units are the same.
Thanks for watching!
-HJ
@Hunter:
Its nice to see your videos.
I am thinking of getting this game.
I believe their is a lot of critcism about there is not enough pieces.
I found in Europe you can get more pieces from www.historyboardgaming.eu
How many more pieces do you reckon you need?
@CWO:
@captain:
I enjoy the History Channel, but I think many of their shows don’t realize what the definition of “history” is.
Yes, good point. And I think that a supplementary problem is that many educational (or purportedly educational) channels feel – with some justification – that they are as much in the entertainment business as in the education business, and that entertainment sometimes has to take priority over scholarly rigor. For instance, I once saw a “documentary” produced for the National Geographic Channel that devoted a good deal of time to some pseudo-scientific conspiracy theorists, and did so in a way which seemed motivated by catchy sensationalism. In other words, the film wasn’t about exposing and debunking wingnuts; it seemed more about giving them equal airtime in the interests of open-minded balanced reporting. Frankly, it struck me as being something more worthy of the National Enquirer than National Geographic.
Yes i have also noticed that more of the comedy channels appear to be playing films now too.
ie they are deviating away from their original goal of showing historical or science or comedy programmes.
I think one of the problems that History and Discovery has is that i suspect they expect the viewer to be shown
images and videos etc and sadly it is only under 100 years that they have footage.
Maybe i am an anorak but i would love to see a programme getting involved with museum artefacts. Griff Rhys Jones
hosted a quiz show called Quizeum. It was not perfect, rather short but something on that them.
Or perhaps a programme showing the changes to uniform detailing the various insignia etc.
@CWO:
I spent some of my military service up there in the 80ties, and cant belive how Churchill in 1940 would think it was even remotely possible to walk 50 000 Brits over the mountain with no skies and no supply and no winter gear.
Churchill had a track record of cooking up grandiose flanking operations that looked impressive on maps but which were of dubious practical value, and a bad habit of giving a completely inadequate amount of thought to their operational and logistical details. Gallipoli in WWI is the most notorious example, and the 1940 British invasion of Norway had many of the same problems: it was planned too quickly and too superficially, and like Gallipoli it was based on the premise that an amphibious invasion can be improvised by basically just loading a bunch of troops onto standard Royal Navy warships and throwing them at an enemy coastline. As the Americans eventually learned in the Pacific, successful amphibious operations require months of careful planning and training, lots of specialized equipment, and close inter-service cooperation. So it doesn’t surprise me that Churchill wouldn’t have bothered considering the practicality of marching several divisions of British troops through Norway’s mountains, in winter, with no special training or equipment. Another place where he made this mistake was Italy, which was another of his pet flanking operation concepts. His argument that Italy was the “soft underbelly of the crocodile” falls apart when you look at a topographical map of the Italian peninsula: it’s ideal country for a defender because it basically consists of narrow coastal plains (defilades in military parlance) flanking a rugged mountainous interior. And to (literally) top it all off: where would the invading Allies have ended up if they had managed to fight all the way up to the top of the Italian boot? In the Alps.
I think you make some very good points.
But the invasion of Africa was to secure Britains fuel links to the middle east.
Also I believe his intention was to invade Greece.
I do believe that in some ways the invasion of Greece would make some sense
as it could help with the Russians more readily once the fronts meet up.
Also a third of Germany’s oil comes from the Romanian town (or city) of Polesti
@ABWorsham:
I was looking at some Axis and Allies Navy Miniatures and came across the Haruna; no doubt the WWI remodeled battle-cruiser would lose to cream of the US battleship fleet. However how would the battle have played out with two Japanese 14’ gun capital ships?
Your thoughts?
Although I would like to say Kongo as it was built in Cumbria, UK. I think that the Missouri would have the upper hand.
However, the engagement at the Denmark trait (Bismarck & co) led to Bismarck’s radar being damaged.
Perhaps in a situation where Missouri’s radar was damaged or in dense fog it may be a Japanese victory.
Though i think they would have lost one ship.
Not wanting to be over critical i think the term obsolete is harsh, perhaps “over use of resources”.
After all Tirpitz was a fleet in being which tied up a lot of resources of the RN. I think it was Billy Mitchell
that was critical of Battleships given the opportunity cost that manufacturing planes would give instead.
One battleship you could perhaps build 100s if not over 1000 planes and or tanks.
equivalent of 1000 bombers.
@Der:
I just finished Spandau, the Secret Diaries by Albert Speer. He writes about serving the 20 year sentence in Spandau prison after the war. Pretty fascinating reading about someone like former head of state and admiral Karl Doenitz getting mad about others using his favorite broom, Rudolf Hess’ eccentricities, etc.
My Uncle mention that there is a rumour that Rudolf Hess in Spandau was not Rudolf Hess.
I also recall that there is speculation that “Hess” was not capable of committing suicide in
the way he did.
My Uncle recalls that there was no scar on “Hess” contradicting his non-Spandau medical records.
As i recall the scar pertained to an operation.
I cannot remember the specifics as i was told about near 10 years ago.
I thought was exceptional was
It felt the frustration that those serving in the ABDA forces. The overwhelming odds while the Japanese surrounds
and crushes island after island.
Hi, in my Spring 42 2nd Ed. board game, the Western Front is way too crowded with German and Russian units. Even on the first turn, we have trouble figuring out which chips are fighting and who’s not. Any help for organization to make the game’s units a bit easier to see?
I find this an issue too, i would have liked to have the zones in europe to have sufficient space too.
Although my idea may not help you in your question i do have an idea
that find useful.
All land units and aircraft on ships etc at the start of each turn “face south” and
when you move them, either in combat or non-combat turn them to “north”. At
the deployment stage turn them south again. This way you will know which have
been used and which have not.
And on the 9th the survivor of the Battle of Denmark Strait
HMS Prince of Wales along with HMS Repulse was sunk.
In Jeffrey Cox’s book "Rising Sun, Falling Skies : The Disastrous Java Sea Campaign of World War II "
it mentions that the Japanese bomber squadron dropped two wreaths,
one for their losses and the other for the Royal navy.