Posts made by Dafyd

That is such a cool idea.  I love the top that folds over to put the game away while on duty.  Keeps everyone from messing with it (at least deters everyone from messing with it).

Rather than slink away into teh darkness, give it a try agains a flesh and blood player or even on Triple A.  Play with the idea and see if it works.  If nothing else, your idea may morph into another tactic.

I love the fact that you can play A&A out of the box by OOB rules or with house rules and added FMG and HBG pieces, make it as complex and historically acurate as you may want.

Have you had a chance to play a game or two with the proposed change to see if it makes a real impact?

Grandchildren can be just as destructive.  They just can’t resist the dice or the little “IG JOES”

the_jetset; I have never liked the R&D system in G40 either.  I have to say that I am a fan of the R7D system in the Global 39 game though.  It is much like you described.  Each tech has an assigned value for each power.  It costs 3ipc’s per development die which is rolled before the purchase phase.  The die value is added up each turn until the player reaches the assigned value of the tech they are trying to research.  For example…radar for the UK could have a value of 8.  The Uk player on the first R&D die rolls a 5.  The second round the UK player invests 3 more ipc’s on a R&D die and rolls a 4.  The two dice are added together for a total of 9.  The UK has just developed radar.  Othe nations will have differeing values for radar based on their use and developmental capacities.  Staying away from what can be researched as you suggested in your post, The mechanism is pretty straight forward and represent the investment and time required to develop new technologies or upgrades to the existing ones.  I also like that you want to seperate the existing units from upgrades.  I am currently working out what techs will be on our R&D charts and their values but I like that this is a topic of discussion.

Our group has been using something simiular to the mech-inf rule for a while now.  We allow this movement on the combat phase as well.  We have found that both axis and allies use this combination and though it is a powerful combination, it does not through the game out of whack since both sides use it.  I like the AAA rules as well. I will suggest this trial the next time we get to engage in a game.

Lookng at this suggestion, I can see your thought process MicahW. WWI, the ACW, all used artillery bombardment before the infantry charge.  This tactic is still used to some extent and I can see the benefit of being able to remove pieces that could not fire back.  As Baron suggested, something like a sub sneak attack.  The draw back that I see is that the artilley would no longer be able to support the infantry in the combat phase.  I suck at rolling “1’s” and I would rather have the artillery support during the combat phase to boost my infantry.  I may be missing the odds and what the calculator may determine but I have been diced enough to like as much fire power in the combat phase.  Just a personal preforance.  I do find the suggested rule interesting though.

My friend Larrie buys heavy on infantry and a fight er or tac early on and then starts switching to tanks.  Maddog has a good point.  I like to play Germany but i it is really challenging against Larrie’s Soviet forces.  I need to pay more attention to what the actual buys are but it is always a large stack of infantry with a few artillery pieces and backed up by tanks and fighters.  As for the defense of Moscow, you have to get through the Russion horde in the Ukrain and Leningrad first.  It is always alot of fun trying to manuver around each other to get the advantage.

We all approach the hobby aspect of the game differently.  Scale may be of a major concern to some and to others it is not.  I have not had the time nor resources to devote to adding major sculpts to my collection but a few that were needed for some house rules.  Wolfshanze, you could sell the unwanted pieces on the market pages of the forum.  You may be able to recoup some of your losses that way.  Who knows, you may find some one who will want to trade some OOB pieces that they have for your HBG sculpts.

I can see doing this as a diversionary tactic.  The hope being to draw forces out of Leningrad to face the Arch Angle threat and then a next round assault on Leningrad from Baltic State.  Having ground forces poised to attack Leningrad from either side will make the Soviets either turtle in Leningrad and give more access to the Arch Angle forces to move toward Moscow or if the Soviets launch a counter attack, The Germans in Baltic States can then attack the factory.  It would be a gamble but it might work and that is the fun of the game.  Try it.

The playing sculpts and the factories are two different kinds of plastic.  I believe the factories and AAA guns are made of polystyrene (plastic models) and would hold a regular enamel paint like the Testors brand (in the US)  The playing sculpts are polypropylene and require a base coat of Krylon Fusion spray paint of a polyurethane coating.  This should be sufficient to hold a color coat of acrylic or enamel paint.  A finish layer of polyurethane would keep the finish from rubbing off due to use or storage.  Thin layers not only dry faster of coarse, they also preserve the details of the sculpt.

I think Flashman is on to something but the actual “homeland” territories would need to be worked out.  Fighting for ones home would make for more empassioned defense.  I could see bumping up the defense values for atleast one round of every defensive unit in a truly homeland territory.

Our group plays with technology but not as it is written in the rules because of the random nature of the set up.  We will pay 5 IPC’s for a development dice and we roll that one dice each turn for the technology that is desired until it is achieved or not (a 6 for development).  We figure that if a nation was to invest in technology, it would know what it was trying to develop.  I personally like the technology chart and development found in Global 1939.  The techs are available to all nations but each nation develops a particular technology at a distict point value.  For example: UK devolps radar at 8 points.  The Soviets develop radar at 22 points (for example, it may be less or more)  Each nation that chooses to develop a technology “buys” a development dice for 3 ipc’s during the purchase phase.  They will roll the dice and what ever comes up is the number of points applied to developing the technology that nation is shooting for.  It may take two, three, or more rounds to develop the technology but you keep addinf what ever you roll toward the particular technology you want.  A nation at war can develop three technologies at the same time if they choose.  3 IPS’s per dice, one dice per technology.  I know that this is more of a house rule issue but in keeping with eames57’s initial post I added the alternatives.

I know some don’t like technology and that is great, but for those who like it find the way that best serves your play style.  Have fun.

I have a question about the Soviet troops moving into China.  Isn’t that considered an act of war by the Japanese?  You are declaring war on Japan by moving the troops into China.  I do not have a map infront of me so I may be wrong and misinterpreting what you were describing.  I like the idea of sending help to the Chinese.  We have used the Japanese moving through northern China to attack Moscow in conjunction with the Germans a couple of times.  Soviet troops can delay such a tactic. As far as attacking Finland and even Norway with Soviet troops may reroute German attention for a time.  It can be expensive for the Soviets but it can delay the German assualt of Moscow long enough to allow the UK/US to start landing in Europe.  The US may choose to send the Gibralter troops north to Norway as well.  Takes a big chunk out of Germany’s purse.

Germany can be tough but we always learn best from our mistakes.  Besides you accomplished the most important thing.  You had fun. Keep it up.

If I remember correctly, there was an extensive discussion of this subject on this forum page some time in the last couple of monthes.  I don’t think a poll will really be needed if you look back.  It is a matter of your stratergy.

Yes, you could land UK fighters in Paris and reinforce what ever is left but If you are going to attack Paris with the Italians, you will lose those figthers for no real reason.  If the German player was insistant on taking France and left the Italians to take Southern France or the Balkens, then the UK fighters might be enough to force the German player to commit alot more resources to taking France.  It would delay the German advance on Moscow for another turn or even two but that is a very expensive sacrifice to delay the inevitable.

I have to agree with you on the the failure of the axis player in our game.  He tried to hit Normandy and Souther France as well as Paris.  He had played so many times, he becoame over confident or something but for what ever reason, he did not take Paris.  He brought a fighter and tac from the east in to Paris and had both shot down by AA right off of the bat.  The two smaller battles were won but Paris stood with a tank and fighter.  They fell the next round to the Germans but it delayed the Germans and made it hard to recover.  It is highly improbable that Paris stands but not impossible.  That is what I meant but it not being a given. 
As for the Italians taking it…that is very interesting.

I actually tried something like this once.  I didn’t build as many fighters per turn as you were talking about but I di go fighter/tac heavy and spread them along the US islands…Guam, Midway, Hawaii.  The idea was to be able to reach out a little further.  I found I needed carriers to make more effective and detroyers to help block the IJN in place for me to hit them.  I still think it can be used effectively if the right combination of ships and plains can be found.  I do like the idea in Europe as well; especially with an airbase on Gibralter.