Posts made by murraymoto

i remember all the pre-order scramble for Pacific and comparing prices and S/H, then like the day after it was released it was on Amazon for $63 and free shipping….  dang…

when you say modified, do you mean the original board, or you recreated it?  got any pictures to post?  What territories did you convert to Italy?  any unit changes?

@bennyboyg:

I’m not really sure I understood the wording of your last part, but Germany will obviously be in a position to take on both UK and France, but adding Russia and the US into the mix changes things drastically. Germany (I’m assuming) starts off with significantly less IPCs than the allies nations do, and will need to spend at least a few turns taking territories to bolster it’s economy, much like Japan. The difference with Japan and Germany though is that Germany can start expanding without bringing the US (or the USSR) into the war, whereas Japan cannot, so my guess is that it’ll be worth it for Japan to hold off it’s attack for at least a turn or two so that Germany can wipe out France, slap Britain around a little, and get all the pro-axis neutrals. If Japan attacks right off the bat, the US not only gets the extra 40 IPCs in Pacific (which granted Japan is able to deal with) but also, if I’m not mistaken 30 IPCs in Atlantic, and also keep in mind that there is no split income for US and it, with the aid of Britian and a few leftover French units that may have survived the first turn, could start pounding Germany even before it’s declared war on USSR.

I said that as Japan can start attacking right away without a buildup, so can Germany, and likely Italy for that matter.  As they will have that advantage they will be able to start taking Allied holdings, because all the Allies, UK, US, France, and yes, the Soviet Union will not be in the fighting position that the Axis will be in.  This means that as Japan can lash right out, so can the other Axis.
  I haven’t seen for certain that Japan attacking the US will bring them in against Germany (same with the non-split income of the US), that may well be, I just haven’t read it as yet.  After all, Germany declared war separately against the US from Japan.  It was Germany’s declaration that truly brought them into the European war, not Pearl Harbor.
  As for split income of the US or not, gaining the extra production still likely won’t mean they get to the units it buys before US3, and they would just face the same problem that they faced historically.  “Gee, it’s great to have all this production, but where do we spend it?”  Hence the reason that they chose Europe predominantly and with the Godzilla that Japan can become in P40, that means the US would unwise to not split their income to both fronts again.  And again leaves them without a dominant position at the start against the Axis.

@SAS:

I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general.  Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical.

perhaps its the movement values of Jap forces across the ground in Asia is a-historical, but they certainly did over-run the Pacific, at least “for six months” that they predicted.  The historical angle lasts in the game truly as long as it takes to set the game up, once it starts history is rewritten.  If they wanted to design a historical game they wouldn’t give you the option to attack earlier.

@bennyboyg:

I’ve just been thinking about how this will relate to the global game. Since Germany starts off only at war with France and UK, a J1 declaration would probably also bring Germany into war with the US round one, which while it may be advantageous for Japan it could be fatal for Germany. If it’s better, at least on the Europe side, for the Axis to declare war later on then this may debunk the J1 attack strategy, at least in the global game.

that’d be an interesting idea, but it seems more likely that Germany will have to be ready on turn 1 to fight (hence the ability to take out France turn 1) just as Japan is, and if the US isn’t ready to take on Japan round 1 then they would be even less prepared to face the combined forces and the odds would be even worse.

Not exactly clear on the site, no piece count per price, but seems straight forward… But to doublecheck;  $4 for one Japanese tank?  $3 for a Bren, etc…?  price per piece then, eh…

@SgtBlitz:

Bleh.  Russia threatening Germany in 1940 Europe as a counter is laughable.  Round 1 Germany builds fleet for Sealion.  Round 1 Russia builds all infantry or builds all armor to take advantage of Ger naval build.  Round 2 Germany builds all inf and armor, takes Britain, knocks UK out of game, ganks capital IPCs.  Ger possibly finishes France but isn’t main objective.  All inf and armor build in Germany.  Round 2 Russia builds all tanks to take advantage of Ger, but offensive is stopped in Poland due to Ger building before Russia’s turn.

I believe LH said USA would need to layover fighters in Iceland on the way to UK, so Ger round 3 be sure and take that out too.

@oztea:

Government in exile rule:

If a power loses its capital, that power surrenders half of its IPCs to the invader, and half are forefit to the bank. From this point forward, the power without a capital no longer collects income normaly, instead any Industrial complexes owned by that player may, during the mobilize units phase, make a special purchase using the IPCs of that territory, as well as the IPCs of any other territory controled by that player within 3 land or water territories. IPCs generated in this way are not saved, they convert directly to units

I like the exile idea, I just don’t get why you hand over all your production capacity to the enemy when you loose your capital, or even half.  Half to the ‘bank’ i can understand, but I like the idea of just letting the other IC’s that the UK might have get to simply reallocate the production to them. Especially with major/minor ICs now…  Maybe half to the bank or the enemy, or the conqueror gets to roll to destroy IPCs in the captured capital’s hands…

Probably because it’s production ability, not just supplies like Bulge.  Maybe the captured player should get to try and scorch it before being captured, that might have legs…  alas…

@johnnymarr:

The problem is if they read this forum they’ll get so pissed they ditch the reprint

they don’t read their own forums

Nice!

that post was from a volunteer on the forum, right?  Not a paid position that would necessarily be in the inner circle of Wizards.  My question would be, Has Larry said it?  Has Krieghund said it?  Have they posted in on the AH website?  no, wait, that wouldn’t happen until after the reprint sold out would it….

Seriously, I think that with the '40s coming out that there a good chance that they think that is no need for a technical reprint of '50.  And so if they mean that the '40s are the reprint, then sure, I can absolutely see that.  It’s just a bigger, badder, twice as expensive version of '50 and if that sold out quickly, then sure the '40s will also as they are likely single prints as well.

@Canuck12:

Will the Maginot line feature into the new game? Or will Germany be able to attack across the French border freely?

it seems to me that the Maginot line was in the historical war and Geramany was still able to attack across the border freely.  They simply went around it.
Sorry, just joking there.  :wink:

I think it could be something drawn in to start with certainly and affect values.  When Patton’s army moved to go back across the Rhine they ran into some of the defenses and it did hurt their advance.  There could just be several spots picked out on the game that has drawn in historical fortifications, and the need for the blockhouse piece could disappear, but the variables of building fortifications could also be an interesting new thread to weave into the game.

a 0-4-0-6 piece without any pairing ability does seem like half a tank.  I think it would need more, even if the cost goes up.

definitely, it has to be fighting on all fronts.  Victory conditions should keep the allies from simply throwing everything at say, Europe, because the Japanese would be able to reach their victory conditions and the allies lose, axis wins, and specifically japan player is ultimate winner.

holy monkeys batman!

if only AH still had prices anywhere close to that!  By those prices the two new '40 games and '50 would be like $19?!  isn’t inflation wonderful…

good stuff man, good stuff!

i’d agree mostly, the rules i think are a bit easier in Classic, but the strategy I think is more easily grasped in AAE because of the smaller numbers of powers only focusing on Europe.

@Veqryn:

fires a 2 out of 6 before combat begins on all attacking land units, up to a maximum of 10 land units more than the total number of defending units (just like shore bombard, the casualties may fire their casualty shots)

this seems out of place.  defenses like IL mentioned were extensive and set the attacker in prime kill zones, limiting their ability to attack.  If anything, seems there would have been a limit to how many attacking units could get in range to attack.  Certainly let casualties fire back but no limit to who gets shot at.

maybe the +1 could be only for defending INF and ART, as they could have been more under the protection of the fort and firing out.
a +1 for everything might work great in a D12 version of AA, like Bulge.

@maverick_76:

@murraymoto:

@maverick_76:

What I have found is the game is not broken at all. If you lend UK fighters to Russia (they can send two every turn!) it becomes very hard for the Germans to bust through.

the only problem with the UK sending 2 fighters per turn is if they can’t afford them due to the loss of Africa and their convoys.  If all that the US/UK are doing is planes, they aren’t buying ships to clean out the convoys.  Germany doesn’t need the Middle East or Africa for a Tank Push in general, but purely fighter builds will often give Germany easy access to those areas.  Moving Fighters to the Middle East then weakens Russia’s defense.

But that is what the US is for! In my games I usually consolidate my navy around UK or in the middle of the Atlantic and just overwhelm the Axis with battleships or cruisers. And usually the US has plenty of money still to buy transports to move men over to Africa and make that a lost cause for Germany. Also if the German player farts around too much with Africa and the Atlantic I’m going to go offensive with Russia. Granted for about four turns that is not possible but after that I have 8 planes, bombers (from US and UK at the start) and tanks and plenty of men.

I’m not sure that the UK can build 2 fighters for 4 rounds with a decent G1/2 TP plan they should be down well under 20 per turn income and the US will have to build ships to clean out the mess.  if the allies can’t begin putting pressure on Ger in W Europe by turn 4, then Ger can turtle and still have sent enough to Rus to take it, unless Rus can stop them or do something to force them to do something different.

oh yeah, aequitas, exactly, that’s why it’s all about who has the defending fighters.  the only thing I see that really helps then is trading the deadzone of belo in your favor or taking the TP through Lenin and russia and hitting through the north on G7.  that will allow the cutting off of pretty much all of the USSR from Moscow and giving Ger the advantage in units, either forcing Rus to attack or just overwhelming a turn later.  That technically becomes not a TP at that point, but is a more balanced approach and a better approach all around to win as Ger anyhow.

so the battle was like in turn 5 then?  you seem to have recreated the battle for Moscow pretty well there!

ran some numbers, and it seems that had the Axis done 2 rounds of INF builds, giving them about 24 INF the numbers, running with Low Luck just slightly favors the USSR still, albeit on LL.  But, in a cursory examination, the key seems to be the Axis fighters.  If you throw just 2 defending fighters onto the German side, they win overwhelmingly and come out with over a dozen tanks still.  All about playing to one’s strengths.  Nice Job!

i love seeing all these strats thrown out that show that the TP isn’t a lock.  I’ve really enjoyed AAE and look forward to the new version, but when I don’t have 2-12 hours will be able to still enjoy this one.  Sad that the rap with AAE is broken though, at least it isn’t to everyone.

aequitas:  what is like an approximate number/breakdown of the Russian units you would hit the German TP with?  and the TP, what would it’s strength look like?

@Flashman:

Collect money at start of turn (no silly double pay-outs)

when did these games get money?  I know in my old age that memory fades, but I thought they had printed on the paper, worth like 1 million man hours of production.  That being said, it should definitely be changed to collecting for everyone at the end or beginning of the round, being realistically the same thing.  Then you take something in mind of being able to hold it to get any added production income.

@Flashman:

Ships in port preventing early naval wipeouts

I’m with Verqryn on this, ducks in a barrel

@Flashman:

No use of captured factories

I’d be with this except for that Germany often used captured factories to keep building weapons in Eastern Europe…though much of that became Axis-aligned countries, which muddies the waters like Neutrals will become, so I’m interested to see how the Minor/Major aspect comes into play with it… at least a big step forward

@Flashman:

Unlimited rail movement in non-combat

then we need a way to specifically target rail lines for destruction…  otherwise Japan will use it right up the Soviets keister all too well

@Flashman:

Capitals treated as any other territory

the big thing is not losing your production capability due to the loss of one’s capital.  You should keep the IPCs, be able to build a new IC at another owned territory or build at another one you already have and fight on despite the loss of the capital.  Use capitals as victory cities sure, but they generally rob focus of VCs as you take out the enemy’s ability to produce and then mop up the VCs.

@Flashman:

Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact

if you have this, you have to have the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and none of us want that now do we?

@Veqryn:

RE: IL, since they are firing at 2 out of 6, they should cost double what an AA gun costs since AA guns fire at 1 out of 6 and cost 6 ipcs, therefore blockhouses should cost 12.  I also think that when they are captured they should be destroyed, unlike AA guns that are still useful against the enemy, blockhouses will be pointed the wrong way and are immobile concrete structures after they are set in place.  (how silly it would be if Germany capture the maginot line and then moves it to Normandy, or the Allies capture Normandy and move it with their front all the way into germany…)

I think 12 is an acceptable number for blockhouses, though if comparing the price and function to AA guns then 10 might be better, as Veqryn said, they can’t be turned around and used by a capturing army, hence slightly less use than an AA gun equalling slightly lower price. 
If Germany would recapture the French coast they would have to restock the bunkers with arms again as well as repair the blockhouses I think the destruction of blockhouse when captured would be believable enough as well.

@Imperious:

I could suggest one thing however, the blockhouse only works against infantry at 2 and all other landing units at 1?
Soft targets are so much more easy to wipe out with the various defenses symbolized by this unit.

that’s certainly workable as well.  Would definitely entice people to bring along some armor when landing.