One problem I have with the 39’ map is the fact that japan can reach the NW US in one turn from the home island. Alaksa yes. Hawaii yes. Washington, Oregon and northern Cali, now that’s a streach.
Latest posts made by slm68430
-
RE: Global 1939 variant
-
RE: Lonely artilliery
I like things global also, I think the limits are size of playing area and time to play, otherwise clutter is definitely a problem, the 39 map we are playing on right now is 4’×8’ and things are cramped in Europe, coach mentioned that on his next map things in Europe were going to be 25% bigger. That would be nice seeing as the southern part of Africa doesn’t need to be so big. It’s not like I would try this stuff on the classic board or even Global 40. It’d have to be big and modified.
-
RE: Hitler's Strategy…
Hitler, when supported by, and listening to his field marshalls had “strategically” briliant moments . In using the time given to him by the inability or “will” to act by the British and French (a well as the American population’s unwillingness to emerge from isolation) he grew his military as fast as he could, starting all the way back to 1933 (using resources supplied to him by Sweden and the Soviets). Once he started to move he moved fast because he knew that unless he defeated his enemies quickly he wouldn’t be able to sustain his momentum. He faltered almost at the height of his momentum when he decided to take a detour and put off his invasion of Russia and take care of some business in the Balkans (solely because of his ego). His self inflicted delay (which his military commander told him not to do) as well as his need to attack cities in Russia, mostly because they were name after Soviet leaders (again “ego”) caused him to pull up short of the most important objectives in Russia. Had he taken Russia (which looked to be an almost certainty at one time), who knows we might all be speaking German now. Those things and a billion other varibles could have change the outcome of the war in many different way. As for Hitlers “will” it had everthing to do with how things went for Germany. The Nazi party coming to power was because of his will over those who followed him early on to do terrible things for him. His will drove his commanders to move far and fast when quite a few of them were sure they shouldn’t be provoking the western powers at that time. And in the end his will drove him to ruin by not listening to his commanders, seizing complete control of his armed forces away from his generals and beliving that Germany would win any battle because of his will. As well as inspiring Russian, American, British not to mention Free french, resistance that losing to him was not an option.
-
RE: Lonely artilliery
Definetly a lot of good input here, I’ve been playing a&a since it first came out and it has come a long way (I would even say that it is partally why I was inspired to gain an advanced degree in history and geography) I am glade there is a place like this to bounce around ideas and see what failures and success people have had. I am excited to collect all of the pieces being produced by FMG and HBG, my buddies and I are playing coaches 1939 map right now and it is really an amazing piece of work. With all the new sculpts, I’m thinking of using a d24 sided die to give greater range and discrepancies to current units as well as the new sculpts. That way a guy could represent the arty and it’s inf as seperate pieces on the board, and build your armies out of individual unit, creating a new level of complexity. I know some people don’t like to complicate thing any more than they already are, and that’s their choice, but I love the challege.
-
RE: Lonely artilliery
Then why dont we just call them companies, battalions, divisions, armies etc. And dispense with the complex sculpts. I do realize that we are dealing with company and larger size units when dealing with one “artillery” unit on the board. No offense, but if I wanted to fill gaps and be abstract I’d play risk.
-
RE: Lonely artilliery
Ok then, if the a&a artilery comes with its own infantry and support, which any military command would be court marshalled for doing without, then it wouldn’t be able to support an extra infantry group giving them a +1bonus when attacking. If you look at artillery as having its own infantry then armor would have the same (armor is usually safer, more effective and rarly used without infantry present) then a player wouldn’t have to worry about what pieces he bought because a little of everything would be included with each piece. ( you could then argue the same things for naval units). Then the game becomes a matter of buying armies and not individual pieces. And as for lonely artillery, I may have missed named this topic, I should have said naked artillery, I realize they would not work by themselves but rather in batteries. I just figure that part of a&a was trying to build balanced armies not just buying all inclusive unit that could function as well independantly as with other units.
-
RE: Lonely artilliery
I agree with the unloading of the artillery on beachheads but that would only be for a round or two and then those big sticks would be sitting ducks, especially to smaller infantry units, unless they were pulled out or defended/ supported by infantry. As for infantry units attached to the artillery, if that is the case, and the artillery has infantry units attached to it then wouldn’t the artillery be supporting those units and not able to protect additional units (giving those infantry a bonus when attacking)? I have a buddy who was a commander of an artillery unit and he mever mentioned any foot soldiers attached to his group except for different infantry units they were supporting.
-
Lonely artilliery
It makes no sense that artillery would ever be safe all by itself in either offensive or defensive battle situation. It always needs to be accompanied by infantry inorder to be effective. I am thinking of adding a rule for artillery that state unless it is accompanied by infantry it attacks and defends at a lesser value (1most likley) for 1d6 with out inf. Infantry would attack at 2 w/ artillery 1 without and still defend at 2. This would change the dynamics of casualty choices during battle since both units need each other. Has anyone ever play tested this and if so how did it work?
-
RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
I would pre order 2 sets and I have a few friends that would most likely order sets also.