Posts made by Tralis

I’m really disappointed we don’t get dedicated sculpts for the regia marina. We got dedicated sculpts for the USSR, for god’s sake. Argh…

Since Japan has so many planes I find MI are really useful as bullet sponges. The planes provide mobile killing power, the MI mobile protection for the planes and occupation.

I’ve found in other games the economics of it are a little close… bulk boosters tend to get you a reasonable enough value that they are worth it unless you want something specific. WAS though seems like even if you aren’t looking for anything specific boosters aren’t worth it.

T&T is low on a lot of miniatures at this point, but they tend to be pretty well stocked, in general. Things on Ebay and other sites tend to go for similar prices. In collecting them all its useful to be able to pick which ones are missing rather than buying packs and hoping for the few rares you need to complete the set. In building large fleets, a significantly lower cost per model is a big help. Tournaments tend to be sealed anyway as I understand it, which forces boosters in that context.

Its true that its getting harder and harder to find the base set, even in aftermarket. But that applies equally to buying packs and buying singles.

It seems to me that the aftermarket for WAS peices is so much cheaper than boosters that boosters just make no sense.
A really good rare is worth about, what, $10? Most are worth less than that. The other four items in the box are usually $1 or less.
www.trollandtoad.com
So why buy boosters at all? If I’m extremely lucky the value of what I get it about equal to purchasing aftermarket, except unlike buying on the above site, I don’t choose what I get. So, then, what’s the point?

I’d support something like the old AAP, where UK and Australia were seperate economies but had the same units and combat movement. That could work for UK and Canada. Seperate powers? That would just mean that all of Canada’s income is next to completely irrelevent.

This is incorrect. The powers are neutral toward one another before war, and so ignore the presence of soon-to-be-enemy ships.

@MaherC:

@Subotai:

The map is being designed, as we speak… :-)

But AAP40 demands a lot of coding within the TripleA engine, and we can’t expect a playable version anytime soon.

shouldn’t be too hard I wouldn’t think, the ww2v3 map has many of the same issues like china placement etc, aside from adding tac bombers and buliding mech inf.   NO’s are also in that version….

Declaration of war is the biggest issue
Facilities demand a bit of effort
Convoys too, but those are easy.

Cruisers have more offensive power than destroyers, and more per IPC than battleships. Cruisers are actually very effective doing two things
A: Adding a little extra power to a fleet that already has a full carrier. Its cheaper than building another CV or BB.
B: Attacking smaller fleets (perhaps a DD + Trns) when sending a BB or CV would be overkill.

Of course anything that doesn’t go down exactly like history is gamey, even if it was a discussed option by the military command of that nation  :roll:

Where is this FAQ?

Still, the fact that in AA50 the Aqua Regia is larger than the Kriegsmarine, at least in terms of IPC value, and the Italian ships are the same moulds as the German ones… pretty frustrating. When you make another version of the game with Italy, one that focuses on the European theater, and Italy still gets the stick in terms of unique molds, in a game that has a very premium price… that grates a bit.

If AAP40 is a yardstick this won’t be an issue. Japan starts with 26 income before taking the Dutch Islands, and a bitchload more income once it does that. I think they’ll make it such that Italy has a significant income, perhaps around 20, and Germany will have a really big income, especially after taking France.

I’m just using the old Pacific chart. Kamikaze slider… goes up very high… its working pretty well. The VP track of course isn’t used.

@Krieghund:

Stoney229 and JamesG are correct.  Japan would have the choice of either ignoring the US units and attacking only the ANZAC units, or attacking all the units, resulting in war with the US.  This is the only case in which you may attack only some of the units in a space.  This will be in the FAQ.

What if this is a land territory, say Kwangtung? If UK is at war with Japan, and there’s both UK and US pieces in Kwangtung, then Japan invades, choosing to ignore the US units. Now the US units are on a Japanese-occupied space with axis troops. This seems an odd situation.

Japan really did consider attacking the Soviet Far East. They didn’t, but in a parrallel world its very likely that they could have. Thus, I don’t think it should be stopped or made extremely difficult. It should just be made difficult enough that its only one of several options for Japan. They problem isn’t so much that they can rape eastern USSR, the problem is that they nearly always do, which saps the game of variety.

I suppose the real question is if there’s any situation where one would definitely want a tac bomber vs just a fighter? There seems to be more of a clear divide between the role of other units.

As of AA50 I thought the air units were rather balanced. Fighters were the “baseline” air unit, and if you wanted a bomber you got the following advantages:
6 Range
SBR capability
4 Attack
For the following drawbacks:
2 Extra Cost
1 Defense

That seemed fair. Bombers had some very powerful advantages, especially the 6 range and SBR ability.
Tac bombers though, as compared to fighters, have 1 advantage:
4 Attack, but only when paired with other units
With the following drawbacks:
1 Extra Cost
Can’t escort in SBR
3 Defense

None of those drawbacks are as devastating as the bombers one Defense. However, the advantage just doesn’t seem worth it. 3 Attack is good enough. 4 Attack is nice, but its not worth all of those small disadvantages added together. Am I missing something about why Tac Bombers are worth the cost? I remember reading something about how they choose their casualties on the first round of combat, but I haven’t heard about that for awhile. So what do Tac Bombers do that make them worth the purchase?

I agree 6 IPCs is a bit much for a tank, but I don’t think every time is quite accurate. Remember that they attack on a 1. That’s 1/3 as much as a tank. If you don’t have any air support to provide some real attack power, 3 mech infantry are going to be rather lacking in offensive punch. On the defense, though, mech infantry are much better than tanks. But they are also a hell of a lot worse than infantry on the defense.

Mech Infantry with 5 IPC tanks could throw the game out of whack. Mech Infantry with 6 IPC tanks… probably not. It would probably just give a slight bonus to the defense.
10 IPCs in AA50 now gets you two units with 3 attack and 2 movement
10 IPCs in AA40 gets you two units, one with 3 attack the other with 1 attack, and both with 2 movement.
AA40s stats are strictly worse. Restating tanks and adding in mech infantry would probably give Russia an advantage.
The 6 IPC tank would matter more than adding in the mech infantry, which would have comparatively less effect.