Topics

1

First Edition Game / Game starts 1940?

« on: July 04, 2018, 06:35:40 AM »

Hi!  A quick question:  Did you guys ever think to put together a  June 1940 start date for your games?  If you did, how would it go?  If you didn't, how would it get set up?  -Just take out Poland and the Scandinavian countries and add builds and production points for a turn, eliminating any kind of builds/production for one turn to represent losses?  Just wondering your thoughts.  Do the 2nd Edition games have that scenario?  Just wondering.

2

First Edition Game / Future Plans for 1st Edition Game

« on: February 19, 2018, 07:00:10 AM »

Greetings to Mark and John!  I was just wondering if you have any plans for the 1st ed. of the game.  I've got some ideas and adaptations which I'd like to share and possibly use to run a game at Origins and Gen Con-Indy.  Pics are coming in a day or two.  Thanks.

3

General Discussion / Recent Move to Indiana, Just North of Louisville, KY: Any Gamers?

« on: January 11, 2017, 03:04:02 PM »

Greetings John and Mark and company.  After somewhat of a long hiatus, I am again able to be involved with board wargames.  Also, FYI, I have taken the 1st Edition and added/subtracted some from the combat and build tables.  I don't plan on marketing this, but would like to share some of those changes with you.  For instance,
while INF hits on a 1, an INF + a RTY hits on <2 when attacking, and a <3 when defending against all but RMR units: and an INF and an A-T gun vs. RMR units hits on a <3 when defending.  I have some electrical difficulties at the time so my camera isn't working, but I do hope to have something for you to chew on.  The changes  suggest a more realistic approach to the conflict, I think, but what do I know?  Good to see the 2ND edition is doing well.  Keep up the good work.  I hope to make it to Origins, in Columbus, OH.  Maybe we'll be able to meet and you can "stare me down" over some adult beverage (like coffee or tea, you know what I mean.)  All the best.

4

General Discussion / Reducing combat factors and cost of support units

« on: June 10, 2009, 04:39:29 PM »

Greetings!

It's been a little quiet around for awhile, so I thought I'd get something started for fun.  Here's the thought:

What if we emphasized the importance of the infantry and armor units by making  the cost of AT and Artillery just 2 prod-pts?  Each AT and Artillery unit would give 2 infantry units or two armored units a +1 in attack and defense.  They could be taken as casualties after all the main units (inf and arm) had been fired at (not necessarily taken as casualties).
This would maybe better simulate the use of those support units in most armies, with the exception of the USSR.  Stalin used artillery in separate divisions, so an artillery "army/corp" by the Soviets would be allowed.  Cost would be the same, but their combat factor would be 2 AF and 2 DF.

Thoughts?  Comments?

5

Rules questions from first edition / Axis Allied Nations Units

« on: March 05, 2009, 08:13:24 AM »

Greetings!

I am having a brain freeze at the moment, so I am asking for some clearer headed thinkers/resource people to help me out on this.

In setting up for the '41 scenario in Europe, does the set up chart for German units already include the units from Finland, Hungary, and Romania, or are they to be added from the other chart which lists all the other possible combatant nations?

Thanks.

6

General Discussion / GameWe'rePlaying

« on: February 27, 2009, 12:52:28 PM »

Attached are some pics of the game we're playing here in south central WI.  Hope you find them interesting.  And, I hope you can see them.
Paul E. Speer . . .

P. S. Is my avatar the only one? Did I miss something like they're banned or such?

[attachment deleted by admin]

7

WWII discussion forum / V-1's at Normandy

« on: February 22, 2009, 04:41:44 PM »

Just a question for discussion:  What would the results have been, if any, if the Germans fired their V-1's from Belgium towards the Allied fleet at Normandy instead of off to London as they did just after the Allies had landed?

Any thoughts by anyone?

8

Rules questions from first edition / Naval AA and Adjacent Air Support

« on: October 15, 2008, 05:45:44 AM »

These questions have come up with our group of gamers and am unfortunately unable to find answers.

1.  Since air units can only be fired at one time, does that mean, say a battleship with 2AA fires only once (rolls one dice), or does it mean that the battleship fires twice (rolls two dice)?  Either way, the plane is only fired at one time, but the BB's AA is limited in the first instance.  And,

2.  If an area is attacked, the defenders air units from adjacent areas may support the defense.  However, if there is another attack in an area close to the previous one attacked, can the defender use air units in range from adjacent areas in support of that attack, even though they were used in a previous battle?

Opinions and Rulings are welcome.  Thank you.

9

Game Design / Tactical submarine movement

« on: August 18, 2008, 10:33:49 AM »

I've been thinking about tactical sub movement.  This came up in Gen Con Indy where a US sub tried to sink a IJN transport in the Sea of Japan --which he did, BTW.  2 sea zones is very limiting for US Subs if they are going to try to reach the Japanese convoy centers from Pearl Harbor.

This is what we're going to experiment in my group of gamers here, with two kinds of submarines: 
--Coastal Submarines, with same combat abilities as regular subs, but cost 3,3 and have a tactical range of 2.
--Fleet Submarines, have a tactical range of either 8 or 10.  (Whichever works so US subs can get to the coast of China/Japan from Pearl and U-boats can reach the Gulf Coast.)

10

Game Design / USSR too Strong?

« on: August 18, 2008, 10:16:44 AM »

Greetings!  Glad you're back Mark!
I just got back from GenConIndy.  Had a few players for tS4EnA, but not many.  I just don't have the celebrity appeal that John and Mark have.  And with my ADD and not having a lot of experience playing the game, I'm sure I frustrated a few players.  Anyway, on to the point:  One comment from one of the "newby's" was that after playing the USSR, he hadn't ever played a game with Russia that strong.  Any comment?

11

Game Design / Victory Points

« on: July 07, 2008, 04:40:25 PM »

Greetings!  Got a group of guys to play the game on a regular basis and we're having a lot of fun and really enjoying the game.  Thanks again Mark and John et al.!

Just a couple of quick questions, and if they are addressed elsewhere, please point me in the right direction.
     1.  Is there a listing of all the victory points and thier locations on the map someplace in the rules?
     2.  Is it true that Germany only has a few vp's like @3 in "Greater Germany"?
They really have to do some "bookin'" to get the needed vp's, but then, I suppose that was the case, anyway.

Thanks.  kriegspieler7

P.S.  Do you see the irony of your NEWS: line?  We will NOT be at GenCon this year do [sic] to conflicts!  What are you talking about?  It's a freaking "Conflict Simulation Game!"  Of course, you'll have conflicts!  That's why you put it together!  Did you loose too many games to make it?     (I amaze myself sometimes, and then again, not even that often.)

12

General Discussion / Adaptable and Alternative Maps

« on: December 16, 2007, 08:15:49 AM »

Here's a map I've been working on for  the Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO).
It's a platte-caree' projection with Axis and Allies colors.  It's for your perusal.

[attachment deleted by admin]

13

General Discussion / Added Optional Rules and Pieces

« on: November 21, 2007, 12:11:00 PM »

Greetings Grognards!

Mark and John, I was wondering if while you're working on an advanced WW2:  The Struggle . . ., how about getting a list going on one or another of the topics with possible additional/optional rules and pieces so that players could print them out and add them to their rules and then when their group plays, they can have mutually agreed to options.  Yes, I know various groups around the country have various rules, but this would help standardize some of them as well as provide options if you have any sort of tournement play. 

I've made some before,  and I have another one to add: 2 types of subs.
One type is coastal and can only operate in seazones either adjacent to or 2 zones from land, costing less than that listed.  And one type is ocean going, and can  go across the ocean to attack targets on the other side, each piece at full cost.

Yes, this might go with and Advanced WW2:tS, or it may just go on a list of optional rules which can be used with the basic game.  Just a thought.

14

Game Design / Increase Build Limit with Factory Construction

« on: October 17, 2007, 10:08:14 AM »

While working on the previous item regarding incremental buildup, the thought came to mind, "What about increasing mechanized/air build limits by 1 with the construction of a factory?"

This would apply to all countries and happen following the construction of a factory, meaning 1 more armor or 1 more fighter would be able to be built for each new factory constructed.  It would involve either 1 unit or the other, not both at a time.

Any thoughts or comments?

15

Game Design / Incremental US Buildup

« on: October 14, 2007, 06:05:35 PM »

I know I'll get alot of flak on this, but anyway, here goes. 
I really like the game.  I'm jealous--I wish I'd developed it.  I've gotten some ideas in my head to "tweak" it.

One is that the US doesn't increase it's production capability automatically when it goes to war, but incrementally, especially if it goes to a war footing.  To wit:

1939 and 1940--USA gets 4 production points/turn

1941--USA gets 12 p. p./turn (starting with the Dec. 1940 turn)

1942--USA gets 40 pp/turn

1943--USA gets 80 pp/turn

1944+--USA gets 115 pp/turn

I suggest this as my research shows that the USA took some time to develop the manufacturing facilities and proceedures over several months and it did not happen automatically.  In terms of the GNP and Defense spending over those years, I think this is a good progression.  Of course, the USA is an economic powerhouse, but not at first.  The "Arsenal of Democracy" will take some time to develop.  It will change the game's play.    Anybody got some other thoughts?