Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: Rules of second edition enough of a change from 1st?

« on: January 09, 2014, 08:03:11 PM »

I don't know....personally I think it would be better to just add a new entry that way you could have one for Europe and Asia as separate games.

I have no problem doing that if you want. But if you prefer to keep just the one the title and other things like dates need to be updated.

Also might alleviate some confusion from people who did play the first edition if there were other entries. Easily linked from the first edition and vise versa back to the first edition from the new edition.

I am a completist and if the current one is just morphed I think I'd feel cheated. ;-)

2

General Discussion / Rules of second edition enough of a change from 1st?

« on: January 04, 2014, 04:43:47 PM »

Mark or John,

Our the rules of the second edition enough of a change to require a new entry at Board Game Geek?

Admin is asking if it should be a "new entry" that reemplamates WWII SEA or a complete new entry into their data base.

I haven't been able to grab a copy yet, plan to sometime in March, to really read the rules.  I think I could download a free version of the rules so really have no excuse except knew wouldn't get to playing it until later any way.

Sean

3

General Discussion / Struggle for Europe and Asia being offered on HBG.com

« on: January 02, 2014, 02:49:39 PM »

Just noticed it is being offered on Historical Board Gaming website.

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/The-Struggle-For-Europe_p_727.html

Kind of cool is all.  Of course noticed it is totally different from what I have, guess now called the first edition.  Will have to see if Dave Simmons has the 2nd edition for when go back to Alaska for "Davecon" . 

I just got some of HBG miniatures in Monday and have to say they are will worth it!  Just can't wait for the Russian pieces to get back into stock.

Sean King

4

General Discussion / Re: Added a photo to Board Game Geek <dot> com

« on: March 07, 2010, 06:04:39 AM »

Okay, I get it.

But it must have been a costly deal to get the map redone like that.

$109 for the reprint.

5

General Discussion / Re: Added a photo to Board Game Geek <dot> com

« on: March 06, 2010, 09:51:03 PM »

Wow!  Nice table and all, but you hacked off two full feet from the game board!

I guess you can do with out the US coast.  As long as you know what is what, you can get away with some things.

You could try to squeeze them into the bottom corner areas of the map like some kind of off-board, inset maps.

No the map itself is two feet shorter by being shrunk down, and 6 inches wider at 41".

So it is the original map but just fitting 6 feet by 41 inches.  All the same as a regular map but to fit my table.

The US is still there you just can see it over the lip. Might take another photo here to show a better view of it and the table.  Plus if I get it set up.

Of course though we are listing our house because we are looking at going to West Virginia after I graduate.  Which means I might have to "pack up" my table until I move.  Plus the job I am looking at requires like 10 months training which means I wont be home to "play".

Sean

6

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Air Units in Combat

« on: February 22, 2010, 06:38:16 PM »

I'm going to say I don't really think it is a problem.

Part of the response to it amongst the players up here in AK is builing more AA, and not pursuing the somewhat unrealistic no aircraft strategy.

Historically allied airpower was fairly awesome.

Even when the opponent does not have AA, it is not always a good tactic/strategy.  You spend 8 points on a fighter to roll an extra 1 in some battles.  NOt the most efficient use of your production.

When your opponent does have AA it rapidly becomes unproductive, except if you have so many planes you don't care if you lose them.

I made a suggestion somewhere for including Mech AA units.  AA units that could fire their AA shots even on the attack.

I think the problem is overblown.  There is a counter strategy, build AA.  Also, the strategy/tactic of tons of air units is not neccessarily so great in may instances any way.

Somewhat ridiculous that someone is building like no air units throughout much/all of the game anyway.

If you added mech AA units you could counter the problem for defense as well as offense.  Possibly even allow existing AA/88's tof ire on tha attack, as 1's let's say.

In big battles with a lot of AA somone has been facing the loss of 1 or 2 planes per round of combat.  In general no one can sustain such losses for long except for the western allies, and then even they have limitations, and multiple demands Norther Europe, Souther Europe, strategic bombing, asia...

It depends on how awesome you believe airpower was historically.

If you fire 18 fighters at 1 to get 3 infantry, that's 144 points of production to kill 3 ingantry (9 points) per turn? so 16 turns to brak even on PP, and it probably cost you 16 infantry (48) PP.  Not a bad exchange ratio for the Western Allies.  Not really doable by anyone else.

I think their should be some reward for gaining massive air superiority.  I thinks its OK the way it is, and if I would make a change it would be to allow the attacker to make AA shots.

May be allow the attackers AA to fire from the second round on?  Allow ground supporting ships to provide AA cover to invasions...

I have not been observing directly smckenzie but are you not the one with Britain that has been doing the massive air attacks?

At least that is what I thought I heard being said Friday.

So of course not borken... 

Sean

7

General Discussion / Added a photo to Board Game Geek <dot> com

« on: February 22, 2010, 06:04:13 PM »

Hey,

I just added a photo to www.boardgamegeek.com of the original map resized to fit my table.  When I get a game set up I will keep adding photos as they go down.  Of course it is approaching midterms so might not be able to right away.

People should keep posting stuff to it so it looks like a "live" game which we all know it is but some out there might not know it.

Sean

8

General Discussion / Re: Comapny doing minis up that would go great with Struggle.

« on: February 15, 2010, 06:47:21 PM »

Ah...then I just bought one of your towers.....   

Yea I was thinking that he might be persuaded to do all that is needed but thought I'd put it out there so more would "talk" to him. 

Sean

9

General Discussion / Comapny doing minis up that would go great with Struggle.

« on: February 14, 2010, 09:31:27 PM »

Hey all,

There is a company that is working on producing some Axis and Allies type miniatures that are much more detailed than the current Axis and Allies line with numerous different sculpts as well.

Still a few thing missing but here is a list of what they are going to make for each nation....

So for clarity sake, will be France, China, and ANZAC be represented in the complete set or will we have to wait for a second release?

Also for clarity sake, the units listed below are the ones that made the final cut into the set correct?
*units are those which are not currently found in AA40 (most of which should have been)

Naval Units:
Transport
Submarine
Destroyer
Cruiser
Carrier
Battleship
*Task Force Marker (Similar to AAP)

Air Units:
Fighter
Bomber
Dive Bomber (TAC Bomber)
*Air Transport

Army Units:
*Infantry (Two Sculpts each)
*Armour (Two Sculpts each)
Artillery
Half Track
*Truck
*Commander Unit

Other Units Bonus:
*Major Factory
*Minor Factory
*AA Gun
*Bunker Unit (fortification)
*Naval Base Unit-Marker
*Air Base Unit-Marker
*Army HQ Unit-Marker

Katyusha rocket launchers, escort carriers, and early war fighters are a few pieces that I know off hand that would not be represented.

Which is why I re-oredered the game so I can get it to fit inside my game table.  Then with these detailed miniatures it will be great.

Sean

10

RULES (UPDATED APRIL 2018) / Re: Country Builds Cards

« on: February 14, 2010, 09:13:31 PM »

Well Dave S. and I will be at Gencon.

Not sure which is better for you guys though.

Sean

I was at GCI last year for my second taste of it (having been there briefly back a few years ago) and I am not a fan at all.

Just didn't like it.  Indy is a nice place and convenient for me to get to (if you call a 5+ hour drive convenient), but the actual con just doesn't turn my crank.  I may just be hampered in my feel in coming off of a long convention, usually right before, that I really like (WBC).

As screwed up as Origins usually is, I still like it better than GCI.  It may be that it is just the first convention that one gets to after a long winter lay off.  Or I just like the fact that we play Struggle up in the War Room area, away from the majority of the craziness.

Well last year did feel down a little for me in just....fun.....but I still enjoyed it. I do agree with the separate space for the game would be great.

I also have not been to another convention so have nothing to compare it to except the one we have in Alaska (100 people).

11

RULES (UPDATED APRIL 2018) / Re: Country Builds Cards

« on: February 13, 2010, 08:26:54 PM »

Well Dave S. and I will be at Gencon.

Not sure which is better for you guys though.

Sean

12

Introduction / Re: Some Concept Tests

« on: January 04, 2008, 04:32:57 AM »

Yes the new map of what I can see looks pretty sharp.

Sean

13

Game Design / Re: Finally getting it together....but

« on: January 01, 2008, 10:37:23 AM »

Thanks John!!!

14

Game Design / Finally getting it together....but

« on: December 31, 2007, 09:16:13 AM »

Hello,

Finally getting the pieces together for the game I purchased at Gencon a year and a half ago.

I seemed to of lost my list of suggested pieces.  Didn't see where it was listed on the site here either.

Does some one have the list that came with the game that could be emailed? 

Sean

15

General Discussion / Re: CONVENTIONS

« on: July 11, 2007, 09:34:03 PM »

Yea I myself will be at Gencon for at least the Thrusday Session.

Although I will have to leave for an hour or two around 10 am.

Sean