Messages

16

General Discussion / Re: Added Optional Rules and Pieces

« on: September 16, 2009, 02:01:32 PM »

Interesting. 
Is that for all sorts of units, like 3 in a square and three infantry, or no more than three units total?  And how's that work for you?

17

General Discussion / Re: Reducing combat factors and cost of support units

« on: July 20, 2009, 09:15:05 AM »

Wow!  I've not gotten back to say thanks Mark for your comments--and all the rest of you guys too.  I understand (for the most part) your suggestions.  I agree that there are some severe limitations with trying to make a simulation of life (or war in this case!), using paper, plastic, metal, time and space.  I am not skilled in using computer technology to do that, and it may be easier to do digitally and graphically there.  I think it's more limiting, but that's just me.

I've got the thought to put all my ideas (hair-brained and otherwise!) on a list with suggestions as to how they might work.  And of course, I will be trying to get my gaming group to try some out after our brief summer haiatus is completed.  I will beg, plead, cajole, and otherwise whine until they give in.  I own the game, literally, so they may be able to be persuaded somewhat. 
Mark and John--keep up the good work.  I know you have not yet begun to game!

18

General Discussion / Re: Reducing combat factors and cost of support units

« on: June 28, 2009, 04:03:32 PM »

Greetings!
Thanks for the response, Mac.  (Can I call you Mac?)  Yours is an interesting point, I'll grant you that.  Now that I have the oportunity to opine, I would counter posit that the rounds of combat which take place during a battle simulate what would really have happened, as again, I believe, "The Struggle . . . ," is supposed to be a simulation.  And in my reading, To have an air unit destroy a ground unit (or wear down a ground unit to nothing), well, that never really happened until Operation Desert Storm, in the early 1990's.  I just find it difficult to see how air units (even with hundreds of aircraft) with the ordnance available in the early 1940's could take out ground units with troops numbering from 36-45,000 men.

To counter that too, also in my research aka reading and studying, I came across the statement that in the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans lost 6 months worth of production.  In "The Struggle . . .," that would amount to 16-20+ infantry units, 1/2 a dozen armored units or more, at least 4 panzergrenediers, several artillery, A-T, and "88" units, not including Luftwaffe ones.  Maybe the idea would be that air units are really more deadly in their attacks on land units that are "cut-off" and out of supply.  Logistically, there would be no replacement equipment/units/troops to fill in.

I think I could buy into that.  Yes, I would.

added on June 30:
And well, here is another idea.  The Soviet Union's early fighters have a combat factor of one (1) to begin with.  After the requeset number of them have been built according to the rules, then the Soviet fighters would have a combat factor of two (2).  And then, about the time the US and UK  get logn range fighters, Soviet fighters would get a combat factor of three (3).  I suggest this as the Luftwaffe could get local control without too much trouble before then.  After that date, Soviet fighters got to be close to par with German ones due to improved tactics and equipment (i.e. radios from the USA!). 

Just some radom thoughts.  More to follow.  Like Italian Infantry units having only a combat factor of 1A/1D.  They only had 2 regiments, don't you know?  But that's for another post.  Civilized comments welcomed.   

19

After Action Reports / Playtesting / Re: Tour of Duty March 2009 - A Presentation of the game

« on: June 13, 2009, 02:56:59 PM »

Where have I been?  I missed this part of the site until today.  This is awesome.  You guys rock, Mark and John.  But then you knew that.  Keep up the good work.
Paul E. Speerbrecker

20

General Discussion / Re: Reducing combat factors and cost of support units

« on: June 12, 2009, 03:59:43 PM »

Thanks for the comments.  Just trying to generate some activity and get the mental juices flowing.   

Not sure if I'm going to do too much with it.  It was just something to bring up, as A&A seemed to have gone that route.  Even though "The Struggle . . ."  has some similar characteristics, it's on a very different plane. 

What has always bothered me, now that I think of it, is that air units can destroy land units!  It was that way in A&A and all their clones/spawn, and I didn't care for it.  In Trevor DuPuy's "Numbers, Prediction, and War," he notes in his military science studies that air units never did totally destroy ground units until Operation Iraqi Freedom I, in the 1980's.  (I might bring up the carpet bombing that the Allies did in Operation Corbra, but that's a singular instance and for another time.) 

I could see that air units could disrupt ground/land units (and please note, I am not, repeat, not, referring to naval or other air units!  Planes sank ships and shot down other planes.  Ships sank ships and shot down planes too.) 

Let's say that if an air unit makes a hit on a ground/land unit, then a marker (say, a black chip) is put next to it.  The unit is not destroyed, but is unable to return fire on the opponents next turn.  After the opponets turn, the markers on his disrupted ground/land units are removed.   And play then resumes un the usual /regular way.

It's an idea  for air superiority to be clearly seen for what it was.   

21

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?

22

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Axis Allied Nations Units

« on: March 06, 2009, 05:23:13 PM »

Thanks John.  I guess I had just "zoned out" of adequately assimilating the data.
Appreciate it.
Paul E. Speerbrecker

23

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.

24

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]

25

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?

26

After Action Reports / Playtesting / Re: JohnCon 2008

« on: December 30, 2008, 04:22:19 PM »

Spitfire wrote:
I would like the option to still buy the Map from you, how about a economy version on disc for those who prefer it and  a more expensive "complete map version" (Map+Disc?) for those  who wants it.

I'd like to see that too.  I've been toying with the idea of having a banner making company make a map on a banner, out of some kind of vinyl or other weatherable product.  They come in all sorts of sizes, don't you know?

27

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Out of Supply

« on: December 30, 2008, 04:18:27 PM »

Ditto.
Could you please explain the rationale for 2 (two) resource centers to be in supply? 

28

After Action Reports / Playtesting / Re: JohnCon 2008

« on: December 29, 2008, 04:29:13 PM »

Greetings!

Bobsalt wrote:  Looking at the Pacific map, I do see one thing that I’d like to bring up. I don’t know what changes you’re making to the game, but just looking at the map it appears that Port Moresby is much more vulnerable than it was historically. Looking at the proposed game map it seems that it is a very easy step off from Mindanao to PM. You can move two spaces southeast from Mindanao to take Port Moresby from the west. This allows the Japanese player to take PM with much less risk than was the case historically. When the Japanese moved against PM, they went around the east side of the islands – this is what led to the Battle of Coral Sea.

I looked at the "regular" map and I'm not sure how you figure it.  The area in southeastern New Guinea looks to be touching the same sea zones.  Weren't the issues you raised also a problem there before?

29

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

« on: October 16, 2008, 04:19:55 AM »

Thanks Craig.  I must be suffering from "part-timers" as I could not put my finger on the right paragraph, page, or section.  I do have the most recent set of rules, though.  Thanks for the reminder.

I'm thinking of putting an index together for the rules to help those "afflicted" as I am.  Of course, if I would sit down, open the rule book, and actually look more closely, I think I can do almost as good a job as you.  Thanks again.

30

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.