the best way to respond is to reach moscow

ydavid is correct

sorry ezto

we were just kiding

you should just put it in other contest

like africa
australia
india
american terriories in azia
russian territories in asia

because asia itselff is very big

Mr.G, I must say that’s a great analysis of how to hold if Germany doesn’t attack Egypt and it’s proof-positive of how Germany does need to do that on G1.

If you beat Russia, and Japan continues to play, I’d say build air force units with Russia to sink Japanese shipping.

Of course, if you like, you may also build ICs in SFE, Manch, Kwang and FIC. If you like.

if you are playing with optionional rules it might work out( cos briton is probably going to put his free IC on INDIA and Amer get’s one infantry for free every turn in sinkiang or china), but if you are playing without them it would be unfair (cos U.K. and U.S. will lose their teritories and won’t be able to get them back. Trust me. I prefer playing with optional rules(all of them) because lots of things gests balanced

Well Kaladesh, have you tried the opening fire variant yet? :D I find it balanced and use it every time!

I hate it, theres too many rules hurting the attacker, the attacker has the initiative, and theoretically wins.

oh, believe me, I love having ACs…I’ve been known to pull up along shore with 4-6 of them with 2 fighters each.

We even have a house rule that SS don’t exist, but you can have Super ACs which hold 3 fighters instead of 2. (you can actually fit 3 fighters on the deck too, if you’re careful!) It’s a beautiful site.

BTW, we also have a house rule that there are no chips. When you run out of pieces you can’t build anymore. smile

:roll: i’m sorry, i really am :wink:

@Raarrne:

Well, in the version i put forward, i think that only the armor should be allowed to continue-bringing the infantry for a second strike may be a bit too strong (i really don’t know how it would play out-but Russian Buffers could end up failing (miserably)).

Anyway, if it gets some testing, then definately let me know how they work!

Also, expect more constructive criticism as you put more of these great creative topics forward.

Hi Raarne,
I have tested your rule variant and found it too complicated! For example if you want to attack a second turn with the panzers then one might ask one self if is possible to use these tanks together with other units attacking from another territory? All units must do there combat movement at the same time! So any panzers wont be able to make a second combined (with other units) attack! Hmmmm…… I will stick to the Panzergrenadiers advantage instead! :wink:

GG are you there, so please answer my question. :-?

@prof_tc:

1: Are you sure the Superfortresses aren’t too strong? Then again, it is historically accurate.

2: what happens as you lose tanks with the Ger. heavy tanks?
I know you tested all these new rules, and I’m sure you made a decision. I assume that the first is a heavy tank, and then every 4th after that.

1. The superfortresses advantage is now counterable for the Axis, but cost a lot to develop Jet Fighters! However to old rule of mine that I have in these revised NAs may be a better choice since now the U.S. needs to develop heavy bombers as well. This variant with one additional die per bomber in a SBR is not really playtested! But compared to the original one, I am sure it wont be worse to the Axis as long as they can counter it with jets! :wink:

Damage caused by heavy superfortresses (Heavy Bombers development and Superfortresses advantage) against an IC protected by jets (Jet Fighter development):
5/63(1/61+1/62+1/63+1/64+1/65+1/66) + 5/61/610 IPCs = 10,1 IPCs

Damage caused by AA fire and intercepting jets (on a 1:1 ratio for fighters and bombers) on bombers in a SBR:
1/615 + 3/615 = 10 IPCs

This means that the German and Japanese player needs to develop Jet Fighters to an average cost of 30 IPCs and have as many fighters protecting each IC as there are U.S. heavy superfortresses within reach for a potential SBR! The allies would just have a slight advantage to the axis if conducting a SBR with heavy superfortresses, it is even less then for a regular bomber that conducts a SBR on an IC only protected by an AA gun!

2. this is from another thread about “Heavy Tanks”:

First cycle of combat:
Put the first 2 tanks on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. At the end of the combat remove casualties.

Second cycle of combat:
Remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting the first 2 on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard… and so on!

@UKcommander:

I see your point. However, do the infantry still cost three and are you only allowed one infantry in a territory per turn? I guess the commonwealth’s just don’t interest me that much if that’s it, unless it’s India with an I.C., then I can see where you’re coming from :wink:.

Yes the infantry still cost three IPC’s, but I think this infantry should be in addition to any units mobilized by an industrial complex. Thus it means that you can mobilize one additional infantry unit than what the restriction says; one cannot mobilize more units than the income value of the territory.

This rule would definitely bring some favor to UK, as you said in combination with an IC in India, it would be awesome to capture for the Japanese player!
:wink:

Maby this advantage is better than all other suggested before!

Tiger Tanks
A single Tiger tank could halt the advance of a complete armoured division. These tanks were massively protected and had an extremely powerful anti-tank gun, which were more than adequate to deal with any allied armoured fighting vehicle of that time.
Every third tank you have in each combat cycle, attack or defend on a 4.

@Guerrilla:

Sounds like fun… I’ll try a solo (or 1on1) game this sat (unless I have something going…) to playtest for you (or us :wink: )

GG

Well GG, how did it all work out? Did you win or just win! :wink:

U-Boat Program it is! Or is there any other thoughts of how one can replace or revise the Wolf pack advantage??? :o

i like the first variant of assault guns.

1. Panzergrenadiers
During World War Two, the Germans had troops units that were designed for fighting alongside tanks. These were fully motorised units, so that they could at all times keep up with the tanks. These were the Panzergrenadiers.
Your infantry have a move of 2 and may blitz as tanks do, but no panzerblitz (SS Panzers).

2. SS Panzergrenadiers
The Germans used elite troops that were designed for fighting alongside tanks, favoured with a greater proportion of the best equipment . These troops were fully motorised units, so that they could at all times keep up with the tanks.
The Panzergrenadiers advantage implies that each tank give one matching infantry one additional movement allowance and an increased attack capability of 2 or less in the first cycle of combat only. Even if supported by artillery, their attack remains 2. The tank and the infantry unit must leave from the same territory.

I think it is a perfect match to let the Germans have Jagd Panzers (Tank Destroyers) to counter the Russian Assault Gun advantage, not vice versa since now the Russian player control the game! When I say “control the game”, I mean that the Russian player can choose when and were the German Jagd Panzer advantage will come in to play! The attacker always has the initiative! But at the same time the German player may safe his advance against counter-attacks on his way into Russia!
:wink: