@ithkrall:

As Im painting the set I am thinking about taking 2 german cruisers and 1 japanese battleship and painting them Italian. I think 2 italian cruisers is too few (PLayed a bit of the PC version someone did).

Any thoughts on that?

Why not use the Russian ones? It’s not like they’ll see the light of day often  :roll:

Keep in mind however, subs alone always reserve the right to submerge before even the Attacker rolls his dice. so essentially, without a destroyer, you can NEVER attack subs unless your opponent allows you.

Jennifer is correct.

@Elmo:

So, if the carrier was dependent on another battle to get to the pick-up zone, it would still be allowed?

Let’s say the British put their newly purchased navy in z2 on B1 but left a destroyer in z6. Then this couldn’t block my carrier (from z5 purchased on G1) getting to z3 to pick up fighters attacking z2 on G2, assuming I attacked the blocking destroyer?
Is this correct?

Yes.  You can declare the movement of the carrier through the cleared sea zone in noncombat movement in order to make the fighter attack legal.  If your fighters don’t survive the attack, you don’t have to move the carrier.  If you don’t sink the destroyer and can’t move the carrier, the fighters will be lost at the end of the turn.  If you sink the destroyer and at least one of your fighters survives, you must move the carrier to pick it up.

Thread fixed.  :-D

I almost always buy a bomber a round for Germany starting turn 2.  They are great for threatening Moscow, even when in Germany, threatening allied fleets, and if they got nothing else to do I do enjoy bombing Brittan.

Its the allies I hate buying them for, even though they are still incredibly useful, every bomber UK buys is one less cruiser or transport.  You must be very careful not to ‘overbuy’ bombers as the allies.

@hakan:

I have changed my mind. I also think the NO’s are brilliant! Not only because they make the strategies look more like in the real war, but also (don’t bark at me Krieghund) because you can balance the game yourself, or to simulate for example the “Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact”, just by adding a few lines in the NO. Much better then to add complicated Optional Rules.

I have nothing against house rules, per se.  I use them myself.  I just think that some people are too quick to implement house rules to address perceived imbalances in games, before enough games have been played to determine whether there actually is a balance issue.

Ice cold in alex…

christ, if the guy can open an AA50 and rifle around for all the pieces he needs AND THEN get away with them, all the while not being noticed by a store clerk or reported by a ‘paying’ customer, then good for him  :lol:

Yes, I think it is very tricky. As USA and UK you may build 1+1 bomber per turn, bombing Germany to the stone age, while building up a strong fleet. Just the threat of a heavy invasion is enough to fortify France with Italian and German infantry and fighters.

I tried to defend France hard with Italian and German inf. and fighters, and stand with nothing in NWE. Then I simply try to take NWE back with “enough troops” and the whole Luftwaffe. But it didn’t work the last time. When UK and USA goes Germany first, the key is to invade Russia quickly with Japan. (I was one turn to late, last time.)

In my group, we think that Germany is really hard to play.

I’ve seen a search roll used, maybe in aarhe, or somewhere, where you would roll to see if you could find the enemy ships, whether subs or surface within the zone because it’s so vast, and if found, then you could shoot.  you could increase it for each sub/destroyer perhaps.

Thats what we have and have always used namely the 1:1 ratio for determining how many subs are negated and also the number of rolls for search

@a44bigdog:

Nerfing IFP REALLY screws the UK. Their normal location for an IC is S. Africa. Sometimes, Australian can be an option if things go right.

India?

LOL what a joke. Japan takes India way too easily.

And as far as repairing damage I don’t think I have ever seen damage to S. Africa. Kiangsu and Manchuria may have been damaged in one extremely funky game but so were the US ICs in Algeria and Libya that would be worthless with the new rules.

I think the best solution is to just ignore this change I know I will be.

I have to agree with you. Although I wouldn’t be opposed to limiting the 1 IPC territories to +1 build capability instead of +2.

Thanks Krieghund, glad to have the cold hard facts on the matter.

Good observation locke, you got a FAQ entry.

Thanks, that was what I thought too.  The thing that threw me for a loop was that I downloaded TripleA and it doesn’t look like they allow that sort of move, so I wanted to make sure I wasn’t playing it wrong all these years!  :-)

Attention Japan!

Attention Japan!

The U.S are going to attack you!

Attention Germany…

Move along there is nothing to see here :mrgreen:

haha…  palooka… that’s great, and most history classes would be sooo much more interesting and actually conducive learning environments if it had a bit more of that.

Germany needed the Hitler mustache though.

I think this is interesting, but I am curious to see how this changes with different IPC amounts. Did you choose 120 because it factorability (it’s a word, now)? What would happen if you use 36 IPC?

In the light of day I understand you better now, and it’s right that you can calculate your defences/attacks better in LL, so you will end up using lesser resources for “just in case” or “just to be sure” situations. And ofcourse, if there’s a huge pile of trns on a “just enough to keep 1 DD left” fleet, someone made a mistake, because you have to calculate your losses if things go wrong in too. It’s like a 30% chance to take Ger with UK, no one would doubt about that, since the potential gains far outweigh the potential losses, thus tilting the average gain in your direction. That aspect is still in LL though, be it less severe (it’s a question of adding 1 DD instead of 1 BB “to be sure”).

@Telamon:

But as long as you have fun, that’s all that matters.

I couldn’t agree more! (and sry for my tendency to overreact :oops: )