I don’t see how these files are in categories relative to the specific coalition.
Nato needs to be with nato
Britian needs to be with British
Warsaw pact with their own kind… etc
And can you put this file on either Microsoft office or Microsoft word? Excel is not aesthetically readable or enjoyable for anything but numbers and accounting junk.
Also, is this based loosely on the east/west setup? Its important because the map has many of its territories with the same foundation as that map so the setup is transfered correctly will already be perfect. This is what it was designed to do.
A great starting point would be to keep the same total counts of pieces and allocate the setup just like in that game. The anomalies of the new territories are just a few additional hot spots that need few pieces added.
I’m confused, it says that japan owns S Korea correct, and it says that china owns manchura, so then whats what? Did you split Manchuria in two or something?
yes you do. thats the only thing like that.
oh, Ok, I just split Manchria in 1/2 with a permant marker then :-D
Uuumm, I noticed that the SU and chineese have a total of 48IC
the Allies( japan, US EUR) have a total of 122IC
Why do they hav soo much and the comunists have soo little, that seems too inacurate.
did you add in the Warsaw block nations?
I never saw anything about a Warsaw block nations? :|
Cyan:
Is this another thread about your version of the game or one based on my map for 1962. Im getting confused… :?
I say that because you got my name on one of the posts for contribution… but on the other side Gewehr nor i can figure out that setup because its got all the territories mixed up for set up…possibly leading the the confusion on IPC.
@Imperious:
Cyan:
Is this another thread about your version of the game or one based on my map for 1962. Im getting confused… :?
I say that because you got my name on one of the posts for contribution… but on the other side Gewehr nor i can figure out that setup because its got all the territories mixed up for set up…possibly leading the the confusion on IPC.
this is the rules for y version and will say 1962 in your version and i plan on do ng the setup for that this weekend. sorry for the delay. when i was trying to make my game you gave some good adivce so i’m acknowledging you.
I was looking over this. and I was thinking if China needed an AC to start with. It seems like china will build an aircraft carrier soon so we will be play testing to see if this AC should be included for balancing purposes. It would be off kwantwang.
I moved some of the navy units around and will post the new setup tommorrow
It would be off kwantwang.
Other places include further north. I think thats where the shipyard facilities are at the moment anyway.
Could also put it in south Asia near Malaysia where much of China’s shipping goes thru.
It would be off kwantwang.
Other places include further north. I think thats where the shipyard facilities are at the moment anyway.
Could also put it in south Asia near Malaysia where much of China’s shipping goes thru.
its also to stop the Japanese from making a serious attack on Round 1. kwantwang is worth 7 ipcs. shame to lose that and its navy on Rd 1.
Things to test for:
Which is the best Victory objective( 10 VC vs. 11)
Should the AC should be taken away form China
Should the Libyan fighter be moved to Egypt
Is Russia’s east too weak.
Can russia viably build navy in the Black and eastern sea without going IC crazy
To make sure the game is fun :mrgreen:
anything else we should look out for?
Rule update 10/12/07, go to first page
What do you think about allowing submarines(only) to move from sz 4 to sz 62 and vice versa?This would russia’s navy problem and I think is very reasonable. Also moving the persian IC to the caucuses. That makes more sense because INdia is right next to persia and if you think of the caucuses’ economy versus iran’s.
it should be logical as nuclear submarines have the endurance needed
it should be logical as nuclear submarines have the endurance needed
I don’t get it. are you saying the arctic circle thing is illogical or logical.
hes saying they should be allowed to travel from both sea zones (under north pole)
yep arctic circle thing is logical
