I doubt it, since the game is out of print.
SEA ZONE-26, what the…
-
Perhaps that is why it is there … to avoid Brazilian bombers!
No, that is exactly my point. You CAN’T avoid the Brazilian bombers, only the fighters. Â :-o
If you see brazilian bombers scrambling your only chance in the atlantic would be to turtle up around the north pole, that is sz1 through 4. But given that bombers are pretty expensive I think sz26 has a lot of merit as a safe haven.
-
Oh yeah you’re right my mistake. Yea Brazil is a very good location to place your Bombers if you have a big stack and it’s an insane game with navy units all over the board :-D
-
Actually i make that Antartica in some of my games so i can place a german occupation flag and make a u-boat base to send the ex- nazis if i lose the war. Make a skicker and place it over your board and draw antartica with a IPC value of 1. start the game with one extra u-boat within 1 territory of it.
-
@Imperious:
Actually i make that Antartica in some of my games so i can place a german occupation flag and make a u-boat base to send the ex- nazis if i lose the war. Make a skicker and place it over your board and draw antartica with a IPC value of 1. start the game with one extra u-boat within 1 territory of it.
That case I’d flush you out with my pacific fleet, enough for your sub to be in range of mighty brazilian bombers(MBB). Landing the Afrikaan at the pole and land MBBs there.
Though… 1 ipc? :roll: How did you calculate that? U-boats running on penguin oil farmed off the land?
-
1 IPC= strategic value to allied shipping lanes and a refueling station so ships dont need mid-ocean tankers to complete transit.
-
I came clse to having a battle in the south atlantic once. Japan was having problems because american was sending tons of troops into algeria and marching across africa towards india, but they couldnt use the mediterannean because germany had a battleship there and japan had an aircraft carier with 3 german fighters. Neither side had enough of a force to attack one another, so I just let american offlod since they were doing too much harm. Eventually, I sent a japanese battleship, sub, and useless transport around south africa to disrupt allied shipping, but american built a couple of subs and chased me down. If I remember correctly, they had 2 subs in seazone 26, but that was after japan was terribly outnumbered and retreated back to the indian ocean.
-
If I remember correctly, they had 2 subs in seazone 26, but that was after japan was terribly outnumbered and retreated back to the indian ocean.
Yeah, dood! I think we’ve set the OP straight!
-
oh wow, lots of stuff… well first of all thanks for the debate, it seems as though you guys really feeel as it being a useful seazone, but then again the longest game ive played was only 5hours long, so we havent gotten to the piont were that might become useful. (you dont get troops in brazil originally do you?)
i might have to try the antartica rule some time, oh yea.
… an aircraft carier with 3 german fighters.
i beleive aircraft carriers can only carry two fighters not three.
and i believe some one mentioned another usless seazone. sea zone 63… im not at home so i gotta get a look at where it is first. so post away
-
Sz 63 is not useless … it allows Japan to reach Alaska in 1 turn from Japan.
-
He’s not saying it’s useless… he’s saying it doesn’t make sense for it to border on the north shore of Canada, which is realistically choked with ice and, even if an invading force could get to shore, extreeeemely difficult (like, crossing the sahara difficult) for land forces to travel down through the rocky snowy freezing expansive tundra to strike at civilized areas. It’s over 500 miles to the nearest road.
~Josh
-
Well he said useless … It is kind of inrealistic though.
-
He never said useless. Sorry to nitpick, but he didn’t.
~Josh
-
@Mork:
and i believe some one mentioned another usless seazone. sea zone 63… im not at home so i gotta get a look at where it is first. so post away
-
Ha ha
nice emphasis :-)
BUT, that post was an incorrect reference to the original post about SZ63.Â
Baghdaddy brought it up first, as the subject of a new rant (focussed on the un-reality of it reaching Canada, not its general uselessness)
and later on (in the post you are quoting) Mork Far mistakenly thought that Baghdaddy was referring to its general uselessness.
So HA! :-P
~Josh
-
He was the first person to use the word useless while talking about that sea zone.
And I don’t appreciate the tone you’re taking with me mister! -
I’m only joking around.
That’s the problem with email/forums is that they don’t do the best job of transmitting tone.
If you’d like though, we can settle this very important issue with a duel. I suggest Heavy Bombers at 10 paces. :-D
~Josh
PS - If you show up at my house piloting a B-52 it will be my own damn fault I guess.
-
Haha I know … I was kidding as well. I thought it was understood when I said mister :lol:
But yeah I’m right. -
Sounds like you guys need an outside arbitrator for this one.
Although the word useless wasn’t used until talking about SZ 63, the context it was used in:
another usless
infers that the earlier seazone (SZ26) that was being discussed was also useless. Therefore, by inference, I would support AJ’s position in this circumstance.
-
But you really should go back to the source…
I branched to SZ 63 because of the “rant” aspect of the dicussion about SZ 26, not the “useless” aspect.
So HA!!!
:-D
-
Actually you were not the “source” in this example, as you never referred to any sea zone as “useless”. Mork read your rant and determined based on your rant that sz63 was useless, the same adjective he would use to describe sz26 (as is demonstrated by him saying “another usless”).
Nobody is suggesting Baghdaddy thought they were useless seazones.
For the record, I’ve never used either seazone, so they are both useless to me.
Rob
P.S. I’ve never played revised, so this whole forum is useless to me :-D
Suggested Topics
