@krieghund Your answer and the FAQ are super helpful – thank you!
SEA ZONE-26, what the…
-
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
-
I have seen people use Sz 63 multiple times as Japan invading Alaska and sometimes W Can. Although I don’t use it I have seen it used however I have never seen Sz 26 been used.
-
@Mork:
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?)
Hey mate, I was only raving on in a humorous way. No one is seriously arguing it’s an important seazone. Brazil stays empty in 99% of all games and there isn’t much naval cruising going on down there. It might as well have been a mutual zone between sz24 and sz26 in terms of tactics/strategy. We’re just having some fun at the expense of your “silly post”. :-)
-
@Sankt:
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!
HAHAHAHAHA
There was more than that, but that was the force in SZ26. All around the atlantic, heading south, were 3 more subs and a destroyer, plus a bomber on brazil. They really didnt want me to take out their transports.
-
You start from a false assumption…
It is SZ24 that is useless. It needs to be absorbed by the superior SZ26, thus doing away with the pretender SZ24
:mrgreen:
Suggested Topics
