Suggestion: Official Error correction

@AlphaAeffchen:

@ Kreuzfeld. You are totally right but the problem is if i do this buys for UK they can do nothing for many rounds in Europe. Italy gets very strong in the med. The USA have to fight Japan. The allies in Europe  are getting a problem because UK is isolatet because of only inf buy and USA has to Focus on Japan (but you are right i have to do this buy for UK).

In the scenario I made, US will only have to buy 2 bombers on US 1 (in most scenarios) and move 3 of the US planes to canada. They are capable of going towards Japan if Germany don’t buy the TTs in G2.

If germany doen’t buy 3 TTs on G1 (and save their money instead), I am doing taronto, and buy 6 inf and 1 ftr and lose no time in the Med. If they do buy 7 art on G1, I am buying a mIC in egypt and 5 inf in UK.

The only “loosing investments” UK has is : 3 inf instead of ftr on UK1, no taronto on UK 1 (I think 3 useless german transports might be too steep a price for germany to pay for this result).

The other losing investment is the canadian airbase and a few allied TTs on UK2/US2, however, they are more than offsett by the 9 german TTs that has to be bought to force me to do it.

The advantage I get for this plan is that no german should try for the sealion after US1, then that is just a lost game if they buy the 9 TTs. This means that I can (if I want to) send everything US builds against japan, including US turn 1 build. I am still taking Persia on UK1, so I can build the mIC on UK2 and shut down the middle east as fast as possible. My favourite way of playing the UK is to have 1 mIC in each of iran, iraq and egypt, and to use them to buy volumes of inf and mechs for a giant uk landarmy that can reach where i want them

I still think the game is favouring the axis, all I was commenting on was that in a J1, it is so much cheaper for the allied to prevent the sealion, so it will never happen.

@calvinhobbesliker Japan_1942_NO.png Germany_1942_NO.png Russia_1942_NO.png Italy_1942_NO.png UK_India_1942_NO.png France_1942_NO.png China_1942_v1_NO.png ANZAC_1942_NO.png US_1942_NO.png

The Axis should not win unless you really out maneuver the allies. By 1942, the axis were really in a bad spot since they had not made enough gains before the US onslaught came. If you want a historically accurate game, meaning not having to play it the way the war really went, but being to make your own decisions with the conditions that existed in 1942, and want a balanced game, 1942 is not the year to start.

I would love to see a 1939 game, but I wonder if that would be too long. The 1940 2nd edition in my opinion is where you should stay. I know there is a 1941 game but have not played it.

bump… :-D

My USA purchase is always 1 Carrier for New York, and 1 Carrier, 1 Battleship for San Fran. The only exception is if there is a U-Boat threat in the Atlantic right away, (destroyers and scramble fighters) or if Japan goes pearl harbour (subs and scramble fighters).

I don’t see any conflict.  Sea zone 35 is not adjacent to any Japanese-controlled territories or islands.

Fighters that are damaged roughly lose around half their abilities @: attack: 2, defense: 2, Movement: 2, they also gain 5 damage points. The reason to this change, was so that players would feel more enthused to strategic bomb knowing they wouldn’t lose a fighter, instead, they could continue using the fighter just at a damaged level. The downgrade in its abilities would be a temporary result until the fighter is repaired at half the price (5 IPCs) of a new fighter.

Fighters that missed or didn’t get hit, are free to return to base like in the OoB rules.

One other thing i forgot to mention, bombers that are not accompanied with escorts are considered ‘locked on’ therefore are subject to interceptor fire @ 1d6 of damage per defending interceptor.

These rules make bombers and interceptors very powerful units. It encourages players to strategic bomb with 2d6 of damage, however there is also the risk of interceptor ‘lock on’ that would minimize the bombers full 2d6 damage potential.

@hewhoisnickel:

Jesus, you two bicker like a married couple, and in every thread on the forums, it seems.

:lol: