New Himalayas for Global

@bakerbei

Haven’t played 42 hardly at all. His other mods, 41 and 39, especially 41, seem very balanced. I think if you haven’t played it much, I’d just roll with no bid for starters.

@magnum I’m not yet convinced that letting them pick what they want, and potentially the same thing, is a problem. If anything, this will give them the opportunity to try out different strategies, involving research, and see how they work.

@gen-manstein yea i’d almost go at it the other way and make the CAs and fast BBs go 3. But that will create it’s own issues. Besides 19 knots is over 20 mph anyway

Axis gets full advantage in the early turns, this forces them to get more aggression there for no reason for them to use peace as a shield and if I am playing as the allies, I’d rather have them be aggressive at turn 1 than turn 4.

As you can see CWO, Japan is more or less stationed in Saigon and the Philippines protecting there money islands they have control of after 4 turns.
Also they seem to be buying a few more bombers due to there range from airbases in Saigon and the Philippines.

This setup does change the game for Japan and the allies. Right now it is making UK spend more money in the Pacific as far as more ships.
It also has made the US buy more in Europe due to UK has no control in Africa and not spending any money in Europe side. The US right now is doing Operation Torch for support in Africa but may shift to London with troops. With the UK Pacific ship buy support, its seems to give US a little more room to focus some troops else where.

UK is not split up as for as the money goes. They start with 75 icps and can buy anywhere. If this was a split economy ( UK, Canada,  FEC, and Anzac ) it would probably make the US buy all in the Pacific because UK Pacific side would be in a world of hurt with Japan focusing everything down by thee islands.

Just thought you like to see how it was going with the territory value changes and moves.

Wild Bill wrote,

“Like I said before although Russia needs help, I’m not in favor of Russia getting an NO bonus if the western allies make landings stick in Europe. The Russians are already getting the benefit of Germany fighting two fronts, therefore axis will have less to spend on the eastern front (that is the real bonus).”

Would you be willing to test the Russian NO before simply scrapping the idea? I think both ideas, the Russian NO and the Lend Lease idea might be a way to end the Allies “bidding.” By the time an Allied landing can stick, its usually too late for the Axis to really dislodge them anyways. This might help to end a game that really takes too long. However, it might result in quicker landings that actually fail, (resulting in no NO for Russia), and then actually make Germany stronger, because they secured “fortress” Europe.

In another thread by YG, he asked about changing the turn order to let the US go last. That might also be a good way to end the bidding process. Also, it sounds historical since the US was the last major country to enter the war.

We have a new Tech  for AA 1942  The USAF has a new MOAB  ( mother of all bombs  )  It is a 21,000 pound MOAB  whish is replacing the 15,000 pound ( Daisy cutter ) which was used in Iraq and afghanistan.  I feel sorry for any that gets hit by this.  But remember  WAR IS UGLY

This can be a great asset to any world power that gets its hands on this baby.  this is truely a game ender

I have included a pic of the MOAB

Good luck all
MOAB.jpg

@Cobert:

It’s like when people try to incorporate the rules from Europe involving bomber escorts into Revised or AA50 - with each turn representing a period of several months and each territory representing miles upon miles of land or entire countries, I think it’s insane that they want a rule that makes a unit shaped like a fighter accompany a unit shaped like a bomber to actually mean that there are fighter escorts with the bomber.

Well I can see your point ref scale of the action and so I’d support the geographic boundary with no house rule for CAP or any FTRs defending adjacent space etc.

But otherwise, I’m leaning towards the optional escort / interceptor rule as it reflects the operational decision on whether you use your fighter resources defensively or base them forward to project air cover.