Help with Bridging needed

Ok if i was you i would get at least 5 transports and you can have at the least 2 men or 1 tank or 1 man and 1 tank or 1 man and 1 artillary in a single transport. Anyway you need Russia to pressure Germany in the following places: Belorussia, West Russia, Norway. Also make the UK pressure with only bombing raids the following place: Western Europe. Then while Germany is being attacked in the east and west, you will use your transports and send them to Algeria and Libya. After you take those 2 places and build up those 2 places, BE SURE TO DO THIS, as fast as you can push every single thing (from Algeria and Libya)  to Southern Europe. Then tell UK player to stop bombing raids and buy rockets and steal money from German factorys. Then in at the max of 3 turns there will be no more Germans. Ihave done this strategy 7 or 8 times and every time it was succsesful except once. So try that strategy um… hope if works for you. Thanks and also you can go to morrisongames.com and he will give you strategys that really WORK!! :-D

I would happily play allies against axis without bid, I’m pretty much done with AAR, as AA50 is much better, but if someone thinks axis have advantage in AAR then I will prove you otherwise.

TripleA, LL, no tech, real time.

Just enter the lobby and say you want to play axis without bid, you will get seriously pwned  :evil:  :lol: :evil: :-D

for very good reasons

Yep, totally legal.

@ncscswitch:

You must have missed a few of the games in the Games threads…

**NAVAL BATTLES DO NOT AND WILL NEVER WIN A GAME WHERE VICTORY IS DETERMINED BY CONTROL OF LAND TERRITORIES!**  …

Go ahead, play test it a few times.  You will quickly see what I mean.

Well, I agree and do understand your point. But it is sad that control of sea is not worth anything when history shows a different story. What if one included a rule for convoy raids! Try my rule for convoy raid in 2-3 games and then tell me if you think the game becomes more interesting. I just want you to try this rule to see what I mean. Navy will be more important, but with the twist of Axis favor!!! Then you will be more open for the discussion of cheaper navy!

Convoy Raids

The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

From Denmark you can´t order directly without paying atlantic tax. The price will then be the same as if I bought it in Denmark.
Therefor I need one that can send it from US.

Right now all my expieience is coming from Xeno’s game, and the original MB game, but the principals are the same. Just need a little tinkering. I wish the Xeno game was still fun. I guess I’ll play you with the allies next time

Heh I really can’t understand why both you and donmoody keep using the word “arbitrary” like it has any meaning. Arbitrary means without reason, and I’m sure that the designer had some sort of reason to change the rules. Larry doesn’t like changing them very much, and for him to have done so in the first place means that he was receiving some sort of complaint or player feedback, which is more than a valid reason to tweak the game to be more understandable/accessible. Doing something for a reason, even if some people consider it “dumbing it down”, is not arbitrary. You can use the words “superfluous” or “irrelevant” or “unnecessary”, etc, but using “arbitrary” is just a wrong use of the English language. You can say the change did not improve the game or is not needed, but to say that there is no reason behind the change (arbitrary) is entirely a subjective and uninformed view of the matter. I would really like to know why both of you like to incorrectly use this term, it really bothers me. I can respect that you think the change wasn’t needed or that you liked the previous ruling, but to say something else entirely different, that it had no reason behind it, just makes no sense to me.

I can just as easily say that I think it’s more intuitive for fighters to land in seazones for carriers than it is for them to land in territories with complexes. To me, hey that’s where the carrier is going to be, so why not just have the fighter there already so you don’t forget to redeploy onto it? Why move units during the mobilization phase? It could very well be that you’re smarter and both are equally intuitive to you, but again, this does not make the change arbitrary (only to you perhaps). I’m sure Larry changed it based on player feedback, and since it is a game after all that requires changes and tweaks, that is hardly a reason to call it arbitrary.

Actually, it gives 5 spaces of movement either way because suddenly you can ‘land’ in an illegal spot.  Your range has still been extended by one.

By the way, more flawed reasoning. Extending a fighter’s range by one by allowing it to land in an illegal spot does not increase its range to 5. Prior to “illegal” landing, you could theoretically only move 3 spaces, since the 4th would be illegal. Thus, with “illegal” landing, you have increased the range to the full 4, not 5. You can never make it look like a fighter is moving 5 spaces under LHTR, while you can do so under box rules (deploying on a territory with a complex). And the space is nt really seem illegal because a carrier is going to be there, which is consistent with the other rules about fighter/carrier landing.