Triplea 0.9.1 beta

I do understand what it does look like and I have just one suggestion play it out.  :-D  I also bought 6 tanks and 1 Fighter and that won me a lot of games.  I have also bought 1 Carrier and 3 Transports G1 and placed in SZ 5 and that won a lot as well.

To add to the fighters prowess each time you use them it is like using 4 tanks that if used right will seldom die.  Count that up over 2-5 turns.  I am not a fan of playing by IPC worth I thought I would just throw that out there.  I am a fan of position.  I think IPC’s are only a tool to fight with and not the fight  :wink:

Thanks for the input and I will play some more land games to see where that idea is coming from.  :-D

Another thought would be about which is going to be easier to replace for you country.  Subs are great fodder and replacing them is easier on the pocketbook than FIG’s or CV’s, and especially if you are Japan.  US can afford to usually replace that kind of loss, but most other countries can’t.

For 72 IPC’s, I’d go with a mix like ones mentioned earlier, with DD’s, CV’s (+FIG) & SS’s.  If split over a couple rounds, maybe SS/DD first in case of early strike

As I said above I’m not that keen on sea lion myself. and if the conditions are unfavorable (like Russia took Ukr) than to hell with it.

Additionally I want to remind you that I would spend only 1 die on tech so germany can build new troops on G1 for 35 ipc.

Correct.  TRNs do not have to be FULL.

@Craig:

@tekkyy:

Yeah I think over time the rules will become more logical.

Depend on which post you read (at harrisdesign) LHTR 2.0 was just short of some changes.
To me it should have been called LHTR 1.4 or something.

There are reasons (that will become quite evident eventually) why an thorough edit good was embarked upon and put forth as v2.0.

Craig

You know, I used the same reason at a bar posing as a government agent.

“Young miss, there are reasons - that will become quite evident eventually - why you must remove your underwear right here right now.”  8-)

“Orly?”  :?

“Yarly.  We is teh gub-mint.  We don’t lie.”  8-)

“Uhm, okay?”  :|

I’ve seen fast carriers help in 2 specific situations:

1)  Japan forgets that the Pearl Harbor Carrier and fighters can get to SZ 61 resulting in the loss of all of Japan’s unprotected transports.
2)  America builds one last carrier and two fighters for that assault on SZ 60 (SZ 55 to SZ 60 is 3 spaces.) Or even just buys two fast carriers so the 4 fighters in W. Canada can reach SZ 60.

But how often does that happen?

How much better off would naval warfare in the Pacific be if America had 3 fighters on the flight deck of a carrier, or could recover a bomber on an empty carrier?

It is not really an issue since Russia can land up to 2 ftrs on London before G goes.
Any Allied player that sees a bid of 1 trn to sz 5 and does not land at least 1 Russian ftr on London is asking to get diced by Germany.

London should have at least:  2 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm, 3 ftrs, 1 bom
(bom can even be taken in the first wave of casualties)

With no aa hits for Ger, UK wins about 80% here.

With 4 ftrs, it is up to about 95%.

Except that you are forgetting that Japan will have around $40 IPC aimed at Russia also while the UK and US safely bomb Germany and rely on Russia to fight the ground war.  Which would work… except for those 14 divisions per turn coming at Moscow from the east…