Topics created by 666

@ShadowHAwk:

Can i agree with the fact that in the current rules the carrier does NOT have to move if the fighter was destroyed, but at the same time not agree with the rules itself ?

Because it is not logical that the carrier does not start its move to meet up with the figher at the same time since it it start after the figher completed its move in a normal situation it would not be there on time to catch the aircraft.

Basicaly the time it takes for the carrier to get there is the same as the time it takes for the fighter to get there and since the carrier needs to be there at the same time in order for the pilot to remain dry it logical should start sailing in the general direction of the pickup point.

Since the Fighter in question could be “flying” from Gibraltar to the Caucus in one turn, I don’t think the model of aircraft taking off and landing as part of a days flight operations on a Carrier quite applies.  Especially since Naval aircraft are built very differently from land based aircraft yet the game makes no difference between the two.

I got nothing. The liks I remember using from the PBEM help threads here are not working this morning. PM me your e-mail and I can send you the files off my home PC. If I remember it was one file that needed switched out in the folder where you put Battlemap. I should be able to copy that file and send it too you.

Yep… I had that argument with Tri in one of our earlier games…  I was using the box rules which implied somethign else, he was using LHTR, which are explicit.

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.

(sorry, send it too early, one more time)

I like the idea for G1 to tran to support baltic fleet.

But, what if UK1 chose to sacrifice its planes and attac. You will be left with  1 DD and 1, maybee to tran.

Schould G2 then reinforce navy again, and with what?

If not, the next round new UK plans (and maybee navy, if G planes are not too thtathening) and US airforses can take this easy out?

I think the conlusion is to go for africa for G, but at as low cost as possible.

Many talk about supporting aftica with indian troops for UK, but isnt this to leave India open, and make J walk through Asia? My problem playing Russia is always to keep the J out, when they come for full om R door in round 5-7, with plenty thanks and planes, then R falls… I guess with leaving India this happens even quicker? And, do the 2 UK troops from india make a big differens in Afr, easy replacements from G will take them out as long as med fleet is alive, or?

And, maybee this is for another line, but, how for R to slow down J in east?