You would need to ferry 6 infantries for them to be worth the cost of a mechanized, if they are to only carry infantry. I find that hardly doable.
Carrying artillery does have value though. However, 5 Ipcs to speed up 1 artillery. That is a steep price.
I think that they would be a balance unit, if their move was set a 2. However, I don’t see myself buying any.
That doesn’t seem bad to me.
Although, why don’t you use 1940-style mechanized infantry?
Submarines alone should definitely not be allowed to siege.
I honestly got fed up of having a completely useless power on the board after a couple rounds. Although France did prove useful in one of my games (see my post here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19166.60).
Here is my Idea for a rule:
Whenever the last territory on mainland France is conquered by an Axis power the Vichy regime is installed.
Roll a dice for every European-board French territory.
on 1-4 the territory becomes Vichy France, place a german marker upon it as well as a German infantry.
on 5-6 the territory becomes Free France, place a French (free French if you own them) marker on it.
The number of territory that can join either side is caped at 5 out 7, exlcuding French guinea.
If French Guinea becomes Vichy, place a German marker on it but no infantry.
French Indo China never becomes Vichy.
Free France now behaves likes China.
They can build only land units (of any type), and transports.
Ok, I really do feel retarded for asking that, and I am certain that it has been asked many times before.
I will spare you the back story but the the question is the following:
-Do submarines fire a sneak attack every round where a destroyer is not present, or only on the first round?
Sorry for that…
I like these POW rules.
I think that once the territory containing the POW is liberated/captured half the POWs are freed, and can be replaced by infantry units.
Also, I think that POWs should be placed on a territory adjacent to the one in which they are captured. That has two reasons. First it is more accurate, in the sense that prisoners don’t teleport. Second, it is more fun since it would allow the other power a better chance at liberating the POWs before they reach a heavily guarded enemy capital.
Optional Rule:
This is not very ethical, but it is pretty historically accurate: Japan can decide to execute prisoners.
Twilight Struggle has to be one of my favourite board games.
The mechanics are fairly simple, per se. However the real strategy lies in using and timing your use of cards well.
Plus, it is incredibly fun to throw down a card and yell at your opponent:
MISTER GORBACHEV, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!!
Just overkilling some questions:
In alpha 3, europe only.
-What is the income of the USSR?!
-What is the bonus income of the USA, from entering war?
-Is it balanced?!
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149
I take it these are 3.9?
Thanks Garg.
I really think that introducing A bombs defeats the purpose of this game.
Plus, when the first A bomb was used, it automatically won the war.
So if you really want to have an A bomb rule, whoever gets it first should just grab the automatic win.
I really like that idea, I think it is fantastic and will really help making every game different.
If I may make a few comments:
-Your deep historical knowledge might be acting as a disadvantage. By that I mean that you guys might be trying to make too many cards. I do feel 3 cards at a time would be enough, per nation. The game is already very complex. Inserting 5 cards per nation, for a total of 5/6 majors and 3 minors will make the game virtually unplayable.
A suggestion:
-Why not start with one policy (very strong avantage), and draw an additional general every 3 turns.
In sum I am in favour of simplification, otherwise we might end up playing an hybrid of Twilight Struggle and Axis Global.
Gents,
It has been a while since I last posted on this forum. The reason being that I played gave some other games a chance, in the past few months. The experience has been positive and I am now a considerably better rounded board game player.
My situation is the following, I have no longer access to my Global board, and my friend has just bought Europe 1940. His only AA experience is playing 1942, and I am rather experienced at 1940.
I was wondering if it would be a good idea to start using alpha 3, with the Europe only board. Are they balanced for Europe only?
I was also considering maintaining original AA gun and convoy rules, and I am a big fan of the “growing free French” house rule.
Any thoughts?
PS: I am sure the question has been asked countless times. Sorry…
Well do you think, I am beaten? I am not sure, though. Should we play a couple more rounds.
Well I think I’m beat. Don’t you?
BEL taken with loss of 1 infantry.
NCM
2inf SUKR -> BRY
2 fgt YAK -> VOLO
2 mech YAK -> TIM
placements
3 tanks NOV
1 tac RUS
3 inf SUKR
fucking hell.
I fucked up, and was lazy to do all my units.
here is the rest
A
Rolls: 14@2 6@1; Total Hits: 614@2: (4, 6, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 4, 4, 3, 5, 1, 1)6@1: (2, 6, 2, 6, 3, 1)
D
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 11@2: (2)
BAttle of BEL
A
Rolls: 5@3; Total Hits: 05@3: (6, 6, 4, 6, 6)
D
:aaa1@2:
I am so idiotic. I hadn’t seen that the planes from z112 could attack STR…. Well done captain hook…
I think you might have won this game, mate. let’s continue though.
USSR 5
IPC 38
3 tank
1 tac
3 inf
CM
8 inf, 6 art, 4 mech, 3arm BRY -> BEL
1 mech, 2 arm RUS -> BEL
OK. I am going to play my turn now.
Where did you place your minor IC with Italy?!