Topics created by Dylan the Canadian

eBay.ca sucks.

We should make a giant outdoor set, like the giant chess sets you see in the mall.

@Dylan:

@allboxcars:

Actually it’s a re-print and I think the original rocks.

#661

What do you think a good price would be for it?

Well a few years ago my friend bought it for $35 at a mall.
But I’m sure this Edition will be more expensive only because prices have gone up.

#680

@The:

@Axisgirl:

Im new here…whats happening? I dont understand this topic

I’m not too sure myself but it sounds like some people are talking about ceasefires between individual powers during the course of the game, while others are talking about ending the game in a ceasefire or draw.

I’ve called for draws before when the game seems to go nowhere and it is two hours past midnight and no one is in the mood to keep up the fight.

Well by the rules I guess you can’t play cease fire, but really you can do whatever the hell you want.

USSR sent in some troops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

“Strength” 26,000

in 1 game, the americans tried to take tokyo twice but failed

@brisco:

We also need to remember that a single battleship piece does not represent a single ship, but a group of ships primarily composed of battleships.

Yes, that seems to be being forgotten, if I would of remembered that I wouldn’t of posted this (maybe.)

From what I have heard the Japs are too strong but I have not played Pac 40 enough to see if this is the case. I might have to have a sit down 1 on 1 game with myself to see if this is true.

If you want accuracy, you would need to introduce the concept of units ‘breaking’ and running before they are destroyed.  Squad Leader (Avalong Hill 1977) had this, some squads keep fighting when they are down 50% strength, others ‘break’ and run when damage hits 10%.  Of course each of the existing units when they need variable strengths compared to other nations units.  This would require a switch to dice with a greater range of values, I’d say minimum 10 sides, but lets use 2 10 sided like AD&D.  No way a soviet or german tank unit fights the same way as an allied unit.  The way the allies fought german tanks was using a squad of 4 allied versus a german tank.  It starts like this, the first allied tanks lights up like a torch and the remaining three start to manouver around the german as its turret rotated a bit slow.  So, allied tank #2 then #3 light up in flames and the 4th allied tank gets in behind the german and lets loose at point blank range in the poorly armoured rear of the German and manages to disable it.

New units would not fight as well as vetern units of course so you would have to keep track of the age of each unit then modify its combat values based on just aging and also exposure to combat.  Yeah cool, way more accurate, of course each countries turn would take a few hours and we would have to go back to cardboard units with the 3-4 % values representing the units abilities.  We would need zillions of these units for each combination of values.

In ‘set-piece’ battles the Japanese were getting slaughtered against the US.  Perhaps it because by 1943 the US was producing as many machineguns per month as the Japanese produced during the entire war.  I think the Japs having never faced trench warfare and the futility of charging into massed machineguns had no concpet with this type of warefare.  Moreover, the Japs never seemed to retreat so they had little ablity to learn lessons as nobody came back to HQ with information on what they faced.  I would think for accuracy this would have to be represent also with different strencth units.

Personally, I think AA has found a pretty good balance of accuracy and playability.

Germany, South Europe, West Europe, Finland-Norway, East Europe, Ukraine, Cacauses, Algeria, Libya, Ango Egypt-Sudan, French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa,  East Italian Africa, Belgian Congo, Kenya Rhodensia, South Africa, Japan, Machuria, Kwangtaung, French Indo China, Phillipines, Okinawa, East Indies, Borneo, New Guneia, Australia, New Zealand, China, Singkiang, Soviet Far East, Karelia, Hawaii, Yakutsk

Way to easy.

@Corbeau:

@oztea:

id actualy like to see them use the japanese mold
and alot of japanese equipment. It looks more 1930’s-esqe, like much of the french army of 1940

Oztea, the French tanks at the start of the war were more modern and superior to thoses of the germans, both in numbers and individual strenght. The french tank divisions fought hard in the Dardennes but the German had significant air superiority, almost if not 3 to 1. It’s the massive Bf-109/Stuka attacks on tanks and artillery positions that spelled doom for France on top of the fact they got totally surprised by a clever manoeuvre. Air superiority would later spell the same doom for Rommels division and even the Japanese Imperial Navy. The point here: There is no valid reason to use ‘‘1930’s esque equipment’’ for France and it’s certainly not why they got beaten.

Which is why I’m hoping the starting setup for France will have at least two tanks. And here’s to hoping they’ll have at least the British tank model.

@Wilson2:

The Canadian roundels are just for aesthetics - Larry said so.

Went thru the Global facts thread and I can’t see him saying that they’re only there for looks.

#725

The computer is so much better then any person player. I hate playing against a computer!

I don’t think there will be any Cdn Army units on the Pacific side.
Canada was totally KGF.

#565

The top one is the Third Reich’s Naval Ensign, and the bottom one is their normal flag. Same with Calvin’s British Flags

@LHoffman:

@UN:

Here’s the thing I want to know: when you’re only playing a game of Europe 1940, what will happen to the Soviet Pacific IPCs? Will a Soviet territory in Europe compensate for their absence, or will they simply be added in to the Soviet national income in Europe 1940?

Interesting question… I guess Russia is the only country this would pertain to because, although Britain and the US have territories on both maps, they would not necessarily need more money, if you follow me. Russia should probably get their full income, because they don’t play like a Britain or US and use half on one side of the globe and one half on the other side.

What about France? They have, what, French Indo-China in Pacific right? Would they get the income for that?

Well, we know the UK has a seperate income from its Pacific territories, including India. As for the United States and France…I’m really not sure.

I wonder if Krieg could enlighten us, but he’d probably get mauled by like 50 men in black, so…

@calvinhobbesliker:

I think part of Australia should be connected to Argentina.

That’s way too far away look at the map.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@idk_iam_swiss:

I accept…terms are set. I slap you with a dead fish!

I burn down the white house

Brits already did that

And British North America.

What?? British North America burned the White House?

With Britain, yes.

Since Canada was a British territory, this was a british act

It was somewhat a separate colony

Canada wasn’t given any autonomy until July 1, 1867, which is what Canada Day celebrates. The Burning of the White House took place during the War of 1812 in 1814.

I never said Canada, I said British North America.

Ah right of course, I really should not post so close to waking up!  So it was as I suspected, a defending plane may use a SINGLE movement to find a place to land, so no land in an adjcent SZ would be legal.  Thanks.