Topics created by gamerman01

@gamerman01:

OK, yeah, I’ll call it a game.
Thanks again - I appreciate the chance to play a new opponent.
Good game, and well played
Now you can underestimate me for our next game  :-)

I will go ahead and post the result

c u soon

@oztea:

Krieg corrected the US one about Normandy/Bordeux

It is supposed to be if the US has it.

Thanks - that’s the kind of thing I was asking for.

This gives Japan a huge incentive to invade Russia the round that Germany invades in order to deny the Russians that NO, and in so doing changes the outcome of our AAP 40 games where Japan has no need to worry about Russia.  So, while this rule is outrageous it could also aid the Allies by forcing Japan to change the current script of a J3/4 taking of India.

@Dylan:

Whoever voted the last one is on crack!

I thought it might be interesting if I made that a poll choice, and sure enough, someone picked it  :-)

Thanks, maxo
No, unzipping is no problem.  One of them can’t even get the download going.

The other one, we finally got it working, but I’m not sure what combination of maneuvers finally got the job done.

No, they’re not close by, otherwise I would do it for them myself.

@idk_iam_swiss:

That wasn’t a battle…it was UK pearl harbor. They flew in dropped bombs and ran away. Thats like calling Pearl harbor a battle. which is wasn’t.

In fact, the Japanese used Taranto as a model for planning Pearl Harbor

@gamerman01:

@Bardoly:

The only 1 tech applied per unit is a really good thought, but then are you saying that one’s long range jet fighters could only choose 1 of the two techs with which to be upgraded each turn?  One’s infantry could only be upgraded by 1 tech (improved artillery, paratroopers, or mechanized infantry)?  One’s aa guns could only be regular aa with rockets or radar aa, but not both in the same round of play?

Good point.  I’ll let the guy with the idea speak up, but I think that yes, this is doable.  It would be a house rule, anyway, so the players could make these things out.

My answer would be that while Long Range is definitely quite game-changing, is shouldn’t necessarily preclude other techs, but I definitely agree that if an air transport (Oops, I meant “bomber”.   :-P) is loaded with troops, I really don’t think that it could also be loaded down with extra bombs at the same time, so I WOULD go for saying that one must choose whether an individual bomber is a Heavy bomber or a Paratrooping bomber each turn.

Totally agree.  Heavy bombing paratroopers is over the top, and how could they be loaded with both anyway?

Exactly!  But Long Range Heavys or Long Range Paratrooping bombers I would definitely allow.

@gamerman01:

Good, thoughtful post, Crit.  I just finished a game with neutered tech, and I didn’t like it.  We didn’t get much (probably because we didn’t invest as much, because there wasn’t any awesome tech) and it wasn’t a factor until I got paras with Germany (was not neutered) and took over the UK.

I must add in that game I has no other choice than letting UK poorly defended against paras or I would lose naval race! You also spent 3 dices on tech so I have no complains being paratrooped. I risked and I lost, nothing to complain

Another possibility for HBs which SBR  is that they only hit on 1-4 which means they max at 8.  I’m sure not all bombs hit their targets.  Also consider capping the total damage at 1-1.5 the value of the territory.

+1, Kilukru

Yes, that series of moves deserves its own name, that’s for sure.

So far, I think UK has been my favorite.  I love the challenge of trying to come up with strategies to use and coordinate it’s far-flung pieces and territories to make a final impact on the outcome.  Well-played UK is the key to Allied victory IMHO!

@Adlertag:

@Captain:

The recreation of Poland as a state was welcomed by the people living there, and they fought pretty darned hard against the German occupation.

I dont want to be negative, and are just curious more than anything, butt since you are a history teacher from New Zealand, did the Maori’s fight hard against the British occupation, or did they welcome the brits as liberators ? And how about the Aborigins in Australia, or the Zulu’s in South Africa, or the Indians in North America, or the black slaves from Africa that was sailed on british ships to their new home in U$A’s cotton fields and mines. Did all this natives fight against British exploitement, or did they recognize the brits as great liberators ? As I said, just curious. And I wont pull the string and ask if the Polish was happy to be liberated by allies in 1945. My country too was liberated by the Red Army, so of course we all are very greatful to comrade Stalin, our belowed hero.

Ok?

What point are you trying to make here?

Race Relations in New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi, the Kingitangi movement, Musket Wars and New Zealand wars are very complex issues. Some Maori did fight against the Europeans, but NZ was never invaded as such. It was brought into the empire with a treaty that recognized the unique status of Maori as native peoples. There have been really bad moments in NZ’s history, but work is being done to redress some of the grievances the Tangita whenua have endured in an effort to restore things that were illegally seized from Iwi in NZ. Becuase the government here recognizes the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori goups (Iwi) have legal grounds to make claims against actions that went on.

NZ is not perfect, but i fail to see what this has to do with the invasion of Poland.

Comparing those other colonial incidents above to NZ history is misguided, comparing them to the invasion of Poland is just sad.

Of course, you get more posts if you post! And the best way to post is by playing in the forum game :)

Send me a message if you ever want to play a friendly game. I’m still trying to tune an Allied strategy to win against competent Axis :)

Robert

yes but then you’ll get a chance to shoot down his bombers with something that rolls def at at least 2.  unless you have some bomber on bomber action going on…

Why not divide France into France/Vichy with the Vichy in the south and France in the north?  France can be worth 4 IPC, Vichy worth 2 IPC and now the Allies don’t automatically liberate all of France with a successful D-Day and Italy cannot bombard off the coast of Gibraltar.

I have played both the 41 and 42 set-ups and found that the 42 is a little more balanced and the Allies usually win, but the Axis can win if well played.
The 41 set-up does favor the Axis but we have won as the Allies in a long and hard battle that takes a long time but eventually turned around. In that game UK bought a factory on India T1 and diverted resources that way to slow down Japan, and USA and Russia (a little) went after Japan right away aiding UK as best they can. Germany, Italy and Japan were making way too much money by T3, but smart decisions allowed the Allies to slowly climb back and turn things around by T7, so it can be done. China was no help at all so they are week. Victory cities is the key. Do not worry about crushing the Axis completely just getting the VC you need.
I agree that China does not start with enough and/or is not getting enough men per turn. That part alone would slow Japan down enough to make it that much more balanced. :-)
We play with the rules as is. :-D