Topics created by Idi Amin

Now that depends, are you looking anything like your picture ?

Glad to see ya still visit us once in a while……don’t like to see the community shrink

They do. Have to be taken as casualties now.

I like the ANZAC  Brazil thing – takes some resources and a lot of time – but my Kiwi’s usually are stranded anyway ----
You will prob. have the extra 2 income all game.

The real reason NOT to do it is to deny the USA the spot.

As USA move ground troops down to Central America before a DOW
As soon as you are in the war Pounce on Venezuela
( fighting 2 troops for 2 income is the best ROI you will find )
Next turn Activate Brazil

…oops just saw the hitch ALL neutrals go pro-axis!

(We house rule neutral blocks so if a SA neutral is taken only the SA neutrals change status - same for european and Middle Eastern blocks)

Maybe he’s tidy and he wants to put the right units in the right box after the game is finished. If so: draw a small dot on the bottom of each unit.

… not for both East and West of course  :lol:

@Idi:

@Razor:

I think that NO is historical correct.

The DEI produced a lot of crude oil during WWII and that made it valuable. But you have to refine crude oil into gas and diesel before you can put it on your tanks and trucks, so since DEI is a short way from Japan, this oil was more valuable to Japan, that could put it to good use in no time, than to USA or Europe that had to sail the crude oil to the other side of the globe in order to refine it to gas and diesel, and then sail it back again to use it in trucks and tanks at the frontier.

So your trying to tell me Australia had no refineries?

I’m sure they did, but what was their refining capacity. I think the Allies are stacked enough, without the extra NO

@oztea:

whoops, i meant january-febuary 194_3_

which means the 42 setup is going to have to back track

im all befuddled now

The operation you described (Manstein’s attempt to break the entrapment of the 6th Army at Stalingrad) actually took place in December 1942. If you’re looking into 1943 then you’d have the 3rd Battle of Kharkov (the Germans taking the territory of Rostov) on Feb or even Kursk, although that’s by late summer 1943.

as italy i got attacked by uk and uk-planes landed on cyprus. kind of annoying those islands. that´s why i occupy them if necessary just for protecting unprotected italian transports. helped a lot letting survive them.

but: it is no standard move to get these islands, though the denial of the NO is a good point to consider… :D

If they hold up the gaps, they are defensive in a sense.  I like them to get back from the coast, consolidate and crawl back to Moscow or threaten Japanese gains in the north.  I don’t like a straight run back unless Germany skips sea lion for a pure barbarossa

Looking for A&A Global 1940 players in anywhere in Alberta, Canada

@Maddog77:

What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile. Do some of you need a time out? Or do I have to get the belt out?  :-D

As far as the “rule” goes, I like the current 3-3-2-6. Only for the defense factor. But when I play the original, it’s 3-2-2-5. So I don’t rely on tanks for defense as much as I do a stack of Infantry.

Amazing! when tanks defend at three I use them for defense
when tanks defend at two I use infantry for defense

@Gargantua:

you seemed to have forgotten that his subs could pass through the strait of Gibraltar without owning Gibraltar

I didn’t forget the rule, I was wholly unaware of it’s exsistence.  I believe it was an Alpha addition.  Yes a mistake.   And no you didn’t wipe the fleet, you wholly damaged it,  And you still failed to control gibraltar, or keep a significant amount of subs in the med.

And it certainly didn’t stop the Axis from winning that game either, so yea, the strategy is BAD.

You should have been building men and transports instead of Subs.

The straits rule is clearly stated in the manual, there is even an example that mentions Gibraltar.

For the record; that was the F2F game in Aldergrove just prior to Xmas not the game in this post. I (Idi Amin) was playing the UK not the USA. You (Gargantua) played Germany and Italy. It was the USA player (the host and a rookie) who completely decimated your spiffy Italian fleet East of Gibraltar. Control of Gibraltar is a moot point when attacking with sub fleets into the Med.

Axis victory you say?? Wow what game were you playing in?!? And as far as an Axis victory goes….I recall NO Sealion, Japan having NO navy AND air force, China HUGE, ANZAC/India controlling ALL the money islands, Britain building tanks in South Africa, Russia holding Norway and Finland and Italy with NO FLEET. If you call that was an Axis victory will you please give me a ride in your invisible helicopter sometime?

OOOO better be careful Gar. I’ll fill in the blank. PIG. umm if this is against the rules can I have a warning?

I agree Xeno 1939 game was bad ass
russkie infantry at 2$ was pretty brutal
but it was fun to use each countries special units
I think us fighters were 10$ if I remember right

@Idi:

@Cmdr:

Happy VD day….I have to go work to put together a frazzin meal for myself cause hubby’s out playin sailor…

^_^

VD day…that’s frackin funny CJ. Can any fruit today?

Nope, but then, it’s almost Spring, not Fall…can fruit in the Fall…

@Cmdr:

With most people you would be fine doing that.  With a few people, you would literally have to stick with the rule and this is a prime example of why these people require the letter of the law, so to speak.

Although, I would agree that:

Number of games = n
As n increases towards infinity
The limit on the number of games that Germany is in position to take Moscow just before Japan declares war on Russia, and Russia or Japan have not yet declared war is zero.

I could be wrong, we do not, yet, have enough data to support my statement, but I leave it to you to disprove my hypothesis.

You are right

@Cmdr:

Accept, you’re down 4 defense units making the sacking of NSW easier.

The American fleet will help things out

That was precisely my thought, McLovin.  I feel, at this point in time, Germany needs a method to produce warships in the Med.  If one allows Italy to take S. France, this - essentially - means that Germany has to build a complex in Yugoslavia.  This may be a good idea in the long run anyway, making it a little easier to reinforce the south against Russia. (OOB this could be a major complex, Alpha 2 I do not think it can.)

I feel an Airbase would be nice to accompany the complex in Yugoslavia, if you go this route, since then you can put 6 fighters in the air for cover air patrol.  But again, if you have S. France, I think you would not need this. (Little harder since you have to build Italy in one zone and Germany in another instead of combined, but much cheaper.)

I don’t see any conflict.  Sea zone 35 is not adjacent to any Japanese-controlled territories or islands.

One needs to be prepared for every outcome.  That’s all I am saying.