Thas why i when i heard about this game and no pics where out yet i assumed italy would have 1 bship.
This looks accurate since the italian navy was the same size as the english navy in ww2 in the med. sea.
The only problem i can see is german and italian turns are not the same and if you look at the setups more german troopz are in lybia and algeria this will be a problem!
Italy and german troops will have to make an agreement like germany defends italy while italy goes all out on africa?
Ok! i just dont want fighters immune to aa guns 5 d or 4 attack i dont care as long as never immune
Switch could be back also great more beer talk thanyou for switching the conversation@U-505:
It was all about principles for him. After careful consideration of the situation, and without going into any detail, I was, and still am, inclined to agree with him.
And yes, Jen, his actions do seem a bit excessive. However, quite a few of us, myself included, take this game very seriously, especially at tournament time. There have been plenty of rules entanglements and extreme behavior in the past and his actions weren’t surprising, out of character, or entirely unwarranted, either.
Knowing that many of us own firearms and drink heavily during the games, it’s probably a good thing that they don’t occur face to face. :lol:
thanks :?
i like that idea of how 3 fronts and i agree belorussia is a powerful spot for the germans to have.
Anyways maybe you should check out my house rules forum in europe a few nice ones and strats for navies!
Another nice trick that i like to use is no blitzing africa because of the sand
the allies are not allowed to blitz either to give the germans a chance to leave a territory unoccupied and the allies can take it but not do a squeeze and amke them lose some nice income (also i was russia and i survived from this massive battle lucky for me dic was in my favour and the last round i smoked him and he would have retreated but…. i was so lucky almost all my inf. got hits! and i went eats poland to rumania and then he had to divert forces for that and could not bundle enough men to attack me at leningrad which was just strong enough to hold at the time
House Rules!
They always add flare like what you were saying attack on russia only formidable until japan attacks them which would be really historical and maybe making territories like “midway” worth an ipc for the axis and not for the allies love house rules like that
I chose jet fighters attack 4 because defense would be to high, and immune give me a brake immunity should not happen at all so all who put that for immunity to aa guns x that out you people chose the worst decision ever. fighters should be vunerabel to aa guns no matter what! :evil:
I thikn 2 things for the 1942 setup which is usa has men germany is gettting ready for the next assualt for russia and great britian taking more interest in india/pacific
Great thanks :-(
you will help us alot
WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!@timerover51:
I, for one, would be dead set against boosting ANY Pacific island group to 2, and I am not thrilled with giving most of them even one. In my house rules for A&A Pacific, I take away the IPC for the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands and give them to Japan. I do give one IPC to New Caledonia because of its nickel production, and to offset having the Dutch as a separate player with the Dutch East Indies to draw on, and boost New Zealand to 2 IPC for the same reason. As for sea zones generating income, I like the idea, but putting it into practice is another thing.
Take the Gulf of Mexico for an example. Since offshore oil production was already taking place prior to WW2, you could easily justify an IPC value of 2 or 3, in conjunction with the fishing resources and commercial trade. However, does a German submarine in the Gulf give the Germans the IPC value, or does it simply deny the US the IPC? Giving the Germans the IPC is ludicrous on the face of it, but denying the US the IPC because a sub is present seems a bit much. Same thing could hold true for the Sea of Japan, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea. The best option is either use the convoy set-up from A&A Pacific and Europe, or go with specific recipient of the IPC with the requirement that to deny the IPC production to the recipient, a surface warship has to be present.
@Subotai:
It’s quite obvious that the reason why KGF is the most used strat is because US must build expensive units which will gain little money if US decides to go after Jap in the pacific. SZ worth ipc is an option, also making ipc a virtual value which not only represents industrial power, mostly in western/eastern Europe before and during WW2, but ipc value also does to a certain degree already represent political power and strategic important factors, like Norway is worth 3 ipc in AAR, China+Sink is worth 4 ipc… now that is fun for me as I’m Norwegian, but then the whole ipc element should be reconsidered when making different mods, or other A&A variants.
As for getting more combat in the Pacific, Subotai is correct. Building a navy from scratch is expensive, and if the US really had to start from scratch in WW2, the Pacific would not have seen near the combat that it did. However, the US did not start from scratch. You want more combat in the Pacific, then give the US the fleet that it actually had in 1941/42. Based on the scaling for the Axis navies, give the US 3 Carriers with 2 fighters each, 3 Battleships, at least 6 or more destroyers, and 2 submarines. For A&A50, add 3 or 4 cruisers. Then give the US the ability to build 2 transport automatically every turn to represent the enormous merchant shipbuilding effort of the US. The US Navy was built to fight a war in the Pacific, and was larger than the Japanese Navy, although from the game, you would be hard pressed to realize that. The British Royal Navy should have more ships as well. Both navies should be larger than the Japanese Navy. If you do not give the US and UK more ships, then quit complaining about not having any combat in the Pacific. Given the way the game is structured, with drastically reduced US and UK navies, and severely reduced US production, that is what you are going to get.
As for spreading IPC all over the map, I am not exactly in favor of that either. I would prefer to see them concentrated more, or in the case of Manchuria and Korea, see them broken up with each having separate IPC values. Another option would be to give certain areas two IPC values, one for the Allies and one for the Axis. The Allies did quite well without Borneo, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies, but they were absolutely vital to Japan. Make them more valuable to Japan, so that Japan goes for them first. As compensation, boost the IPC value in the Allied home territories of the US and the UK, or boost the value of Australia.
That whole thing is wrong most part factories is a good idea for soem countries. but japanese navy was bigger then the usas and the only reason why they won was because of gambles and luck dice rollls please remeber allies won with luck
thats sorta easy i do not think many germany’s skip scandinavia maybe if it was worth something more for the axis to defend !
Oh well all games have flukes except games that are as simple as risk! but risk has the flaw of boring and no change
actually thats how i play collect at the start of a turn so that way you are fightings ina battle field and it keepsswitching sides until somone holds it for your next turn then noone will ever get the income i love those wars!
dog fights is good because in a&ae it stops me as the allies bombing the germans also i hate buying aircraft carriers until i actuallly need it so i take norway with russia
Ok the reason for the allies winning ww1 was because of italy if italy stayed with the centrals then the centrals would have the ottomans, bulgaria, germany, austro-hungarian empire and italy. I have played many games with ww1 and without usa the allies would have won still. (the allies mostly great britian tricked, usa, by making the mexican telegram and allowing the americans to find it to make a war agasinst the centrals.
Italy was the deciding factor of ww1 if italy stayed centrals then italy would make a new front for france and for allieing the allies a new front opens up for the centrals you do the math also italy was a bigger factor in ww1 but not so much as ww2
cruiser aa guns would make them more valuable but i fea that the only reason destroyers are 8 is for italy ohoh
Ya kgf is done no more ignoring japan but even still usa v japan navy even turn 2-4 that measn japan loses asia most likely
Godzilla japan will be no more if… usa takes more action anyways what is nos im learning new terms and stuff and would really like to know anyways usa comes in the pacific finally
This is off topic but is simliar to how us canadians are in afganistan while you are in iran i beleive we should nto be in those 2 countries.
Also u.s.a. was not prepared for war and many of the people would not just join a war for no reason except an attack at them (thank god that happened or allies would have lost)
Ahh yes if i was italy i would wish for a better navy because italy has 12 ipcs and lets say +5 from med bonus even so thats not enough for some big ships and you need inf. at lybia every turn or else
