Posts made by Seven_Patch

In the end I totally agree that tanks should be 6 IPC.

I just had an Idea, what if you could spend 1 IPC to upgrade an Infantry unit to Mech Infantry?

The rule would be that the Infantry can not have moved during combat or non combat and is located on a territory with a IC.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Seven_Patch:

@calvinhobbesliker:

No. 1 and 2 force you to save 1 or 2.

No what?  If you only have 1 or 2 IPC’s left then you save them if your playing by rules that allow you to save 1 or 2.

Exactly. If you have 2 ipcs, you save 2. If you have 5 ipcs, buy an inf and save 2

Okay  :-D  My point is that if something cost 5 then in theory you would never need to save 1 or 2 IPC.  Of course circumstances usually require players to buy specific units in which you would end up saving 1 or 2 IPC’s.

@calvinhobbesliker:

No. 1 and 2 force you to save 1 or 2.

No what?  If you only have 1 or 2 IPC’s left then you save them if your playing by rules that allow you to save 1 or 2.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@pusfilledwart:

it is strange…nothing costs 5 IPCs

Nothing costs 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, or 19 ipcs either.

You can save 1 or 2 IPC’s to spend next turn.  Every other number there can be broken down into different combination of units. 5 is the only denomination where you are guaranteed to have to save (or waste depending on what rules/house rulles you play by) either 1 or 2 IPC’s.

Well the IPC value is even between both the Axis and the Allies (except the original global set up of 19 Allies Infantry), I’m hoping it doesn’t throw things off too much.

Glad you like it.

@Koningstiger:

It’s the only possibility with the addition of mech infantry. If tanks had still cost five, why on earth would you ever buy mech infantry for 4 IPCs if you could have a 3/3 unit that can Blitz rather than a 1/2 unit that cannot blitz for a mere 1IPC less? :mrgreen:

But I have 5 IPC"s left, I want to buy a tank!  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:

@Koningstiger:

@Seven_Patch:

I would think that the AAP40 strategies for Japan can probably be thrown out of the window and all new ones will need to be tried.

Would you care to elaborate?

Obviously adding Russia in global makes a big difference, but what else are you referring to?

Yes, Russia’s 18 Infantry mean that Japan has to keep Infantry on their northorn border and can’t march those guys into China, or torwards a quick attack on India.  Japan now has to buy some Infantry.

Another big difference is that the US now gets 52 IPC instead of 17.  The Interesting thing about this is that Japan has to plan some kind of attack on the US to try and take out some US unit IPC value.  Once at war with the US, the US IPC jumps to 82 IPC.  So it’s not as clear when to strike as Japan as it was before.

One thing is for sure, Japan needs to find IPC somewhere and can’t let India collect Dutch island IPC.  Perhaps Japan is likely to attack on J2, give Germany some time to operate before awaking the sleeping giant.

Personally I think Japan is going to be a lot more difficult to win with in Global compared to how easy it was with Pacific.

@HolKann:

It’s always the same with those “why isn’t this or that country in the game”-threads: someone lives in a nation not represented, and starts nagging why their country should be in the game. I remember the good old revised days: only 5 countries, each of which had a different playstyle all the while obeying to exactly the same rules of warfare. Having 9+ (!) nations with different rules for each of them isn’t an improvement to me. So although I’m Belgian and my native tongue is Dutch, I oppose adding those to the game. Moreover, the Dutch colonies should have simply been pro-axis neutrals, with 1-2 inf on each of them. Congo is fine as it is. And at least the low countries, the ports of Europe, have got a bigger IPC-count than Spain and Greece now 8-)

Pro-Axis neutral!?!!  :lol: I guess that would represent how easy it was for the German blitz to take care of the Dutch army

I think it all depends on what Germany does in her first turn.

But yes, a West India Minor IC seems like a pretty good idea, one that I’ve considered since seeing the Europe map and learning that UK would have split income.

I’m also skeptical about sealion but from what I’ve read about those who have played the game already it would seem that the British lose most of their fleet and have their hands full in Egypt.

On the Pacific side I wonder how much India has to worry about a J1 attack on UK/ANZAK/US.  I would think that the AAP40 strategies for Japan can probably be thrown out of the window and all new ones will need to be tried.

Is it August 24th yet?

The funny thing about tanks being 6 IPC’s now is I always end up with 5 IPC’s left to spend after deciding what else I need to purchase and I raise my hands in the air and curse the A&A gods.

Ah sorry for putting this in the wrong place.  Thanks IL.

Wasn’t Mongolia kind of Pro-Soviet in the 30’s and 40’s?

Makes more sense that it’s just neutral since you don’t want Soviet troops walking in for a faster route to China.

Me personally if Japan were to attack Mongolia I think all the infantry in Mongolia should activate as Russian infantry however no other neutrals should be affected.

Why countries like Spain or Turkey would care if Japan invaded Mongolia is beyond me.

On second thought maybe none of this really matters, I’m sure the designed rules are fine.

This is just for fun and my early Idea’s to add even more units to global for giggles.

RUSSIA
Amur: 6 Infantry
Sakha: 6 Infantry
Buryatia: 6 Infantry
Sea Zone 5: 1 Destroyer / 1 Submarine

UNITED KINGDOM
Egypt: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 91: 1 additional Destroyer
Sea Zone 109: 1 additional Destroyer

ANZAC
Alexandria: 1 Infantry
Egypt: 1 Infantry

FRANCE
French Indo China: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 110: 1 Destroyer

GERMANY
Germany: 1 Fighter
Romania: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 113: 1 Submarine

ITALY
Northern Italy: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 95: 1 Destroyer

JAPAN
Japan: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 17: 1 Destroyer / 1 Submarine

Yes I know, I’m crazy.

Could always use my personal alternate Global set up.

RUSSIA
Amur: 6 Infantry
Sakha: 6 Infantry
Buryatia: 6 Infantry
Sea Zone 5: 1 Destroyer / 1 Submarine

UNITED KINGDOM
Egypt: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 91: 1 additional Destroyer
Sea Zone 109: 1 additional Destroyer

ANZAC
Alexandria: 1 Infantry
Egypt: 1 Infantry

FRANCE
French Indo China: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 110: 1 Destroyer

GERMANY
Germany: 1 Fighter
Romania: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 113: 1 Submarine

ITALY
Northern Italy: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 95: 1 Destroyer

JAPAN
Japan: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 17: 1 Destroyer / 1 Submarine

Yes I know, I’m crazy.

Personally I won’t have any trouble just knowing where the seazones meet up.  But then I have a very graphically and visually oriented mind and can see it in my head.

Some kind of reference does sound like a good idea though.

@miamibeach:

In 1940 USSR did have some naval assets at Vlad, I think some subs and some lighter surface combat ships(CA’s or light CA’s).

If you think the Allies should get about 23 IPC’s worth of extra units, why not give the same amount to the Axis?  I’m not endorsing any of this, but just wondering why.

I’m not against giving the axis an even amount of IPC’s in units.  I don’t know if Japan needs it though, they have so much airpower they can easily wipe out a lot of Ally IPC unit value.

Makes sense though, if I give Russia a destroyer and sub then I can give a destoyer and sub to Japan.  2 more allied infantry in Alexandria/Egypt, Italy gets one more infantry and Germany gets one more infantry (one guy in Rome and the other in Romania respectivly).

For the extra French Infantry in FIC, Japan can have an extra guy on Japan.

I don’t see whats wrong with this and how it will upset gameplay, but on the flip side it’s likely not needed.

@maverick_76:

To me the map looks super, I can’t wait to just set it all up and then drool (hopefully not on it) for like the next 30 minutes.

Ha, i’ll be doing the same.  Biiiig maaaap (drool).

I’ll scream like a girl then stare at the complete setup and drool.

@The:

I have to say, some parts of that map looks really squished and detract from the overall appearance. They could have done a better job of drawing Africa by shrinking some of Russia’s north territories and possibly shifting things up a bit. Africa’s look really irks me and China looks somewhat badly drawn. I am excited for this game, don’t get me wrong, but the overall presentation kind sucks IMHO.

Graphic artists are too expensive these days.