Posts made by Slackaveli

so they took out the +2 at least.

in ALL 4 2nd Ed games i’ve played, fleet consolidation plus an extra battleship means naval supremacy for Japan starting round 2.

I’m gonna give these rules a day in court to see how they play out. i love the idea as a defender to discourage a SBR  with a pack of lufftwaffe.

@Gargantua:

It’s my prized possession now!

My other version just SOLD!

Having ANY copy of anniversary edition is a prized possession. Getting a signed one for $300?? That’s a definite TREASURE, my friend.

@knp7765:

If I don’t have escort fighters available, and I see my enemy has 2 or more interceptors, I usually won’t do an SBR for fear of losing bombers.

On the other hand, if my enemy comes at me with some escorts (or even just a large amount of bombers) and I only have 1 or 2 fighters, I won’t bother sending up interceptors. That’s a good way to bleed your enemy of fighter strength, perhaps for a later invasion.
For example: It would be worth risking losing a bomber or two in an SBR (or maybe even just an escort fighter) for the chance to possibly kill 1 or 2 interceptor fighters if I am planning on attacking that territory next round. That would be 1 or 2 less strong “4” defenders to deal with in the actual invasion.

so, u can choose not to intercept. could be interesting. a nice strategy to finish a cap.

@Der:

Well I’m using the Interception rules on Larry Harris’ website where both attackers and interceptors have to roll ones to hit. Using mathematical odds, you would have to have 4 fighters posted there to have a 51.77% chance of rolling a one and shooting something down. This is not much of a deterent to approaching bombers as not many can afford to keep that many fighters sitting around. Fighters defending at 2 might keep the bombers out, though.

they DO defend @ 2, thus making attacking fighters fodder @ 10ipc/ea just to barely damage a factory. makes SBR a stupid move unless you have an opponent w/ 0 fighters.

@lnmajor:

Advanced Fighter Design. Great Idea in air combat, but your making a fighter stronger than your med. bomber in ground attack and as strong as a regular bomber in ground attack. Fighters should not have the same ability to inflict damage to ground and naval targets as a strat bomber or tac bomber, IMO

yep. make them 3-4-5-14 w/ the special escort/intercept. or 3-4-4-12.

i personally don’t like the intercept rule. those fighters have jobs to do besides dying in an escort role. nobody would even try to SBR under those rules in our games. we do, however, play w/ HR allowing AAAs to fire at any planes flying over AAAs. this not only seems more realistic, it can allow someone who keeps getting SBR (aka Russia) to put up an AAA screen. We don’t allow any AAAs in factory cities to fire, just the ones getting flown over since factories get their own shots.

yeah, that diagram is correct if the fighter left from the carrier and wrong if it came from the island.

sounds very promising!

@Mallery29:

If you go so quick with the Allies, you will fail…quick victories are for the Axis, long games favor the Allies…

i certainly agree with that but KGF lets nips go beastmode!

UK sending fighters to Caucasus seemed quite helpful to me!

i have to see the board at this point lol. it’s at least a threat to u so u must buy more navy J2, precisely when u need to buy more asia army. it helps russia by keeping nips outta their arses and keeps alot of fighters that can rush to russia in 1 turn. and britain’s $$ is good still, no africa for germany.

i like it. then on us2, on to the philippines with the jap fleet pinched or running north.

thanks Oz. and i agree it should be optional perhaps, but isn’t EVERY rule optional really lol?

How can we best incorporate these rules in '42 2e??

@Gargantua:

IL know’s it!

Inside info must be going around… ;)

Wait, wut??? from LARRY?? I want one!!

what are “the strait rules from G40?”

@GoSanchez6:

The gap keeps getting bigger. Even if they don’t redo this game. I wish Larry would take some of these ideas like the tech rules and the multiple start dates and incorporate them into Global 40. It would be awesome if we had a 42 setup for global. I also wish each country had their national advantages like they had in Revised.

i wish i had 50 but alas must make do with 42 2e. i am thinking of adding NA and Tech to our games, i just don’t want it to ofset the balance to badly. i am wondering what the national goals are that kick the NAs in, though? Also, what is the Tech system now? i just know original rules on that.

@wittman:

I always thought so. Wanted it to be Global, because of its scale and scope, but have a problem with the Major Factory building of 10 units regardless of IPC value over 3  and a few other things.
Anniversary’s inclusion of Italy makes it special for me as do the  2 start dates.
Was also a wedding present.

a WEDDING present??! Oh, the irony!