Posts made by The Fire Knight

Really? I had no idea. How does that make sense? If one sub submerges to flee, the other could also submerge to pursue it. Is this true that subs can submerge against other subs?

It’s an interesting idea, but I think that if it was used, the U.S. should only be able to use it when there not at war, for the obvious reasons as it’s unfair to mobilize 100 ipcs worth of units in like Anzac or india, and also b/c they really didn’t lend-lease as much once they were at war, did they?

@Razor:

@Hobbes:

On that situation there’s an exception to the rules, according to the official FAQ:

If it aint in the Rulebook, it is a houserule.

And all houserules are optional.

You got a weak case if it was in a court.

The Rulebook is wrong, and that has been officially confirmed by the people who made the game. It’s not a house rule. It’s a rule.

@ascendancy:

If there are no friendly ships under attack, there is no way that you can scramble. The planes are only allowed to support other units and not to start attacks on their own during the attacking players turn. See page 14 in the Rulebook.

Incorrect i believe. An Amphibious assault is an attack, and so you can still scramble.

@Gravy:

We are now finding it very difficult to beat Japan with a J1 attack and waiting to hit the Philipines until J2.  I have not beaten this yet in about 5 tries as the allies although I have come close.  By taking the Philipines in round 2 with 3 loaded transports from Japan (J1 purchase), Japan can mop up the DEI J3 easily.

All the allies can do is sit and watch, try and build up the US and ANZAC in Queensland and be aggressive with the Ausies.  With just a minor industry in Asia, a good Japanese player can slowly bleed India and build up enough Ships to dominate the sea.

I’m hoping I can beat this as the allies,  not saying the game is unbalanced just yet since I’m sure the play testers have used this strat (i should hope so for a 100.00 game) but it is very tough to beat even whan I build alot of Bombers with the US.  Japan can just keep building ships and use its subs to kill India’s economy.

I might need to be much more aggressive with India and keep a flow of fighters comming in…anyone else using this Japan strat?

I use this kind of as well, although to a greater extent. One J1 i capture all four chinese places, shan state, french-indochina, phillipines, kwangtung, and celebes. I take all of the DEI (except that worthless one which isn’t part of the bonus) on J2. I’m concerned about balance as well. I’m currently doing a game using this strat and I will take India next turn and I’ve lost maybe 1 fighter, maybe 0 (can’t remember)

@xzorn:

Well, that’s because the game is supposed to follow history as closely as possible while also

1. Not forcing the players to make the same decisions (but encouraging them a bit)
   and
2. Ensuring balance and fairness, an element not completely in line with history

I agree completely.

I usually go for India first. This makes the most sense to me b/c most of the big moolah is on the mainland. If you leave them, then not only do you loose out on the allied moolah, but yours as well when the U.K. and China get powerful enough to advance. Then, I think the next best vc to take is Hawaii. If the Anzac player is smart, they will immediately start building a fortress at the beginning of the game to prevent invasion. So by the time that India falls, they will be unconquerable, but with not naval power (b/c the minute they start building it, they’ll get destroyed). So I usually just leave them be, get move combat ships than the U.S. (b/c Japan should be earning more money by then) and then take Hawaii.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve always cringed at random tech getting. Sure scientists didn’t always know what they were getting, but they usually were close. They didn’t spend money researching proper parachute equipment and suddenly get rockets. I think that there should be some option of choosing techs. Either you get to flat out choose them, or you get to pick a list of top 6 and roll, or you get to pay like 2 extra ipcs or something to have a choice, not just the flat out two chart system of aa50, although i admit that that has been the best tech system yet. Thoughts?

Although a lot of the na’s were good, from what I remember (haven’t touched revised since I’ve played aa50 and aap40) lend-lease was the killer one for the axis. It in effect put the Germany at 40 ipcs against russia 24 ipcs, like 15 of britain’s ipcs (which I used to invade norway and just send units and fighters every turn into russia which became russian) and anything that America could give (which was quite a lot seeing as it could dominate Japan w/o too much trouble with help from India (made possible by another allied bonus the colonial garrison). In the games I played as the allies, I was able to dominate as Russia. They were always on the offensive.

@Brain:

I agree. Far flung territories should have a controlled path to the homeland before thay can contribute IPC’s to their “homeland” otherwise they should have to spend the money themselves if they have a factory or save the money until it can be transported along a clear path.

Woah, that’s a novel idea actually. It has serious potential. Just speculation right now, but say in the next game we scrap the current convoy rules, and then all ipcs either need to be connected by land to a factory where they can be spent, or a naval base which can connect to another naval base with a factory, or they have to be saved. Then, ships could be used to block naval bases thus making sea routes to trasport ipcs impossible (great example of africa and england which would make naval dominance highly important). Thoughts?

@robbie358:

Fighters are gonna be SO valuable for UK in this game.  The ability to sortie out of Britain to protect your new naval builds is gonna put alot of pressure on the German aircraft.  Or if theres a complex in Canada, UK can just build its navy there I guess and bring it over when it has enough planes.

So UK is gonna have to worry about protecting its Atlantic Navy with fighters while securing it’s convoys, building units in India to protect against Japan, and sending forces to Africa to fend of Italy.

I think they’re gonna be the most fun country to play in this game.

Yea, I agree that they should be… But will they? If Scotland is to be a territory, then Britain will no longer be an island, so will fighters on Britain still be able to scramble to protect their fleets? I think they should, b/c what’s the difference between england and Japan? But I don’t know what the rules will be. And sign me up for play-testing any day, free of charge.

Excellent, we are of the same mind. This of course would only be until Germany attacks it (like a separate declaration of war). Then China should be able to fight Germany just as it did against Japan with the same restrictions.

@oztea:

The current china rules are the best yet, and I dont expect them to get better, and I dont think they need to get better.

I agree that they are the best yet. But I would like them to take a step further. I’m envisioning in the global game. Say Japan falls early, but Germany is a powerhouse. It would not be realistic or fair for China to just build up its military inside it borders with its 29 possible ipcs until Germany reaches it. This would make invasion immposible, which might keep Germany from winning. If China was in a revolution during the time, once the Japanese are gone, there is no reason for them to fight anymore or build up. I think that they should be able to move their units, but have huge restrictions on how many units they have (like no more than the 10 or so they started with and maybe a few artillery with all extra units having to disband). Thoughts?

I agree. I’m all for a more realistic game. The more realistic, the more fun. The only condition is a good rulebook to explain the rules leaving the reader in no doubt what the rules are.

So there will not be a section that contains Pacific Errata, or not even some blank pages so that we can include the undoubtable Europe Errata?

Exactly. You are correct. This would not only be more realistic, it would also be the perfect modification needed to allow for Operation Sea Lion. This has never been possible before b/c the U.K. unrealistically and unfairly got all of those ipcs automatically on Britain (usually in the form of 8 infantry if it even looked like Germany was thinking about invading). This would change that.

I agree. The game is being skewed too much. Ideally, the game should be completely historically accurate, with only the # of Axis troops being changed so as to balance the game. There shouldn’t be this balance, and counter balance, and counter counter balance, and counter… till the game really isn’t world war two any more.

Yes. They should definitely include a master rulebook. One that is clear and w/o mistakes. One that doesn’t need even one sentence of “errata”. It’s only what the buyers deserve.

@Make_It_Round:

and the elimination of those corny ‘convoy boxes’, we’ll finally see shipping disruption effectively modelled in the Atlantic. Can’t wait :)

Hmmm. Not sure about that. Has any one else looked at the new convoy roles with suspicion? I mean, they really don’t make sense, do they? Even if you have ships all around an island (say Japan) that island can still produce for itself. It’s not like it ships it’s own goods overseas. And if this convoy rule thing is supposed to disrupt shipments from allies, why then can it be used against Japan? Japan didn’t have any allies in the Pacific. India as well is an example. Japan can put 2 ships there, and block all income. But India doesn’t get all of it’s income and resources by sea routes. I mean, with these screwed rules, you could almost apply it to totally land purposes as well (if a country was completely surrounded by enemies, then it earns nothing.) This just does not make any sense to me. Thoughts?

Yes, I agree. If writing rules and double checking isn’t your specialty, you shouldn’t be writing them. Helping yes. Directing yes. Final say yes. But not writing. Game creators create games. Writers and perfectionists write rulebooks.