Posts made by Xandax

@JayDavis:

So lets see, because some people buy them that means they must be useful. So, if you see people jumping off a bridge, you follow? Must be a good idea.

How about this? We have a unit called a Battlecruiser. It will cost 12 points, hits on a 3, takes one hit, and can bombard. I bet you guys will think this is better than a cruiser.

This stuff just isn’t that difficult. I’d hate to see you guys try to analyze something complicated.

So hey, leave the cruiser as is. Feel free to buy as many as you want. Just makes it easier for the rest of us to win.

How is that argument any different that what you’re trying to say. So because some people don’t buy them, they must be pointless.
Perhaps the people jumping off the bridge are bungy jumping and can see the fun in it, but to others it seems pointless.

Could be the people using them have seen their usefulness and use them to win.

@Commando:

Xandax, what if the enemy doesn’t scramble? Is this still legal since there is no combat taking place?

Yes, it’s a combat move, even if you can not bombard with the ships. Escort ships are still part of the combat. Even if actual seacombat doesn’t take place due to no scramble.
So it is still a combat move because they’re part of the amphibious assault - hence combat.

@Commando:

A follow up question. If one territory(let’s say owned by the US) is getting amphib assaulted by let’s say Japan. And, the US scrambles three FTR’s to the defense of the SZ where the amphib assault is happening from. Can Japan from an adjacent territory that has an airbase scramble FTR’s & Tacs to fight the aircraft that the US scrambled? I think the answer is no but just want to make sure. This question is assuming that the US territory and Japanese territory, with operative airbases share the same SZ that the amphib assault is coming from.

I’m all but 100% sure of no in that one. Scramble is a defensive move (defend seazone from attack) and seeing as Japan is on the attack, that would make their scramble an offensive move (attack seazone).

@Commando:

Question. Here’s the scenario. Germany is amphib assaulting Gibraltar from SZ91. There are no enemy sea units contesting SZ91. However, there is 2 FTR’s & 1 Tac defending Gib that could either scramble in SZ91 or defend Gib. The question is, can Germany bring non shore bombarding navy(i.e. DD’s, CC’s & AC’s) to SZ91 during the combat move phase to help defend the Transports in the event that Britain scrambles it’s FTR’s & Tacs? Can they also bring their own FTR’s & Tacs to SZ91 to help defend against the FTR’s & Tacs that Britain could scramble? The rule book states in the combat move phase that units that move during the combat move phase must conduct combat. Thanks in advance!

Just because they can’t bombard - they can still “take part” in the amphibious landing attack, for example if the enemy scrambled, so their move will end in combat, so to speak.

@Olodumare:

the order is like the poster above me mentioned, but use the a2 rules. basically you want britian to scramble planes to attack your force. you have sub fodder and more planes dying in a naval fight are less planes in Britain. This has been stated in the bigger threads about sea lion and axis builds.

on a side note, even scrambling planes wont destroy your fleet. carrier to take a hit with 2-3 subs and a cruiser for bombardment, and the 2 scrambled carrier planes.

But remember, subs can’t hit planes and planes can’t hit subs without a destroyer present.

I like the new rules with double hit and limited operating rules.
Mostly the double hit has effect if you lack destroyers and there’s sub around or the carrier is empty.

@edfactor:

Its worse, it turns the carriers into a defensive unit. And they were the most offensive unit in the pacific really.

I would have made carriers a 0/0 unit that can take 1 hit (as opposed to transports) and cost 12. Cannot be targeted by kamakzies as long as its escorted by a cruiser.

The Carriers were only offensive due to the air crafts. However they were prime targets of the enemy, yet though to sink. I feel the double hit rules symbolize this nicely.

On the European board - land goes to England/Europe
Only stuff on the pacific side goes to India.

@Endeer:

As germany don’t get pulled into the grand illusion of SeaLion. An english attack, almost always leads to defeat. ONLY if you can take England turn 2 with little casualties (or if england built no land units on the isle) than i would suggest it. My strategy would be: Turn one: take france, move men to the eastern front. Turn two: Attack russia heading for Leningrad/ and Stalingrad. Stalingrad needs to be a smaller force, because of the vastly smaller force/garrison. This is my proposed philosophy on germany’s best option for victory. Input is appreciated.

But if you never go for the Sealion, wouldn’t most every game become the same and just a matter of the dice?

@rock`n:

but why bombers for russia?
mostly in active defence (counterattacking but not really gaining) a bomber is not as much valuable as fighters. attacking at 3, defending at 4.

Nobody is saying “only buy” bombers.
But sending bombers to attack enemy units an extra zone behind the front while you counter attack on the front - or combining them with a few inf to soak up damage in a counter attack on a just lost field, or a field where the enemy is staging troops - can really devastate enemy stacks. You do not need to take ground to really bog down an enemy front.
Just don’t get caught with bombers on the defence - expensive unit to throw out that way.

That’s the fun of this game, that you have multiple choices depending on a given situation despite the overall situation.

@soldaatvanoranje:

I think it’s a shame that plastic figurines are that limited in a $100 game…  :x

Yes, it is.

@goalievogel:

Thank you!

Another question for everyone. If I have say- 4 battleships next to southern Italy and I want to send 1 infantry to do an amphibious assault (I have 20 infantry in northern Italy) just so my battleships can get 4 free shots, is there anything in the rules that state I can’t do this? This would be great to soften up an enemy if you can afford to do so.

You can bombard with one ship per unit you are landing. 1 inf would thus allow one ship to do a bombard

@12doze12:

I have Europe 1940 and I have 200$, do you recommend me AA Pacific 1940? I hearded in some reviews that it has bad quality in the sheets and that there are few tact. bombers to Japan and China roundels.

But they also say that Global 1940 is an amazing experience!

There are some versions that have bad print and missing pieces, but it is not all. I’m unsure whether it is location or editions or what that is deciding. My box was with the correct print and number of units (although it wouldn’t have hurt to have had an extra couple of units in the box, but I’ve been buying extra pieces as I find out I could use more)

However, Global 40 alone is worth it in my book. And it is pretty much the only version I’m playing at the moment.

Some units are useless to some people. I’ve seen people claiming tanks were useless as well.
I don’t care when they’re useful to me and Crusiers have plenty of usage for me. I have no issue with them costing 12. The 3/3 factor and bombard ability alone makes them useful and are always a part of my fleets whether I play Allied or Axis.

Only have 2 in my box.

~~I have seen nothing to indicate they can’t.

Sea-zones are friendly or hostile.
Hostile means a combat unit of a nation you’re at war with (some sub rules applies).
Friendly means anything else (meaning even warships of other nations, as long as you’re not at war).

You can enter friendly sea zones.~~

Edit: Yeah - my bad. Had forgotten about that passage under the US in the rulebook.

@Entek:

@MightyPol:

Somebody told me that with UK/ANZAC, you cannot take the DEI Islands if you are not at war with Japan.

Is that true? I never played like that.

They were probably thinking of Japan.  Japan can not take them until they are at war with the UK or ANZAC.

Japan can take DEI even when not at war.
It will cause a war though.

@Ruanek:

Well, the only country that can really turtle is Russia.  And if you weaken the US economy you make it harder to contain Japan in the Pacific.  I don’t think the US economy is going to get that much of a downgrade.  And the whole point of this was to serve as an alternative to other balancing suggestions.

Well - the UK can turtle easily if Germany goes to Russia, and But the issue is that if you make Russia easier to take, you remove the incitement for Germany to go for London making London impossible to take.
Having both London and Russia as potential targets right off the bat means you have choices to make and the allies have to react to either move. Making Russia easier to take, means there’s very little reason to go London before taking out Russia. That would mean a more simple and closed game.

Having tweaks to USA (for example) is IMO a much more valid balancing structure as it helps both Pacific map and Europe map and provides a more open game.

@Zallomallo:

@Xandax:

@Alsch91:

But you’re not providing any reason.

For 24 IPCs I can buy 2 cruisers or 3 destroyers.  Both of these options provide a total of 6 points on offense and 6 points on defense.  But three destroyers gives me 3 hits instead of the 2 that the cruisers give.  And after one hit, 2 destroyers are superior to 1 cruiser. 
So simply by the numbers, destoyers are superior.  I am disregarding their bombard capabilities, obviously.  But cruisers do not nullify subs’ abilities, so take that as you will.

I did earlier in the thread.
When coupled with 2 hit capital ships the 3 value of the cruiser is IMO superior to a 2 value of a destroyer for a cost/effective ratio. As said (many times) - the cruiser does not stand alone, it is part of a fleet. If looking at just one cruiser versus a destroyer - sure - but then a ship is mainly fodder/blocker as well. But as part of a fleet (with double hit capital ships) then the stack-ability of a 3 attack value comes to light when packing a punch on the first 1 or 2 rounds of combat and will help you weed out the enemy fast(er).

Plus the anti-sub ability is solved with 1 destroyer per stack, but the bombing ability is enhanced with multiple cruisers (if having enough troops of course).

Well I think they’re about the same in cost/attack/defence ratios as destroyers, but they take less hits.

It’s way easier to roll 1,2 or 3 than 1 or 2.

@Ruanek:

@Xandax:

@MarkHC:

Bottom line, I’ve played multiple games as the Soviet Union where I didn’t let anyone attack my units except an infantry I left as a road block.  Even when Japan invades Russia turn one/two and tries to keep pushing, it still didn’t make much difference because they can only take a territory a turn.  So when Germany finally reaches Moscow, almost every single unit I’ve built as Russia is there defending my capital.  Sure, if time weren’t a factor, it’s a bad strategy, but I know that the Allies are going to be landing in force by turn 5 or so, so the Axis is not able to deal with the Allied pressure and overcome a huge Moscow stack.

If the allies are landing in force in turn 5 Europe is lost regardless of a large stack of inf in Moscow.
Nothing is gained in the game by removing USSRs chance to defend and making a German attack on Russia go faster. On the contrary.
The huge stack isn’t an automatic win.

Well, not having the huge stack gives the Axis a bit more of a chance to blitz and take the necessary 8 victory cities quickly.

Well - of course. And removing the Russian troops entirely would equally.
You cannot remove the turtle. You shouldn’t IMO make it easier to take Russia.
We should however figure out why turteling is so strong and address that cause instead of just the symptom.

If you make it any easier to take Russia, you’ve effectively turned Germany into a one trick pony and removed most strategy from the European board.

@Alsch91:

But you’re not providing any reason.

For 24 IPCs I can buy 2 cruisers or 3 destroyers.  Both of these options provide a total of 6 points on offense and 6 points on defense.  But three destroyers gives me 3 hits instead of the 2 that the cruisers give.  And after one hit, 2 destroyers are superior to 1 cruiser. 
So simply by the numbers, destoyers are superior.  I am disregarding their bombard capabilities, obviously.  But cruisers do not nullify subs’ abilities, so take that as you will.

I did earlier in the thread.
When coupled with 2 hit capital ships the 3 value of the cruiser is IMO superior to a 2 value of a destroyer for a cost/effective ratio. As said (many times) - the cruiser does not stand alone, it is part of a fleet. If looking at just one cruiser versus a destroyer - sure - but then a ship is mainly fodder/blocker as well. But as part of a fleet (with double hit capital ships) then the stack-ability of a 3 attack value comes to light when packing a punch on the first 1 or 2 rounds of combat and will help you weed out the enemy fast(er).

Plus the anti-sub ability is solved with 1 destroyer per stack, but the bombing ability is enhanced with multiple cruisers (if having enough troops of course).