yea but still you got a few turns where USSR/USA are neutral. i suppose it could work.

Im working on my 'Destroy all Monsters' game followed by a new map for Europe Engulfed. I have too much to do already and i still got AA42 to work on as soon as i have the file ill make a map for it too.

take your time.

And how is Europe Engulfed? I have been thinking of purchasing it for some time. it seems like it has less of a variety in naval units and the blocks dont seem that appealing, but i like the increased number of terriotries and more diversity in land units.

2 and 3 is still two powerful and allows crazy things like the German baltic fleet being obliterated by Britsh air units.
Fighters on land should represent air-superiority aircraft, while bombers should represent stratigic aircraft and ground attack(dive bombers whould also tend to be more useful agaisnt ships so thats why they get 2). Therefore only the aircraft on carriers and inlands are antiship and torpedo aircraft

The only adult males that slap people are either pimps or rednecks.

what does being an adult male have to do with not slapping people. did you slap people when you were a kid

In this case yes, but only because of Goering "whatever flies belongs to me" and due to his pigheaded behavior, the capabilities of the Luftwaffe were stymied into planes that were not utilized into torpedo bombing planes. To see what air power does you have to look exclusively at the pacific campaign. Where do you see that air power was weaker compared to naval power in naval combat?

I am not saying airpower was weaker compared to naval power, I agree with you, carriers raped battleships, torpedo bombers were to surface ships as knifes are through warm butter. But in the pacfic all these planes came from carriers or from inland airbases. These location were extremly close to the front line and so planes could engage targets multiple times through out a given day.

I am talking about aircraft based from land, in axis and allies, aircraft traveling thousands of miles to there target are just as effective as aircraft fighting from and a carrier or inland airbase that are already at the battle. If a plane flew from Norway or France  to fright a naval battle in the middle of the North atlantic, it would have enough fuel to do maybe two strafing runs, while aircraft on a carrier however, could fight until the world ended.

my suggest is simply land based fighters and bombers attack navies at 1 for fighters and 2 for bombers.

yea thats a good idea! 

That would definatly be a new VC or replace a VC thats not realistic (ottawa)

thx, then the VC count is 21, which is an awsome number.

and what about a map for a summer 1940 start date (immedietly after the Fall of France). That is the date that has the most potential to allow the axis more oppertunities and choices and as a result gives the allies a wider varierty of counters.

What if you added Port Moresby as a vicotry city to promote a south pacfic battle?

That is because inter service rivalry of the Luftwaffe ( Goering) and The Kreigsmarine ( Admiral Raeder) would not allow cooperation of support by planes except on limited basis.

I beleive this could be a factor, but you are still overestimating land based aircraft. in A&A Goering does not even need the subs, you can simply destory the whole Britsh fleet with fighters. And what about the British being able to destroy the German fleet in the baltic?

Carriers are really good in naval battles, becasue you can have a mobile airbase with in just a few miles of there target. Sea zones in axis and allies span hundreds of miles so land based airfract are at a sevior disadvatage to naval aircraft when battleling each other and naval vessles.

IF you hade this rule you would also have a really good way of implementing inland airfeilds in the game.

normally aircraft on inlands can attack land units like they are land based airfract, but once you build an airfeild on the inland, they attack as if they were on a carrier

but german fighters based from the land never destoryed the UK fleet, and the UK airforce certainly never took out the whole german fleet in the baltic in 1942.

land based aircraft are extremly overated in sea battles.

I seems very unrealistic to me how powerful land based aircraft are against ships. The fact that they are powerful causes a lot of unistorical situations in both the atlantic and pacfic.

What if the rules were changed so aircraft on carriers attacked normally, but fighters attacking sea units from land attack at 1 and bombers at 2, i think this adds alot to the game in both gameplay and hitorical accuricy plus it is very simple

If i added anything it would be in terms of replacing the NO's with Strategic Objectives and having independent national victory conditions for each player. This would include separating Caucasus, and possibly Iraq

cool, that would take axis and allies too the next level

on the eastern front front thing having a terriotry between the ukraine and the stalingrad territory adds more depth to what was the 1942 german offensive. It shows how much farther stlingrad was from germany than moscow was, plus the front line would just look better nd more realistic.

and what about tunsia and singapore. Tunisa defintely alows the axis to have one last stand in africa or at least an oppertunity to retreat their forces. If you add tunisa you should also makes sure the western med sea zone does not border it and instead have it border the centrel one.

and about the fourt med sea zone, i guess it really is not nessisary but i just thought it might makes malta a little more powerful if it had its one sea zone.

i undertand if you dont want to make a 1939 scenario, that sound very boring to me too. But i was thinking what start would allow the axis player the most freedom. at first I thought it would be early 1940 but even at that point norway and france would be very scripted moves unless you add alot more territories.

However, if you start the game immeditly after france falls the axis players have a larger range of operation than any other start date during the war. At the this the germans had not made any major stratigic blunders (they messed up tactically at dunkirk, which did have stratgic implications) so the geramn player can desided to start the battle of Birtain, attacking egypt earlier, and maybe even bring Russia into the war as an ally on their side! for Japan, after making china a stronger player, he can choose to contiue to pursue a costly war in asia, attak Birtain or Russia, and could choose not to attack pearly harbor or preform at suprise attack that was even more devistating

I think summer 1940 is a start date that gives both players the most freedom and  very little scipting if any is required.

Good looks are worthless if you dont know what to do with them

if your ugly, you can just put a bag over your hear, people will understand and even thank for it.

an aside.....marcus is the best part of the movie.  true story.....the role of john connor was supposed to be just under 1/4 of the film.  it was supposed to center on marcus aka the name of the movie.  but christian bale flipped out big time and demanded to be made lead. 

thats probably why the movie sucked so much.

So right, how come M16's dont work on terminators in 1 and 2 but in salvation they are just as good as a laser.

yah so add Iraq and tunisia, also what about Singipore, that was a sight of a major battle.

also in the regular map, The Eastern Ukraine terriotry really annoys me. First of all it is  north of Ukraine  and borders east poland which is west of ukraine, so instead of seperating Ukraine ofrm the the caucases so that the stalingrad battle would be interesting and hisotrical it makes the the Russian front retarded.

When can we get a an eastern front that makes sence?

also i really think it would spice up the mediterrianian it there was a forth sea zone sperating the middle one horizontally

these are problaby too many changes for phase 2, so how about we move onto phase three. I have an excelent idea for a start date.

I like