ok i will have "fighter-bomber" and "naval fighter" under these planes.. the same for cruisers
Well icons are still more elegant.
I reckon you could try to paint the wings black or something for naval fighters.
Paint the body black or something for fighter-bomber.
==== some nations with similar colors should have them pointed in opposite directions
Oh I see. Then we go with consistency within a nation rather than across the gameboard.
those two pacific islands are most valuable to japan and the reason why Japan is even in the game, because they needed that oil
We went through this.
You say remain at 4 IPC to represent oil fields.
I say we have oil fields rule already.
You say Japan needs that income.
We didn't find a solution.
But doesn't matter, I am not complainting in particular of those two 4 IPC islands.
I am only saying we can't have too many of these things.
The complaint do you have strong enough agreement to make yet another "quick fix". (India's 4 IPC and IC)
OOB Axis start 33 win 45
OOB Allies start 44 win 55
1939 Axis 17 win Huh
1939 Allies HEAPS win Huh
====== i don't understand this....what are you saying?
I mean maybe you should set new VCP winning numbers for the 1939 scenario.
Axis start@33 win@45
Allies start@44 win@55
Axis start@19 win@ ?
Allies start@24 win@ ?
You made a rule that if you lose all your orignal oil fields your units move less.
But only USSR is prone. (US also has original oil fields but they look safe lol. The other nations do not have original oil fields.)
Romania should be important to Germany.
East Indice and Boreno should be important to Japan.
Middle East should be important to UK.
So need to tune the oil field rule.
===uk will need to capture more oil fields ( Persia) just like they did. Germany and Soviets will need to hold on to the ones they got.. The middle east is important to uk because her oil is in the middle east. what is at issue?
Only USSR and US has oil fields in their original territories.
Your rule says if you lose all your original
oil fields, movement is restricted.
Hence you need to tune the rule.
Because UK Japan and Germany has no oil fields at game setup and you want to force them to take oil fields.
One simple change is movement is restricted if you have no oil fields
So you could make it
I propose we allow a special rule that this Graf Spee can dock one turn in any south American 'port' and avoid being attacked for one turn. Sort of a special historical rule for only the first 1-2 turns.
This is a good idea.
I think it could be a standard rule to dock at neutrals.
Or neutrals at certain level of cooperation.
Attacking the docked unit is an attack on the neutral.
Docked units do not block the sea zone.
====yes but its only a one turn thing and yes it would require at least one level of diplomacy toward that players side...so Argentina would need to be one level pro axis which i think they already are.
post how it should read.. i also like the no block the sea zone thing.
I just add to the diplomacy section that allies/axis naval units can dock at neutrals with +1/-1 level of co-operation.
Besides adding to the +5....-5 table I add this paragraph.Naval units may “dock” at neutrals with at least 1 level of co-operation towards your team. An attack on a docked naval unit is an attack on the neutral. Naval units may not “dock” at the same neutral for two consecutive game rounds.
However you didn't change the 1939 scenario diplomacy values for South American territories.
So they are the same as OOB scenario.
So make sure you revise the initial diplomacy values for 1939 scenario.