New ideas…

[mrsoccerchessman]

So, would that be considered an acceptable National Advantage for Germany, Artillery having the option of being an AA Gun if it did not do combat this turn?  And the battleships with AA guns?  In my games, my friends and I are always eager to buy BBs.

Another new idea would be… Paratroopers- Bombers can drop up to 2 Inf over a place.  Inf must be loaded on like a transport.  Other exceptions to this rule can be added seeing as it would be an awesome tactic.  comments?

[Amon-Sul]

well parachutes sound interesting thats for sure :wink:

[Romulus]

I do not like the idea of BB with AA gun. It helps more allies then Axis. Attacking the lone BB for Germany may be a real pain. Attacking allied fleets in following turn may become hard. And even if Japan has 2 BB if Allied goes KGF those BB AAG are pretty useless
BB are costly at 24 IPC but they are still a respectable unit that fire at 4 and may absorb an hit. BB shine! They are really a powerful unit. Well up to when you do not think of buying them…  :-D

[scheidelin]

So, would that be considered an acceptable National Advantage for Germany, Artillery having the option of being an AA Gun if it did not do combat this turn?  And the battleships with AA guns?  In my games, my friends and I are always eager to buy BBs.
@mrsoccerchessman:

Another new idea would be… Paratroopers- Bombers can drop up to 2 Inf over a place.  Inf must be loaded on like a transport.  Other exceptions to this rule can be added seeing as it would be an awesome tactic.  comments?

There already are paratroopers for use with Axis & Allies Revised 2004. They came along with the additional rules (Gamers Paradise) for 2nd edition, and has now been revised for use in Revised 2004.
There are about 5 or 6 additional rules used chronological for revised. Paratroopers are in the 1st addon along with:
-Elite Divisions
-Trucks
-Jeeps
-Fighters aces

The revised rules (1st rev.) are soon published on English in close cooperation with European Axis & Allies communities.

[dezrtfish]

FYI, do what yo uwant with it:
From Wikipedia

Iceland
Main article: Iceland during World War II
From 1918 until 1944 Iceland was self-governing, but the Danish King was Head of State of both Denmark and Iceland. As with the Faroe Islands, the United Kingdom occupied Iceland (to pre-empt a German occupation) but later turned it over to the United States, before that country entered the war in 1941. Iceland became a fully independent republic in 1944 and has remained so thereafter.

Greenland
See also: History of Greenland: Strategic Importance and History of Greenland during World War II
Regarding Greenland, on April 9, 1941, the Danish envoy (ambassador) to the United States, Henrik Kauffmann, signed a treaty with the U.S., authorising it to defend Greenland and construct military stations there. Kauffmann was supported in this decision by the Danish diplomats in the United States and the local authorities in Greenland. Signing this treaty “in the name of the King” was a clear violation of his diplomatic powers, but Kauffmann argued that he would not receive orders from an occupied Copenhagen.

[mrsoccerchessman]

Thanks for the history… though that’s from wikipedia :-)

[newpaintbrush]

@mrsoccerchessman:

Thanks for the history… though that’s from wikipedia :-)

If it’s on internet, it must be true!

I BELIEVE!

[mrsoccerchessman]

@Bunnies:

@mrsoccerchessman:

Thanks for the history… though that’s from wikipedia :-)

If it’s on internet, it must be true!

I BELIEVE!

Then you will believe everything thus making yourself contradict yourself.  For example, if somewhere online it said “Llamas are the best”  10 times out of 9 times there will be somewhere saying “Llamas are the worst”.  So, I can never trust you now :-)

But who cares, wikipedia is wikipedia… it must be true ;-)

[dezrtfish]

It’s factual.

[mrsoccerchessman]

I thought wikipedia was the one where you can edit it yourself.  I know of uncyclopedia.org - that site is freaking hilarious

[dezrtfish]

You can, the article I quoted is factual, I’m lazy and it’s eisier to quote than write myself.  also most of the factual articles on wiki are referenced so if you have doubts you can follow the research.

[mrsoccerchessman]

Ok, new idea (trying to get back on topic’s title)

Why can’t battleships do more than one turn of bombardments?  Originally, my two friends and I have played that as long as the land troops in an amphibious assault survived and a second round of battle continues, the all BBs bombard again.

Has anyone played with this “houserule”?

[Corbeau Blanc]

Never played with that rule but we had our own house rule that did just the contrary since there was a guy really abusing it with usa.

He would spend cash until combined bombardment and bring a mix of BB and destroyers dropping one infantry each turn and blasting 10 axis out. Since we were novices and were not doing in the fancy stuff, this worked most of the time. Today i would prolly be in moscow before it happens but back then,  we got tired of it.

The house rule was simple: You get one shore bombardment per unit participating in the amphibious assault, still limited to your max shots. A bit like you can pair only one artilery per infantry.

[Crazy Ivan]

:lol:
Ya, that is a good house rule, pairing the shore BB with a unit.
Once your troops are ashore and inland, it isn’t a good idea to let those big guns keep blasting away blindy, as some of your own troops invarible get pounded too :-P

[jsp4563]

Try playing a game with the AA Revised Enhanced Rules.  With Combined Arms your BB get AA hits, and the German 88’s NA give your artillery a great punch.