I’m still not sure that this aspect of the tech discussion belongs here since it is more about a house rule but I mentioned how we have developed a progressive valued chart for the techs but I didn’t give the limitations of attaining the tech. A tech die is three (3) IPC’s every tern a player wants to roll for a tech. A neutral nation can roll one die only per rounf thatthey are neutral. That is three IPC’s per round. If a tech has a R&D value of 25, it may take a nation at least 5 rounds to develop that tech. That is at least 15 IPC’s in order to develop a tech. A nation that is war may invest in three dice (9IPC’s) per rounf in order to develop three different tech.'s at a time. They can not be applied to a single tech but must be spread over the three techs to be develpoed. It can get expensive but the thought process is this; a country will invest in R&D to develop a specific technology. It will not just through money at a problem and randomly hope to get a good result….governments maybe but not gamers. If and when we play with technology, I prefer this R&D chart. The Anniversary/Global chart and dice costs can definately thow the balance of the game off. Last game I played of global 1940, theAmerican player shelled out alot of IPC’s on tech. It put his production behind and the other allied player had to really hold on for the US to catch up but the US player was able to develop long range heavy bombers and cheaper ships. It was devostating to the the axis player (me) because he then went dark skies on the axis and it became a war of attrition that I could not repulse effectively. I have to take this moment to say I love Narvik. Direct and to the point. Tech is fun sometimes but there is alot to just playing the game.
Damaged Carrier & Planes
MarkVIIIMarc last edited by
Let me see if I understand this right.
Scenario 1: An American Carrier loaded with an American Fighter and an ANZAC Tactical Bomber is attacked by a Japanese Sub. If the sub rolls a hit then both planes have 1 movement point to find someplace to land?
Scenario 2: A British Carrier, a British Fighter from 4 squares away (no movement points left) and a Russian Fighter and a British Destroyer move in to attack two German subs off German Norway. The British kill the subs with their Fighter and the Destroyer. The Russian Fighter is along for the ride. German subs roll snake eyes. The British choose the Destroyer as a casualty and take a hit on the Carrier. The Russian plane is then trapped on the Carrier. The British Fighter can no longer land on a damaged Carrier and has no movement points to choose where to go?
This move is legal even though the British player “knows” it kills his plane and has other options?
Scenario 2a: If that British Fighter had 2 movement points left I assume it could use them both to find a landing spot?
I think 1) is no. I’m pretty sure the ANZAC plane is cargo and goes down.
I think 2) and 2a) are correct.
Your understanding is correct, MarkVIIIMarc. However, in scenario 2 the UK player has no casualty options that won’t result in stranding the fighter. Since sub hits must be taken on sea units, the only casualty options are the one you chose or taking both hits on the carrier, dooming both fighters. At any rate, taking the hit on the carrier and stranding the fighter is always an option.