A very good idea. As it is now I don’t think I wil, ever buy a new one. I usually don’t buy them anyway, except for coastal defense as Germany. But with them being operational in the invaders next turn would make them worth more, even compared to vanilla Global rules.
The few games I campaigned through China I used the jap aa gun to try and kill that ftr. I remember it worked at least once. a small stack against a chinese attack that is light on arty means China will have to bring the ftr to have the punch to clear the zone. This can work great if you are cutting the Burma road every round.
I also did air raid it the first game I played Japan too. I just don’t think that ftr is really worth gunning for. Now if it could leave China or attack the sz’s on the coast it would be dead meat.
I’d rather kill that ftr when its attacking than having to go in and dig it out when its rolling 4’s.
You need a minumum of about 10 posts before you can post links or attachements. This is due to the forum’s anti-spam software. The moderators (dezrtfish, DarthMaximus, Guerrilla Guy) can move your post the correct section of the forum. Send them a personal message if they don’t notice your post in the next day or two.
Tragically, there are not enough japanese roundels to do this (later in the game).
What’s even more tragic (or fortunate depending on how you look at it) is that I have 10 differe A&A’s so a lack of control markers for the big 5 is never an issue. A lack of ANZAC markers on the other hand…
One other thing I DON"T like about Alpha+3 setup is losing 2 airbases for UK. Don’t really care about the one on Malta, but Gibraltar should definitely have an airbase.
I totally agree with you,knp7765
i also agree.
As for the Malta AB: not necessary but made the game more more interesting.
I believe historically, the Malta air base was more important and used more frequently than the air base in Gibraltar.
I always SBR London if I am planning or pretending sea lion. Â That turn 1 SBR is a critical piece of sea lion and the threat is not serious without it. Â Two Bombers target the IC and two tacticals target the airbase. Â They do not intercept because a) the fighters scramble in z110 or z109, or b) if they are taking the sea lion threat seriously they do not want to risk losing a fighter. Â About half the time I lose a plane to AA, but its worth it because the sea lion threat forces UK to spend its entire first turn income on repairs and infantry, leaving the med and Africa open for Italy. Â Italy’s NO income soon pays for any losses you may have had (unless you get diced and lose 3 or 4 of them). Â If both sides have normal losses (i.e. germany loses 1 plane or none; the airbase is inoperable and the IC has something like 10 damage), and they spend in South Africa or Egypt, do a Taranto raid, etc., well then sea lion is on.
Yeah, I didn’t even think of bombing the airbases too. Of course that means that they won’t scramble into an adjacent sea zone, but then they can still intercept the strategic and tactical bombers attacking the IC and airbase, right? If I know that that’s what my opponent intends to do, then I’d use all my fighters exactly for that as they won’t be of any use in an adjacent sz. But yes, you have a point too that if Germany really wants to go for sea lio, the UK will need all the fighters it can get!
I think there is still a consensus that the allies are in favor at the moment. However I believe the current rules are so close that it is going to take a few back and forths of which power is ascendant before we settle on the true leader. That being said, I think leaving many of the rules as is would be fine. Perhaps a reworking of NO’s, but leaving them at the same value. You appear to be saying that depriving US of that initial 30ipc’s in NO’s their first round of war might do the trick as well? This is entirely possible, if going this route however I prefer the idea of making US pay to upgrade their IC’s. This equals about the same amount and doesn’t mean the US is getting a ‘free’ upgrade.