• OK! now id like to hear what all of you guys have to say about sea zone 26. while playing we noticed it and ranted about its uselessness.

    located at the very bottom of the map between africa and s.america and below the unit placement space.

    -I find it ridiculous, if you were by chance traveling around there (which is pointless, who wants to take a cruise in the antarticin the middle of a war) you could always just use the sea zone above it as a better transport. ther is no purpose to having the two sea zones surrounding the unit placement space, it should just be combined into one. the only real purpose to it is to run away and have an extra space between you and your pursuer, but id never chase anyone THAT far.


  • It is a map. All the spaces need to be called something. Sometimes you do need a place to get away from it all.  :-)


  • Unit placement space?  What the?  We always thought that was a square ISLAND!

    ~Josh

    PS - Excellent for strat-bombing those pesky IC’s in the Belgian Congo!  :-D


  • And you are out of reach of the Brazilian air force. Unless they start mass-producing bombers, which I find highly unlikely!

  • 2007 AAR League

    Perhaps that is why it is there … to avoid Brazilian bombers!

  • 2007 AAR League

    If we are gonna rant about Sea Zones, I want to know about Sea Zone 63.

    Did anyone actually consider how difficult it would be to do an amphibious invasion on the north shore of Canada???

    I mean WTF?

    Sail north around Canada and land troops in the Northern Shore so you can drive south to Los Angeles???

    Better put some big butt ice breakers bows on the front of those amphibs.  Either that or just offload on to the ice in the Bering Strait and drive around from there.


  • @AJGundam5:

    Perhaps that is why it is there … to avoid Brazilian bombers!

    No, that is exactly my point. You CAN’T avoid the Brazilian bombers, only the fighters.  :-o

    If you see brazilian bombers scrambling your only chance in the atlantic would be to turtle up around the north pole, that is sz1 through 4. But given that bombers are pretty expensive I think sz26 has a lot of merit as a safe haven.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Oh yeah you’re right my mistake. Yea Brazil is a very good location to place your Bombers if you have a big stack and it’s an insane game with navy units all over the board  :-D


  • Actually i make that Antartica in some of my games so i can place a german occupation flag and make a u-boat base to send the ex- nazis if i lose the war. Make a skicker and place it over your board and draw antartica with a IPC value of 1. start the game with one extra u-boat within 1 territory of it.


  • @Imperious:

    Actually i make that Antartica in some of my games so i can place a german occupation flag and make a u-boat base to send the ex- nazis if i lose the war. Make a skicker and place it over your board and draw antartica with a IPC value of 1. start the game with one extra u-boat within 1 territory of it.

    That case I’d flush you out with my pacific fleet, enough for your sub to be in range of mighty brazilian bombers(MBB). Landing the Afrikaan at the pole and land MBBs there.

    Though… 1 ipc?  :roll: How did you calculate that? U-boats running on penguin oil farmed off the land?


  • 1 IPC= strategic value to allied shipping lanes and a refueling station so ships dont need mid-ocean tankers to complete transit.


  • I came clse to having a battle in the south atlantic once.  Japan was having problems because american was sending tons of troops into algeria and marching across africa towards india, but they couldnt use the mediterannean because germany had a battleship there and japan had an aircraft carier with 3 german fighters. Neither side had enough of a force to attack one another, so I just let american offlod since they were doing too much harm.  Eventually, I sent a japanese battleship, sub, and useless transport around south africa to disrupt allied shipping, but american built a couple of subs and chased me down. If I remember correctly, they had 2 subs in seazone 26, but that was after japan was terribly outnumbered and retreated back to the indian ocean.


  • @Cobert:

    If I remember correctly, they had 2 subs in seazone 26, but that was after japan was terribly outnumbered and retreated back to the indian ocean.

    Yeah, dood! I think we’ve set the OP straight!


  • oh wow, lots of stuff… well first of all thanks for the debate, it seems as though you guys really feeel as it being a useful seazone, but then again the longest game ive played was only 5hours long, so we havent gotten to the piont were that might become useful. (you dont get troops in brazil originally do you?)

    i might have to try the antartica rule some time, oh yea.

    @Cobert:

    … an aircraft carier with 3 german fighters.

    i beleive aircraft carriers can only carry two fighters not three.

    and i believe some one mentioned another usless seazone. sea zone 63… im not at home so i gotta get a look at where it is first. so post away

  • 2007 AAR League

    Sz 63 is not useless … it allows Japan to reach Alaska in 1 turn from Japan.


  • He’s not saying it’s useless… he’s saying it doesn’t make sense for it to border on the north shore of Canada, which is realistically choked with ice and, even if an invading force could get to shore, extreeeemely difficult (like, crossing the sahara difficult) for land forces to travel down through the rocky snowy freezing expansive tundra to strike at civilized areas.  It’s over 500 miles to the nearest road.

    ~Josh

  • 2007 AAR League

    Well he said useless … It is kind of inrealistic though.


  • He never said useless.  Sorry to nitpick, but he didn’t.

    ~Josh

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Mork:

    and i believe some one mentioned another usless seazone. sea zone 63… im not at home so i gotta get a look at where it is first. so post away


  • Ha ha

    nice emphasis  :-)

    BUT, that post was an incorrect reference to the original post about SZ63.Â

    Baghdaddy brought it up first, as the subject of a new rant (focussed on the un-reality of it reaching Canada, not its general uselessness)

    and later on (in the post you are quoting) Mork Far mistakenly thought that Baghdaddy was referring to its general uselessness.

    So HA!  :-P

    ~Josh

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

23

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts