• @Krieghund:

    Subs get to fire first only in the first combat round if no enemy destroyers are present.  They may submerge instead of firing in any combat round before any dice are rolled if no enemy destroyers are present.  They don’t block combat or noncombat movement of any enemy ships.  When a warship ends a combat movement in a sea zone with an enemy sub, it may choose to attack it or ignore it.  Air units can’t hit subs unless there is a destroyer friendly to the air units on the battle board.  Subs attack on a 2 and defend on a 1.  They cost 6 IPCs.

    All this is pretty odd … with so drastical change for a unit who worked in Revised? Saving the aircraft stuff, the rest is … odd …


  • Probably you have reason, Craig, with people thinking subs were not enough good, but I think forcing aircraft have a dd to attack them and the reduced cost was enough. The thing most annoys me is a lone trannie ignoring a sub and sending people to other place, but I guess, as you say, opinions will vary with the time


  • Probably you have reason, Craig, with people thinking subs were not enough good, but I think forcing aircraft have a dd to attack them and the reduced cost was enough. The thing most annoys me is a lone trannie ignoring a sub and sending people to other place, but I guess, as you say, opinions will vary with the time

    I love these sub changes, and can’t wait to play it out! I think the tracking of enemy destroyers and moving of subs into striking position can be a new and exciting part of the game. Let’s see if this change will make Convoy interdiction house rules disappear, time will tell…


  • @Krieghund:

    Subs get to fire first only in the first combat round if no enemy destroyers are present.  They may submerge instead of firing in any combat round before any dice are rolled if no enemy destroyers are present.  They don’t block combat or noncombat movement of any enemy ships.  When a warship ends a combat movement in a sea zone with an enemy sub, it may choose to attack it or ignore it.  Air units can’t hit subs unless there is a destroyer friendly to the air units on the battle board.  Subs attack on a 2 and defend on a 1.  They cost 6 IPCs.

    Krieghund…

    Let’s say a group of 3 Subs is attacked by 1 Destroyer, 5 Fighters, and 2 Cruisers
    If 1 Sub survives the first round of combat, does it have any opportunity to submerge prior to facing second round attacks?

    I know the answer is yes if the opposing Destroyer is taken as a casualty, but what I’m wondering is if it can submerge if the Destroyer is not taken as a casualty?


  • Since it went mostly unaddresed, I would like to point out the following:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
    You can see that Canada’s % deaths vs total population was higher then the U.S

    Hopefully that info is accurate, but I imagine it is.

    Please don’t belittle Canada’s role in WW2


  • @kendric:

    Since it went mostly unaddresed, I would like to point out the following:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
    You can see that Canada’s % deaths vs total population was higher then the U.S

    Hopefully that info is accurate, but I imagine it is.

    Please don’t belittle Canada’s role in WW2

    Yeah, but canada’s total population was 10 times less than America’s…

    The fact is, a Canadian was belittling the Italian army in WWII, which is OK by you apparently, but when someone mocks Canada’s (relative lack of) influence on the war, it’s going “too far.”  I would never mock a nation’s war performance unprovoked, but when a person from Canada of all places is mocking the performance of Italy (which could have probably run Canada three times over in a one on one war), then yeah I might make a lighthearted comment about the humor apparent in that.


  • You totally missed my point. I said percentage of total population. Thus it doesn’t matter what the total population is. What it means is that Canada lost a higher portion of their population then the U.S. For each household, they had a higher chance of a death.

    P.S using the logic that somebody made fun of A so I can make fun of B is pretty weak.


  • Kendric,

    I apologize for having given the idea of belittling Canada. I do not want to be offensive. Moreover, I do not want to be unrespectful of Canada and Canadian soldier in WW2.

    I was only considering if it is correct to chose a nickname like “italiansarecoming” with the declared intention of belittling  Italy.

    @Romulus:

    @italiansarecoming:

    HOLD IT I CAN READ MAN don’t be so rude to me you know i can check some conversations out!
    Also anyways i understand the rules easily i just need it explained to me once or twice or read it over a million times.

    So don’t dis me until you actually know me and i can read perfectly thankyou.

    also on another post i said i was canada i chose italiansarecoming as a joke because they sucked in ww2 :lol:

    So there you go i am canadian, i am capable of learning rules and i am not italian!
    My only fault would be i am to lazy
    This post: please do not show much anger italiansarecoming even though you are lazy. lol

    It is not a question of showing anger.

    What do you think if I changed my name to “CanadiansAreNotInA&A” and then started to write post like: xve rght shyrt shergt cvb bmm qwerty asd asd???

    Excuse me for being out of topic.

    I think that the one that should be indicated for belittling Canad is not me.
    Considering that Italy suck in WW2 is a thing without sense. Which means that we italians sucked?
    We have lost the war. We had 454,500 Total deaths, 1.02% of 1939 population, reading your link. My home city was bombed by USAF, RAF and even Luftwaffe. Historical vestige were destroyed in the process. People dead.

    Then? We suck for that? So be it: we suck! And now that we know that we Italians suck? What we shoud do?

    I have to read posts like the above one and other similar.
    I have no problem about that. Every one is free to express his opinion and to choose the nickname he like.

    But, now you are asking to me to not belittle Canada for having said that i could select as nickname “CanadiansAreNotInA&A” and then start to write nonsense.

    I do not want to start a flaming only to understood: the thing I wrote is offensive for Canada while the post I quoted should be not considered offensive for Italy? Or do I have misunderstood?

    Excuse me again for being out of topic.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    ok thats fine. Stay on topic.


  • @kendric:

    You totally missed my point. I said percentage of total population. Thus it doesn’t matter what the total population is. What it means is that Canada lost a higher portion of their population then the U.S. For each household, they had a higher chance of a death.

    P.S using the logic that somebody made fun of A so I can make fun of B is pretty weak.

    You know what I think is pretty weak?  That it’s all fun and games when you bash one nationality, but when your own takes even light flak, then that’s just going “too far”.  I think the logic “I’ll make fun of A but people related to the A category have no right to fire back” is full of hubris.  And I believe you missed the point:  If a country of 30 people loses 10 in the war, they still had minimal impact on the war, if any at all, despite losing a third of their population.


  • Romulus, I was referring to Rakeman, not you.
    Rakeman I guess we will just disagree. If my country lost 1/2 of its population and you lost 1% and i lost less people then you, I will feel that I was much more devastated then your country. Your country will go on, mine will probably collapse.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    OK no more of these posts. I don’t want to lock this up because of a perceived issue that has no relevance to the thread.


  • I hope that they make canada a bit better i am sorry but canada was good in ww2!

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yes yes fine. Canada won the second world war. Enough.

    stay on topic…


  • Ok Challenge,

    Use the new unit costs in your next game.  We have, using 2004 Revised Board.  There is enough information on this site to play some house games with the new unit costs and mechanics.  You will see, I believe how much more mobile the Navies have become, especially subs, very useful unit.  I am curious to see if you guys are having the same results we are getting.  Then a real discussion of how good subs are or are not will some potency.

    item:I salute the brave soldiers and sailors of Canada and Italy for their contributions to their countries, right or wrong the average soldier went out and did his job, bravo!! 
    No one sucked.  You can have an opinion, fine, your tactical assessments are poor IMHO. We are suppose to be students of this war. 
    Unforunately, the victors write history, and leave out the brave, bright contributions of the losers, German and Italian or Japanese and important members, like Canada.
    Think Poland, 4th largest Allied Army, no press, fought every where and zilch credit. 
    Speaking of percentage losses, the Russians, can you imagine being told to charge across a battlefield without a weapon and told to pick one up from your dead comrade, ouch.


  • @Lynxes:

    Probably you have reason, Craig, with people thinking subs were not enough good, but I think forcing aircraft have a dd to attack them and the reduced cost was enough. The thing most annoys me is a lone trannie ignoring a sub and sending people to other place, but I guess, as you say, opinions will vary with the time

    I love these sub changes, and can’t wait to play it out! I think the tracking of enemy destroyers and moving of subs into striking position can be a new and exciting part of the game. Let’s see if this change will make Convoy interdiction house rules disappear, time will tell…

    I agree, tracking will be great.


  • The Russians weren’t merely told to cross the battlefield without a rifle and pick up one

    from their dead comrade.

    They had a gun at their back!

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Krieghund:

    Subs get to fire first only in the first combat round if no enemy destroyers are present.  They may submerge instead of firing in any combat round before any dice are rolled if no enemy destroyers are present.  They don’t block combat or noncombat movement of any enemy ships.  When a warship ends a combat movement in a sea zone with an enemy sub, it may choose to attack it or ignore it.  Air units can’t hit subs unless there is a destroyer friendly to the air units on the battle board.  Subs attack on a 2 and defend on a 1.  They cost 6 IPCs.

    One change that will really affect the decision wheter or not to buy subs, is the 2/1 attack/defense values.
    With a ‘1’ on defense, you will not want to get stuck with a bunch of subs, if you are faced with a defensive naval position.
    However, if you expect to be the attacking party, then you’ll be happy with your subs.

    But how shall you know if you’ll be playing defense or offense. Interesting dilemma!


  • @Constantinople:

    The Russians weren’t merely told to cross the battlefield without a rifle and pick up one

    from their dead comrade.

    They had a gun at their back!

    Agreed,

    Good point, I was wondering, if I should have stated orders at gun point.


  • @Bluestroke:

    , the Russians, can you imagine being told to charge across a battlefield without a weapon and told to pick one up from your dead comrade, ouch.

    It was more likely that Russian soldiers were sent into battle ill-equipped in WW1. Rare was it when Russian soldiers were sent to fight weapon-less in WW2. In fact, it almost never occured. I hope you aren’t getting your history from movies such as ’ Enemy at the Gates '…


  • I have sometimes wondered if one of the lesser reasons that other allies were never allowed to step foot in Russia was that Russian soldiers would see how much more well equipped the US soldiers were then themselves and possibly start another Bolshevik scenario.

    This to some degree did become an issue with US troops in England.

    I know that the big reason Russia was taboo for other allies was Stalin’s ego.

    LT

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    i love 2-1 subs because it makes destroyers the ‘infantry of the sea’ because 1) they negate subs, 2) they can shoot at planes, 3) they got better defense, 4) they can protect transports , while subs cant do jack.

    I have said for 5 years now that the Destroyer and not the submarine should be the ‘infantry of the sea’ and finally they listen.


  • @LT04:

    I have sometimes wondered if one of the lesser reasons that other allies were never allowed to step foot in Russia was that Russian soldiers would see how much more well equipped the US soldiers were then themselves and possibly start another Bolshevik scenario.

    This to some degree did become an issue with US troops in England.

    I know that the big reason Russia was taboo for other allies was Stalin’s ego.

    LT

    I wonder what would have happened if Germany just left Russia alone?


  • @mwindianapolis:

    @LT04:

    I have sometimes wondered if one of the lesser reasons that other allies were never allowed to step foot in Russia was that Russian soldiers would see how much more well equipped the US soldiers were then themselves and possibly start another Bolshevik scenario.

    This to some degree did become an issue with US troops in England.

    I know that the big reason Russia was taboo for other allies was Stalin’s ego.

    LT

    I wonder what would have happened if Germany just left Russia alone?

    I guess that would have been up to Stalin.  If say when Germany invaded Poland that Russia felt they had more claim to that country they may have declaired war on Germany.

    Then again Stalin may not of wanted to have been out done by the US so they may have entered the war any way even if Poland was left untouched.

    Who knows?

    LT


  • @Imperious:

    I have said for 5 years now that the Destroyer and not the submarine should be the ‘infantry of the sea’ and finally they listen.

    They seem more like the tanks of the sea as they do more than subs.

    So the analogy is inf:tanks
    as subs:destroyers

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

40
Online

16.0k
Users

37.6k
Topics

1.6m
Posts