Topics created by BlueIguana

Because the western Allies can more easily project power and gang up against Japan or Germany, while the axis are too far apart to help each other. Italy is really not much help. They can pile up in Spain and really easily make that a base to attack France, or even do a 2 to 1 in France. Go play it and find out. I did a few times over the years.

Krieghund will probably come along and give you the official ruling…but I think that’s how it works.

you are right, not too many close games.

This is a good idea, especially if you want a speedy game, or cooperative efforts.

I will have to try this out 🙂

In terms of turn order, you just keep per the standard with your adjustment.  IE  Germany, Japan, Italy.  Russia, Uk, Anzac, USA, China France  this sets in stone attack orders ncm’s etc.

@keplar:

i didn’t know you could place units in the black sea; i would have done it in my game as germany. i figured w/o turkey taken over that move was illegal. maybe someone more important, krieg, could verify this information.

You can place units in a seazone bordering a IC. Turkey is only important for crossing the Dardenelles from turkey to greece. This is useful so you don’t have to transport units to Africa but can move them from Europe to Africa.

I will do the same:

Since I’m the one that pointed out a lot of threads were ending in WOTC bashing with no real plan of action, I feel I should comment.

I support what MaherC is saying here. I didn’t have to resort to calling to get my tacs, but apparently the rest of us do. I’ve had multiple cases of having to ask for defective or missing pieces to be replaced by WOTC so maybe that’s why I was treated differently, I don’t know. I’m glad to see we are starting to take a united stand on what we believe in:

1. The game did not live up to previous PRODUCTION standards.
2. We don’t blame Krieg or Larry for PRODUCTION problems.
3. We need to continue to support each other to help maintain the standard we expect from WOTC in the games we buy and play.

Kreig, Larry, and the others are hard at work sorting this out. We must have faith in them that we will get the game back to what Larry wanted it to be. Remember, this isn’t some video game you’ll be bored with next week. We all bought this as an intellectual investment to enjoy for years. And we will if we just give them the time to work out the details of the new problems that have come up. In the meantime, I too believe the focus should be on the tangible quality problems that WOTC has caused in production and leave the rules stuff to sorted out correctly, not quickly.

Okay good, that’s what I thought.

@Uncle_Joe:

Yep, I agree that’s too early to tell. The first step would be to identify IF a problem actually exists before it would be possible to start to define a solution.

That said, my initial inclination would be to limit the number of aircraft that can ‘scramble’ to 3 minus 1 per damage. But even that I would not want to implement until I feel we’ve exhausted Allied options to winning.

I actually like that idea alot, perhaps even allowing for a major airbase or some such with a larger capacity.  This would even work with coastal airbases to scramble for adjacent sea zones without being too broken.  Although I think I would prefer a limit of 5, increasing the SBR capacity to 10, I guess this is house rules concepts though.