Steam id: gliven_colin
If anyone has Crusader kings II, Europa Universalis 4, Civ4/5, Men of war, Renegade X
add me up.
Steam id: gliven_colin
If anyone has Crusader kings II, Europa Universalis 4, Civ4/5, Men of war, Renegade X
add me up.
Anyone playing the new multiplayer beta?
Unofficial sequel to the original Command & Conquer Renegade.
FPS/RTS hybrid
It’s totally free. Made by modders in their spare time.
They started up an indi gaming company called Totem Arts.
I suggest you guys go check them out.
I agree Men of War Assault Squad is amazing.
Assault Squad 2 is coming out march 20th
The only reason the Predators would even consider to help us lowly creatures, would be so that they could hunt us and the person they helped escape for sport.
So my answer would have to be Batman. Knock out a few guards, toss a holographic image of the inmate in their cell, sneak out. Job done.
You can see electricity……
If any of you were a fan of the Mammoth tank. You get to DRIVE one in Renegade.
Red Alert 2 Yuri’s Revenge, Is my favourite RTS game hands down.
C&C Renegade based off the first C&C, is my favourite first person shooter of all time. No contest.
There is an Indy gaming company called Totem Arts, who is remaking Renegade with modern graphics engine. They are calling it Renegade X
Its a stand-alone game totally free because of licence issues. They already realeased the single player story mode. Multi player is coming out next year. EA is actually helping them out with play testing and what not. They agreed to support Totem Arts so they could help bring more awareness to their brand.
If you like C&C and FPS you should totally check out Renegade X
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/renegadex/481/interview.html
My brother and I use a lot of dice.
Roll for 1’s. set aside dice that hit.
Roll for 2’s. set aside dice that hit.
Roll for 3’s. etc.
count all the hits after round of battle.
remove casualties.
We find this method much faster.
After reading both of your comments, Knp and Oztea. I concede that my idea of larger coastal territories was a bad idea. I actually like the hexes up to the coast better. My only concern was trying to defend a land zone from amphibious assault without having to split up my navies. Also when i came up with the idea i didnt envision a sea zone stretching from maine to texas. More like 3 sea zones along that coast. Which is pretty close to what the hexes are already doing on the american east coast. My idea was geared more towards waters such as the Mediterranean seas, Baltic, and the sea of Japan.
Hey Oztea,
hows the map coming along?
I have a suggestion for the sea zones if you are staying with the hexes. I believe you should keep ocean zones as hexes, but sea zones and coastal waters should have drawn out zones like in the official games. This creates a clear image of which zones naval and air bases control over.
An example would be making the sea of japan one sea zone. Split up the Mediterranean, Baltic, Black, Red, etc. seas into non hex zones. Islands are fine in hexes because they are small and able to fit into small zones. But i think continental territories should not have to defend multiple sea zones.
If you create large sea zones around coastal waters this shows the zone of control naval and air bases will have. This will also prevent you from having to split up your navy to prevent an amphibious assault.
Another way to do it without adjusting the map is to create a rule where if your navy is sitting in a naval base. They have control over all adjacent sea zone hexes. OR Battle of the Bulge style. Your ships have a zone of control over adjacent hexes no matter where they are on the map. So if an enemy navy enters an adjacent hex to your navy. The defender can decide to intercept or the attacker can decide to do battle.
To be honest I prefer my first suggestion with the coastal territories being larger. There is no complex rules and less confusing to which sea zone connects to which land territory.
Also these are just suggestions. It is your map you don’t have to listen to me lol :wink:
All you have to do is read Cow’s Japan guides and you can see what Japan is capable of. If you leave them alone as the Americans. You guarantee an Axis Pacific victory to any competent Japan player. I have looked into KGF strategies myself. But it all relied on containing Japan to an extent with the Americans.
Tall Paul,
I would like to apologize once again, this time for also misunderstanding you. I guess i got a little “emotional” for lack of a better term. I’m not perfect myself.
I do not hold a grudge against you.
I wish you good luck and good fun in your match against your opponent.
So yes lets leave it at this.
Tall Paul
It was not my intention to sound sarcastic. I genuinely wanted to know how long you have been playing this game for. The reason for that was because I assuming you have been playing for a long time. Which you confirmed since 1984. If you have been playing since 1984 you would know that allies cannot attack each other. You also asked that when Japan took and subjugated India if Anzac could then automatically capture the territories it was currently in. Based on this question and assuming you knew the rule that you could not attack allies. I thought you played as if when you lose your capital all the lands went to the conqueror. As in UK Pacific is now subjugated and loses control of its territories as you put it. After my misunderstanding was corrected. I then based my answer around your question as if japan didn’t take the rest of your lands. And still basically gave you the same answer because it still answers your question if not directly to your exact scenario. That territories only change hands when an enemy captures it. ANZAC is an enemy of Japan. so them taking Japanese held British lands is an enemy taking a land. How is this statement false?
You then began to basically bash me and claim all my statements were just opinions. Opinions that were false and sarcastic….Which they weren’t. Or at least not intended to be sarcastic.
Krieghund confirmed my understanding of the rules were Correct. Yet you claimed them false. And then later claiming you knew all along after they were confirmed, saying it was just for a newbie. Which is it?
1. You didnt know, or
2. you knew and were annoyed with me because i gave you an “un-official” answer, misunderstood you and thought i was a prick. So you then began to bash me.
If you knew the answer you would not claim my statements false and would have said " Sorry Gliven i will wait on an Official answer from Krieghund. "
So if its number 2 and you just wanted to bash me…common…how old are you? And no. this time i don’t really care how old you are…
I used to enjoy reading your posts Tall Paul…but after this…ehhh not so much.
I’d also like to ask Krieghund. In this scenario Japan has already captured India. Say japan walks into an empty Burma capturing the territory with no combat then leaves thier next turn. ANZAC’S next turn they walk into Burma and claims it as there own. There is no combat but ANZAC gains the territory.
Different scenario. India is taken but Burma is still British controlled, only ANZAC troops remain in Burma. Japan attacks Burma, loses and Anzac still remains. Territory stays British or is ANZAC because there is combat.
first Scenario question. do you classify taking an empty enemy territory as combat?
I classify enemy controlled friendly territory as enemy territory because they have gained control of it. plus its shorter to say :P
Second scenario
My understanding, and hopefully everyone’s understanding, is that Burma remains British, unless Japan won and took the territory itself, and that ANZAC would NEVER take an allies territory unless an opponent such as japan took it first and then ANZAC took it back with combat or simply walking into an empty territory. AND only if the capital was taken. Otherwise they would be liberating it.
Also in the rule book about capturing friendly territories is it referring to capturing enemy controlled friendly territory? Because I think this is where Tall Paul’s confusion is coming from. taking the same quote from pages 20-21 it states that when you are attacking an ENEMY CONTROLED friendly territory if the capital is taken you take it instead of liberating it.
When you take an enemy capital. The ONLY things that happen,
1. You take control of said territory and earn the printed IPC in that territory only
2. You confiscate any held money by said defeated defender
3. Said defender can no longer gain income and can no longer build units
The rest of the lands remain yours and yours alone. Your allies don’t come and steal your undefended lands, because that would be an act of war.
Tall Paul. I apologize for sounding rude. Your question was when Japan takes control of India the rest of Uk pacific is able to be captured by an ally like Anzac. I stated that in order for anzac to take them they would have to take it back from the japanese. they way you worded your question. you made it sound like that once Japan took India they took the rest of their territories or subjugated as you called it. And i answered you according to that. I also said that territories only change hands when an enemy takes it. you cannot attack an allied territory unless it was taken from an enemy. which is true and backed up by Krieghund. This has been the case since the first edition. which is why i asked you how long you have been playing this game, since i thought you have been on this forum and have been playing longer than I have and would have already known this. If that sounded sarcastic i’m sorry it was not my intention.
I stated my answers not as an opinion or an interpretation but by the rules and how the game is played.
Plus think of it this way. Say Moscow was captured by the Germans, then the British came up through the middle east and started confiscating the caucus and the Americans took Siberia. This is an act of war.
In your scenario the Anzac are DEFENDING british lands not CAPTURING them. because they are ALLIES not ENEMIES.
In order for anzac to take control of those territories they would have to declare war against the british. Which you cannot do…since they are allies
Or take it from the japanese after they have taken it themselves. and only when india is taken otherwise they are liberating it for the british
read my first sentence.
Insert Quote
Territories only change hands when an enemy power takes control of them
This is true for every axis and allies game. Just because you lose your capitol. That does not mean you magically lose all your territories and anyone left in them gains control.
How long have you been playing this game?
Territories only change hands when an enemy power takes control of them. Even though Japan has taken control of the UK Pacific capital, that does not mean that it has captured the rest of UK Pacific’s territories. So unless Japan actually sends units into those territories, she will not have control of them.
This is not an interpretation of the rules. This is the rule. There is no automatic capturing of territories at all in Global 1940 any edition. Unless you count Mongolia for the Russians, but that is something different entirely.
What I usually do is have Canada’s income split from UK but take its turn at the same time. A 3 way split Can/uk/india. Give Canada a NO where they gain 3 IPC when USA is at war. Also add 2 Canadian infantry in London at set up for the loss of the Canadian IPC to help with sea lion.
I use green painted British units to represent Canada