I think that he meant it to be this:
3. Long range howitzers (artillery can engage in combat from a square away- no ships can be hit.)
Ok that makes more sense. Thank you….Craig :-D
All joking aside, thanks
This is what me and my group have come up with
1. Only infantry attacking hit on 2
2. Destroyers can carry 1 inf
3. Long range howitzers (artillery can not engage in combat from a square away no ships can be hit)
4. Nuclear Reacters (ships can move three spaces)
6. Draft (1 free infantry a turn)
I don’t understand #3
I think Super Carriers would be a great Tech. Carriers would now be able to carry 3 fighters.
The way I look at it….
When a person has their actual name as their profile name, and still ends every post WITH their name…that’s all I need to know. :-D
And that is worse than never actually owning up to who you are?
Oh well! I guess it is habit. Every other MB I have the name Yoper, so putting my first name helps with identification.
If that is how you judge character, who you like, etc., then so be it. Seems pretty foolish.
:-D That was a good response (especially the big red craig), I was just playin’ Craig. Sorry for getting off topic guys.
Per Larry Harris:
“There will be NEW sculpts! Really Cool sculpts actually.”
his own words
Funny, FMG say they will make new sculpts and sell to us, cause the WOTC-sculpts are lame.
Surprisingly, WOTC now claim they’ll make all new and really cool sculpts ?
Competition is good. Competition will give us quality. This is a win win to us.
Well, I’m gonna be Debbie Downer again. I believe a win for us would of been new sculpts in AA:50 to begin with. Having to buy new sculpts for a Anniversary (or Deluxe game) that cost $100, because the current units are sub-par, just doesn’t seem fair.
I think that replacement units for AA:50 should be complementary for the people that have proof of purchase.
If you were to attack a Carriar group with all Fgts and they opped to take the carriars form the board could you retreat and would the enemy still lose the fighters form those carriars for not having a place to land?
Retreating after they take the CV’s off the board is an interesting question and I’m curious to see what Krieg has to say. I actually saw this move done today on tripleA and the fighters where destroyed because they weren’t in range of a safe landing zone.
Can you detail your standard G1 buy/combats?
Hmmm that’s a good question axis….I’ve tried a couple different tactics. My standard opening move with the Luftwafta is to take out the UK navy leaving only the DD and Tranny in SZ9. I’ve tried (and usually successfully) take Egypt with the help of the bomber, but I’ve abandoned that strat on G1 because using the bomber in Egypt instead of the UK fleet leaves to much of the UK fleet intact. Now on to Russia. In my first 5 games or so, on G1 and G2, I was buying armor almost exclusively. I made strong pushes taking the normal countries and Karliea, but I didn’t have enough support troops to protect my armor . Russia would stack up inf when they saw what I was doing, then counter with armor of their own going after my armor that was not properly protected.
So I started to realize that I was being over aggressive and went for a more balanced approach. This has been my last 3 or 4 games. I’ve been trying to buy a 2-1 Inf,Art/Armor ratio to maximize defense for my armor. This seems like a better approach but I can’t seem get into Russia deep enough and fast enough to cripple their IPC production. Then by round 4 or 5 the UK and US are putting so much pressure on Italy or France that I have to start reallocating resources away from Russia. Now Russia’s building offensive units and they start counter attacking.
I’m doing fine with Japan. I put pressure on Moscow every game, but it’s always too little too late.
So that’s kinda where I’m at. Hope this was enough info for ya. thanks