Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. JohnBarbarossa
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 3
    • Posts 55
    • Best 2
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    JohnBarbarossa

    @JohnBarbarossa

    3
    Reputation
    19
    Profile views
    55
    Posts
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined Last Online
    Location Netherlands Age 55

    JohnBarbarossa Unfollow Follow

    Best posts made by JohnBarbarossa

    • RE: Multiple rule questions

      @Jonny5tyle Yes, if there are any units left in the convoy after the first (and subsequent) round(s) of combat two units escape from the convoy.
      This also applies when there is still a normal sea/air battle in progress. Every round that this combat lasts two convoy units escape. But as long as the defender still has combat units left, the units in the convoy cannot be taken as casuality.

      posted in Axis & Allies North Africa
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • RE: Multiple rule questions

      I think that the OP @Driel310 meant to ask what the limit was of the number of simultaneous sea mines in a seazone but his wording was a bit unclear.
      For landmines the rulebook is clear. You can build as many as you want in one territory. But for sea mines this is rather unclear.
      I am sorry to say this but the rulebook is really poorly written.
      Anyway I saw in this video today that there were multiple mines placed in one seazone:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACc_AwEvqVg&t=2793s
      At around 6:05
      Can someone confirm if that is correct?

      posted in Axis & Allies North Africa
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa

    Latest posts made by JohnBarbarossa

    • RE: Multiple rule questions

      @Jonny5tyle Yes, if there are any units left in the convoy after the first (and subsequent) round(s) of combat two units escape from the convoy.
      This also applies when there is still a normal sea/air battle in progress. Every round that this combat lasts two convoy units escape. But as long as the defender still has combat units left, the units in the convoy cannot be taken as casuality.

      posted in Axis & Allies North Africa
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • RE: Multiple rule questions

      @Witt

      Clear, thanks!

      posted in Axis & Allies North Africa
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • RE: Multiple rule questions

      @Witt

      Yes, this is very clear now thank you for answering.

      The problem is that when you look things up you look at the section sea mines on that page and expect the information to be there. It is easy to miss that one sentence at the top.

      So I assume that it is also possible that both axis and allies can have seamines in the same sea zone at the same time?

      John

      posted in Axis & Allies North Africa
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • RE: Multiple rule questions

      I think that the OP @Driel310 meant to ask what the limit was of the number of simultaneous sea mines in a seazone but his wording was a bit unclear.
      For landmines the rulebook is clear. You can build as many as you want in one territory. But for sea mines this is rather unclear.
      I am sorry to say this but the rulebook is really poorly written.
      Anyway I saw in this video today that there were multiple mines placed in one seazone:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACc_AwEvqVg&t=2793s
      At around 6:05
      Can someone confirm if that is correct?

      posted in Axis & Allies North Africa
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • European NO's

      I am curious to what the exact NO’s are for the European theatre. What are the differences from the Global NO’s already posted by Emperor Taiki?
      When you delete the Pacific NO’s from his list you get the following NO’s:

      Germany

      • 5 for denmark, norway, and a neutral or axis sweden.
      • 5 for being at peace with the soviets
      • 5 for each soviet VC
      • 3 for having a land unit in egypt

      Soviet Union
      +5 for being at war
      +6 for each original german territory if they have all of their originals

      UK
      +5 for getting rid of the subs in the atlantic

      Italy
      +5 for getting all the allied warships out of the med
      +5 for southern france, egypt, and greece

      USA

      • 30 for being at war

      France

      • 4 inf when Paris is liberated

      It looks like most NO’s are useable also for the stand alone version but UK probably has a couple of more.

      Anyone with info care to elaborate?

      posted in Axis & Allies Europe 1940
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • RE: What previews do you want?

      @djensen:

      W00t! Thanks for proof-reading it.

      @Krieghund:

      It looks OK to me.   :-)

      One small typo (but one that could be confusing), in the Italian Political rules:
      •Declaring war on the Soviet Union does not cause Germany to go to war with USA and vice versa.
      I think this should read Italy.

      Just a small thing, but still…

      posted in Axis & Allies Europe 1940
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • RE: AAE40 setup ( now verified)

      @Proud:

      lets stop annoying IL. Im just saying I barely use the pic. Infact I havent used it till today!

      Anyway i think theres 4 there. Anyone back me up?

      It is probably a 4, but it is definitely not a 1 (compare it to the other 1’s on the chart PLUS plurar for “fighters”)
      4 makes the most sense (but cannot be confirmed since there are no other 4’s on the chart) because of the attack on the Bismarck (djensen testgame) and the stacks of chips under the fighters (djensen testgame) and lastly for historical accuracy and game balance.

      posted in Axis & Allies Europe 1940
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • RE: Reactions on the FAQ

      @General:

      First of all, thanks for the FAQ Krieg.

      But could you include some justifications for these changes.  It would be nice to see the reasoning behind these changes.  Especially the NZ change.

      @Krieghund:

      They were just good old-fashioned mistakes.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • RE: Reactions on the FAQ

      I cannot believe the unit setup mistakes. This is unbelievable. What a retards.

      Having said that, these unit setup alterations make Japan even more stronger. That is the real concern.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa
    • RE: Typo on the game box

      And don’t forget the setupcharts. Japan line 1, Artillery is misspelled.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      JohnBarbarossaJ
      JohnBarbarossa