If you want to expand the history lesson you can also discuss LOCATION!
Example UK:
-> The Indian fleet did not possess any DNs!
-> UK sent a big pre-DN-fleet in the Meditteranean for Gallipoli, the main Grand Fleet was stationed in Scapa Flow.So - of course - no Indian DN!
One DN piece (representing the Pre-DNs) in the Med en route to Alexandria, 2 or 3 DNs depending on how many you want to give them in the Firth of Forth.History & geography!
Just so you know, Scapa Flow is right in the middle of the Orkney Isles at the north point of Scotland, the Firth of Forth is the mouth of the River Forth at the north end of Edinburgh.
Latest posts made by JonnieMav
-
RE: Tweaking fleets to historical ratios
-
RE: Air Supremacy
I have wondered since the first glimps of the rules why the air supremacy and naval battles are played to the death but not the land battles.
It would obviously decrease the importance of fighters, but you still couldnt allow your opponents air force to attack with no defending fighters.
However it would mean that your carefully built airforce isnt smashed in seconds, and could allow you, even if only for a turn or two, to deny an enemy with an overpowering air force from achieving air superiority.
But even for the naval battles, why not with the current land battles ‘contested territory’ rule operate a similar one at sea? Deny people amphibious assaults unless they can break through the defence.
Thoughts?
-
RE: Porting 1914 rules to 1940 game
I would like to see a ‘contested zone’ rule, but I agree that any tanks/mechs involved would need to push it to 2/3 cycles. My idea for air combat would need to involve the complexity of aerial warfare. So when setting up the battle board declare what a/c is being used for what.
Choices being air superiority, patrol, ground attack and spotting. Ground attack and spotting a/c would have to make it through the patrol of defending a/c, and a win in the air superiority battle would give the winner the advantage when it comes to any dogfights between ground attack/patrol. Along with this the air battles would have to last as long as the battle below, so you would not lose your entire airforce in one dogfight.
Kind of stolen different rules from different games. Spotting and air superiority from 1914, ground attack from D-Day, and patrol from Pacific.
Would that work? Probably not. Am I deterred? Not in the least.
-
RE: Possible alliances?
Dont forget that Italy also had a secret pact with France which limited any chance of an Italian attack on French soil (although I dont think any pact was water tight).
Britain joining on the CP side would at least ‘shake’ up the battle for Africa. In fact even Italy joining the CP would make it a little more interesting.
-
RE: Expansion Pack or 2nd Edition?
I think they have made good progress with the WWII Global boards (1942.1 not included), and as has been mentioned there have been major differences from one to the next (I think the new board was probably the best selling point of 1942.2).
I have E40 and would never pay the same for Italian pieces and new set up rules. You dont even need to download them, they are on Google images.
After 1940.2 I am sure 1914.2 will be on the way as soon as feedback from players starts arriving, so it comes to the point, do you accept the game as it is, or wait and buy the second edition if you are not entirely satisfied? -
RE: Who has preordered already?
£75 on amazon. As its the same size as E/A40 I can see where that price tag has come from, but going from every nation having their own sculpts to just infantry, too expensive.
-
RE: Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
Couldnt that happen with the given rules? 60 subs in those 3 zones should just about do it…
-
RE: Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
Why not use a rule similar to the old National Advantage ‘U-Boat Interdiction’ from Revised, that rule stated that for each German sub on the board remove 1IPC from both the US and the UK, forget the roll. Why not for each German sub between London and New York (shortest route), detract 1 from each?
-
RE: Tanks in Combat
You are probably right. What about an optional rule of when attacking with tanks to play 2 cycles of combat instead of one, kind of to try and represent an increase of speed and mobility of tanks (even if that is not representative of the truth) but really to have more time on the offensive with your tanks? Might be something I will think about if every battle is just stacks of infantry and artillery. I was also thinking about a ‘contested zones’ style gameplay for WW2 with a 2 cycles combat system for tanks/mechs as I have always lamented the no option for defender to retreat.
I was wondering if you thought that if your capital is contested can you still mobilize? Throw units straight into the fight?
-
RE: Tanks in Combat
Could you envision tanks being heavily used in the Western Front by 1 of each of the Entente and CP? I have not thought about turn order and may not even work but if there is a large amount of German/Austrian & British/French cooperation what about one nation focusing on tanks while the other mainly on infantry to support? Tanks go in first to soak up the hits before the infantry stacks move in to support and to protect the armour from counter-attacks.