What is the U.S. doing? I didn’t see any fleets on the Atlantic or Pacific side.
Posts made by McLovin1985
-
RE: Alpha+1 game Pacific situation end of round six 12/20/10
-
RE: About to buy AA Europe 1940.
I’d recommend buying it. It’s a million times more in-depth than the original AA, much more to think about and many different tactics to try. Combine it with Pacific 1940 and you end up with an epic game. If you can finish Global in 2 or 3 rounds I want you to video tape that and send me a copy.
It’s worth the buy if you have friends who are willing to play with you.
-
RE: Let's Talk About Tech, Baby!
My friends and I never played techs because it would throw the balance of the game off too much. I like the idea and how in-depth they get, but has too much potential to screw the game up for everyone. Just my opinion, ours actually (other friends as well).
-
Scrambling Korea/Japan
With the new rules it seems to me that an airbase in Korea would be the way to go every game, stationing 3 fighters in Korea and at least 3 in Japan if theres any sense that an attack on any vessels or Japan itself is imminent. That would give you an extra 6 fighters to defend SZ6. Correct me if I’m wrong.
-
RE: Can you build a naval base on a territory that does NOT touch water?
Haha interesting…. It wouldn’t make sense to me that a naval base can be built that isn’t touching a body of water. Don’t have the rulebook in front of me… Good question though.
-
RE: A few questions.
What happens to that IC if Paris is liberated? It gets controlled by the French, or destroyed…
-
RE: Sahara Dessert, can planes fly over
I think the point of this post, my post, is to establish why there should be any restrictions whatsoever. I started the post. There should be none. The other point is to learn something I did not already now. The greatest points to somewhat counter my arguement that would make some sense, came from ME.
IL’s points are basically, “Thats how Larry wanted it”. Perhaps he is completely right but please everyone, stop suggesting house rules for something that doesn’t make sense. Either you can fly over a wasteland of sand, or you can’t. Either the Sahara has massive sand storms that reach 20,000 feet into the sky, or they don’t. Even if they did, there are lighting storms over every part of the earth that take down planes yet we don’t roll to see if a storm takes down you plane.
Also, the bermuda triangle is so small relative to where you want to travel, it would not effect your time travel in AA. Pointless rule.
If you don’t want suggestions, don’t start a thread. It’s in the rules you CANNOT, there’s your answer.
As for the bermuda triangle, it was just spitballing. People need to relax.
-
RE: Sahara Dessert, can planes fly over
It’s partially in zones 110 and 89.
Thats a big ass triangle we’re looking at Calvin haha… I think you meant SZ 101…
That would give the U.S. even more protection, unless they have to roll right away when they produce ships since they have to be placed in SZ 101… Don’t think the Bermuda Triangle idea would work out :-(
-
RE: Sahara Dessert, can planes fly over
@The:
The Bermuda triangle post is good because ships and planes actually will need to pass over it because it will lbe around the west indies which couldbe used to attack America
I kinda want to do it now hahaha… You’d have to put the sea zones over this map to see how many zones are actually affected.
-
Flight Stands For Global…
I’ve been wanting to incorporate flight stands in my game. However, the ones I’ve seen for sale are pretty expensive once you add up how many you actually need! My question is, has anyone made their own from scratch? Or knows of a site that sells in bulk (maybe 100?) at a reasonable price, when I say reasonable I mean for maybe 50$, I’m cheap :lol:
Makes the game so much more visually appealing!
-
RE: Imperious Leaders 1942 Supreme Map
My cousin bought them on the web somewhere, so I can’t help with that. They are very similar to these:
http://www.back2base-ix.com/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=67&review=writeHis were pretty cheap, but I think 8 for $12 is a pretty cheap since they have magnets in the tips.
The ones in the link have magnets in the tip, but my cousin’s didn’t. So, he bought a bag of small, rare earth magnets and glued them to the tips of his flight stands. Then, he glued small flat (really thin) magnets to the bottom of his planes. I’m not sure where he got those, but they came as a sheet, and he just cut it up. The planes sit on the flight stands really well. I’ll try to post better pictures after our next game.
Just like in the link above, his flight stands came in two heights.
He also glued a strip of the flat magnets to the tops of the carriers, and that makes a world of difference when moving carriers around.
I don’t know exactly what it is, but it all just adds a whole new element to the game.
Those are really nice… I’ve been wanting to add something like that to my games… 12$ for 8 can add up pretty quickly… Say 16 stands for major powers, 8 for minor, 1 for China (speaking about Global of course) per country? Thats about 11 sets of 8, so $132. Kinda sucks you have to drill though, I’d much rather super glue it somehow, easier/quicker process.
-
RE: Sahara Dessert, can planes fly over
If people really want to… Use a house rule… Roll dice for however many planes are passing (3 aircraft 3 dice), maybe set it at a 2 or 3…? If it hits then those planes are lost… Same with the Himalayans.
I like that Bermuda Triangle post too :lol:
-
Multi-National Question
I’m 90% sure I know, but need to clearify. When conducting bombardment for Battleships/Cruisers. Do I also count friendly Cruisers/Battleships?
Example, U.S. moves in a sea zone with 1 battleship, unloads 2 inf. on hostile island, this sea zone already has a U.K battleship present. So Instead of firing 1 bombardment, I’d fire 2.
As I said, 90% sure the answer is ‘No, only fire for the U.S. since it’s their turn’. Just wanted to make sure.
-
RE: Alpha + .1 setup charts and National objectives tracker
I’m liking the .PFD version. Good job man. I’m going to print it out tomorrow!
-
RE: Alpha Plus.1 - NO when the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan & vice versa
After the “or”.
Gracias. Might want to re-word that on the original post so there isn’t anymore confusion.
-
RE: Q about the new transport rule
No, initially it’s up to the attacker. Subs can be ignored. If the attacker decides to attack the sub, then what you’ve said is true.
Ah, never knew that. Thanks Krieg!
-
RE: Q about the new transport rule
But a transport can still enter a zone, and pickup friendly ground units, even though an enemy sub is there - provided the transport then leaves the zone, and goes to another to unload?
Yes.
Examples:
-
one transport can’t unloading troops if in a SZ there is a sub.
-
one transport with one cruiser can unloading troops if in a SZ there is a sub. But Battle don’t occurs. Right?
-
one transport with one destroyer can unloading troops if in a SZ there is a sub. But they fight a naval battle? Still right?
-
Into a hostile territory, no. Into a friendly territory, yes.
-
It’s up to the attacker whether there’ll be a battle or not. If there is no battle or the attacker wins, the transport may unload.
-
Same as 2.
Shouldn’t it be up to the defender decides weather there is a battle or not (which would be the sub) since the sub has the option to submerge? And secondly doesn’t the destroyer nullify the subs ability to submerge and therefore has to fight no matter what…. Correct?
-
-
RE: Alpha Plus.1 - NO when the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan & vice versa
I’m confused on the verbiage used in Alpha Plus.1 on the two NO for the Soviets & the Japanese involving the treaty between them.
Both states “Collect 12 IPCs, once, and at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union or (the Soviet Union on Japan).”
Should it read; “Collect 12 IPCs, at once, and at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union or (the Soviet Union on Japan).”
Implying that the 12 IPCs are awarded twice, immediately & at the next turn.
Or….
Should it read; “Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union or (the Soviet Union on Japan).” Omitting the word and.
Implying the 12 IPCs are awarded only once.
Krieg, you said the second one… Is that after or before the “Or…” because I was a little confused by this as well. The way it reads makes it seem like whoever gets attacked will be paid twice, getting 24IPCs
-
RE: Alpha +1 Question
Ahh, I think I solved my own question after reading it a bit better. This means when the U.S. is NOT at war it may upgrade the Minors to Majors for 20ICPs at any time…. Correct me if I’m wrong. :-D
-
Alpha +1 Question
Number 8 reads as follows:
8. All 3 Minor ICs in the continental US automatically are immediately converted to Major ICs when the US is at war. They can be upgraded at any time for 20 IPCs.
The rule states they automatically and immediately are converted from Minors to Majors. However the second part states they can be upgraded at any time for 20IPCs…… So I have to pay 60ICPs to upgrade them all or are they automatically and immediately upgraded with no charge…?? A little confusing.