I’m looking forward to this Tourney!
With the speed signup has had so far, we should have no problem in making 32 or even 64 contestants 

The number of posts in the 1942 forum completely overwhelms the 1941 forum…Why is that so?
Is it that we would all like to learn the 1941 game , before putting our mind into a new setup?

But why was it 1941 that got instant popularity, instead of 1942?  :?

Just curious. Why are YOU less interested in the 1942 scenario?

Yes, it is the territory owner that gets it.
In your example,  the AA goes to the Soviets.

A long time ago, we played this totally incorrect. I think the AA went to the original owner … :roll:

Like if the IND AA had walked up to CAU, and the territory then was liberated by Americans, the AA became British. 

:d6:

Input ErrorThere was an error in your dice throw: “4d6” is not correct syntax.

Rolls: 1@3 1@3 1@3 1@3 1@3 1@3; Total Hits: 41@3: (4)1@3: (6)1@3: (3)1@3: (1)1@3: (2)1@3: (1)

Rolls: 1@10; Total Hits: 11@10: (5)

Input ErrorThere was an error in your dice throw: “1d2” is not correct syntax.

Input ErrorThere was an error in your dice throw: “1d2” is not correct syntax.

we’ve just had a new game released, why the need for a news form.
it has to because someone (read: djensen…) have some secret info of yet another game……

alright, at least i’ve managed to start a rumour 

I’ve still only played 1 game of '42.
Not to keen to explore it any further either. I’d like to explore more of the '41 scenario still

They do seem a bit cumbersome…?
Do they not take up quite a lot of valuable table space when gaming? (especially with the new HUGE AA50 board…)

Nice Functioneta!

So, what’s your thoughts on this?

My take on this is, that of course you’d like two ICs on the mainland. But it means a tradeoff, where you might under-utilize your existing TRNs, and you get less units on the ground (because of the 15 Ipc investment in the IC)

We are assuming KGF here , so no Allied ICs in are being built in Asia or Africa.