Apart from all that it was not a bad idea at all, i think (if the set-up would be planned accordingly)
edit: would give a LOT of different possibilities to the game (maybe too much even)
Apart from all that it was not a bad idea at all, i think (if the set-up would be planned accordingly)
edit: would give a LOT of different possibilities to the game (maybe too much even)
@wittmann:
You have been able to use the 2 French Inf in Uk offensively? Wow. Thought they were just collected benefits, marrying English ladies and using our once excellent NHS!
Think it is tidier making the Anzac ones UK, so they can be used offensively with the rest of her African units, but no matter.
It is a good game. Am not complaining any more.
Haha, well, the french fighter flew over and at a certain point they attacked 1 italian tank in Trans Jordan (to open up the Suez).
The plan was good but sadly i couldn’t hit even once (and this was even in low luck, so anything but a 6 was good. Of course i threw 6 twice, tank hit me twice, fighter retreated, sigh… but normally it would’ve been a useful move)
Never underestimate the power of seperate turns!
@wittmann:
Neither are necessary Special Forces.
The Allies can win without them. I also think the UK Inf is not missing. One works fine, as there are two Anzac ones. The second one is to (half ) compensate the UK in Europe alone for the missing two Anzacs. That is where the one Inf is missing: in Europe stand alone!
I do agree, it would be weird that such a big game would be defined by the lack of 1 or 2 pieces. In fact the italian bomber bothers me more than the absence of a Russian one (i can buy it after all).
As for Egypt, i personally like the 2 Australian infs, as sooner or later they turn out to be useful (for example when Anzac flies a fighter over via Brasil), same for the 2 french infs in Europe.
But i’ll play with whatever the game gives me.
Somewhere under all this, there’s a topic about an inf and a bomber…
When Moscow is surrounded i usually do small scale attacks if i can block larger forces with that, or if i can take out a better enemy unit (like a lone german tank).
Edit: actually, in your example i might just evacuate all the planes (depends on the situation).
I’ve never played a bid-game in my life, but if you play this in low luck, Allies can use a hand (and low luck AA sucks harder than a Nilfisk)
edit: so my ‘typical’ bid would be: no bid
Maybe you could start a topic on him? ;)
On a serious note: his computer could’ve crashed. That happens, and it can happen more often than, well, people dying (luckily).
I am very pro russian bomber!
The UK is much stronger than before (and earns more money and has an additional fighter in the UK and some more Navy around the medeiterean sea).
I had the impression that they meant that the french unots change buit the territories remain french (hence no extra income)
Overall: I personally would prefere, that France stays in play, but can collect income even after the fall of Paris, and use the London industrial complex to build. Makes Germany a little tougher to play, UK a little better (3 scrambling Frech fighter to protect a UK fleet).
I like that idea (perhaps limit their build in Canada though London is maybe more logical) and it gives my usual Axis opponents a reason to take french territories (now they don’t as hey know they will lose it to USA eventually, they’re stingy that way ;)
Letting Italy play before UK means they can destroy the fleet in SZ98 and take Egypt in turn 1. That’s pretty brutal IMO.
@special:
Alternative:
Remove all the French from the game and replace them with British troops. Add a +5 NO for France for Germany and change the turn-order to: Germany, USSR, Japan, USA, China, Italy, UK, ANZAC. That would be fine as well.Nooooo!
My french remaining troops have now and then saved the day thanks to them playing last.
For example, I have diverted a Sealion once by manouvering french ships to SZ112 at the last moment, blocking Germany for an important turn).The seperate turn can be really useful if you use them well.
But look at his proposed turn order. UK goes between Italy and Germany, so your protest is moot
Maybe a bad example (in which the Brits had no more ships left to block, was an OOB game i think, pre-scramble days), but France can still null certain italian actions.
I can understand people not liking them, but i kinda do, same as with Anzac (which were more useful to me in the old playing order)
Edit: didn’t look at that proposed order, but Italy before UK?! Really?
Edit2: Isn’t UK (in the Med) dead meat if the Italian fleet and forces get the first initiative?
Alternative:
Remove all the French from the game and replace them with British troops. Add a +5 NO for France for Germany and change the turn-order to: Germany, USSR, Japan, USA, China, Italy, UK, ANZAC. That would be fine as well.
Nooooo!
My french remaining troops have now and then saved the day thanks to them playing last.
For example, I have diverted a Sealion once by manouvering french ships to SZ112 at the last moment, blocking Germany for an important turn).
The seperate turn can be really useful if you use them well.
@Cow:
I hate playing the allies in global, as a whole it is so gimped and it feels like it is missing something.
I like playing Allies, but i do believe that Germany and Japan get way too many bonuses (and too easy ones too for that matter)
@wittmann:
Hi Special Forces, suppose it should be legally done in the Anzac go, but why not the Uk one as they were part of Mongomery’s 8th Army.
Just seems they get to sit and defend Egypt while the stronger and more numerous UK do the attacking.
As an aside, England has always got others to fight their wars, so is ironic that in Global they do their own dirty work!
I suppose it is just one of many discrepancies.
So, boarding in UK turn and getting on land in the ANZAC turn? I see your point but that would probably make the rules complicated.
I guess a house rule could be (for example) that ANZAC units can board AND leave UK transport ships in 1 turn with the european hemisphere.
But it’s just 2 infantry (put there for defence purposes without increasing UK’s attack strength), is that worth an extra rule?
@wittmann:
Does anyone play that Anzac units(thinking of the 2 Inf in Egypt, but is the one on Malaya too) can be transported on a UK TT?
I only ask because of the history of it and the complications of defending Egypt as not all the units are under UK control and go separately, admittedly before Italy.
You mean in the UK turn?
I’ve had a Sinkiang IC be a success for me, but it should only be done if Japan’s attack on China goes really bad (and if Russia did well enough in turn 1).
And even then it takes a joined effort: Russians attacking from the North, Brits from the South (and an india IC)
It’s possible, but only in certain circumstances, and even then is pretty risky.
february 15.
Last of 3 days of bombing Dresden.
And Singapore falls to the Japs (inclusing a lot of massacre)
Both very bloody days :(
Yeah, i am disliking LL too.
I admit it is practical in counting your attacks, but boy, does it suck for defence. (and i miss the drama and the fear on everyone’s face when i throw AA-dice - i have a mean throw)
I have the feeling there is something wrong with the new anti-aircrafts in low luck (they seem way too weak), but i might be doing it wrong…
Is this correct?
1 AA vs 3 planes: throw a 3 or less = 1 hit (instead of throwing 3 dice and each 1 is a hit)
2 AA vs 6 planes = 1 sure hit
3 AA vs 8 planes = 1 sure hit + 2 or less is a hit
etc.
If this is correct, doesn’t it mean that (in large battles) the defender is terribly powerless against any large air force?
It feels pointless to ever buy extra AA.