Can tactical bombers intercept (defend against bombings?). And when it says that bombers attack the intercepters (defenders) on a one, does that include both strategic and tactical? And can tactical bombers and fighters both scramble in to defend their sea zones/interceptors?
Posts made by The Fire Knight
-
Alpha +.1 new strategic bombing rules questions
-
RE: Victory conditions ALPHA+ revised
I like the conditions Current conditions except i think there should be one change: They should have to own rome and berlin. B/c even though these new conditions adds a realistic theatre element to the game, it’s not really an axis victory if there is only one axis left, right? And in no way should japan have to take 7 vc’s. In the original original (really messed up and axis slanted one) if you were a persistent and good u.s. allies player then you could hold off japan for ages (i played a game that i forced a stalemate after like 20 rounds with fleet skirmeshes).
-
RE: Possible "Unoffical Pre-order"??
Ok, so i’ve been kind of out of the hub for a while, just waiting for scenario alpha to finish and these dice to come out. So can someone explain what all is being made now and when it might come out? From what i gather there are the dice of the nine nations with 6 dice each as well as maybe some new units or something?…
-
RE: Thank you Larry!
Me too, seeing as it’s only fair to add given how much criticism i also contribute. Best so far. Can’t wait till the next one.
-
RE: Russia and Japan start at war.
Make a -5 ipcs NO for Japan having troops in Russia and Russia having troops in Japan. Representing Russian far-away war and japanese winter warfare. This makes war possible but realistically makes it not worth it unless you can dominate them. Should make for an uneasy border.
-
RE: Anybody strat bombing?
If sealion is successful, you can bomb the crap out of Gibralter, and nobody can repair it until london is liberated.
If the US lands in Gibraltar after London falls it counts Gibraltar as it’s own until London’s retaken. So the US repairs it instead.
Not unless an axis power captured it first
-
RE: FRANCE and ANZAC COMBAT DICE - HELP us design them!
Ooooh oooh, can we get some UK Union Jack symboled dice too?
We like playing the Europe/Pacific sides of the Global 1940 game completely seperate. :)Maybe in the future. Not in the current Edition that will be released soon.
If we’re including ukpacific, we might as well include canada as well. It’s only a matter of time before Larry bends to our will and inserts canada.
-
RE: Isnt the game just broken if USA builds a major factory in Norway?
I like the “no major ic on any territory except home territory” rule suggestion. My concern would be though, how it would affect other powers, say Japan with no Indian, Kwangtung, or Malayan Major ic. thoughts?
-
RE: Seriously?
@UN:
@The:
Guys I have been reading these posts for awhile and I am getting tired of people whining about possible Europe 40 glitches…Yes I agree that pacific is broken but can you honestly say that playtesters didnt see the UK attack on Italy or the RN getting destroyed first turn? Even the Sealion?? In the Rulebook It states that Sealion is a very concievable option and LH did that on purpose. If you can find that it is broken just by playing it for a day then we have so little faith in the developers as possible. I personnally love this game and think that it was designed beautifully. I know that not all of you are whining and I know that Im newer to the boards so go ahead and rip me a new one. But stop trying to find the “faults” to the game… LH is smarter than you think
I have not yet finished a game of G40. So I will not yet post an opinion. But all of this is Larry and his own playtesters fault. Pacific1940’s awesome potential and abysmal failure has changed people’s policy of “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent”. Until people think that the game is a success, they will think of it as a failure. And I agree. I would go so far as to say “seriously?” to people who complain about complainers. Aka you. We’re all trying to make the game better, and although some people will be content to sit back and bleat that “everything is good and perfect” I am not one of those people. And until I see a perfect game, I will continue to critique.
I think Larry’s been proven innocent at this point. Or, have you not seen the colossal post on his forum where he personally discusses proposals of fixing Pacific?
Actually, I think he made a thread there that states the intended changes he wants us to test.
More like he’s been proven guilty and is now “doing time” to fix the game. And yes I have seen that post. But I think that there would be a lot less “play-testing” if we were a little more historically accurate. In case nobody has realized it, the game has already been play tested. For like 5 years in fact, during WW2. They should research exact historical setups, and then add to the axis armies to make it fair.
-
RE: Seriously?
Guys I have been reading these posts for awhile and I am getting tired of people whining about possible Europe 40 glitches…Yes I agree that pacific is broken but can you honestly say that playtesters didnt see the UK attack on Italy or the RN getting destroyed first turn? Even the Sealion?? In the Rulebook It states that Sealion is a very concievable option and LH did that on purpose. If you can find that it is broken just by playing it for a day then we have so little faith in the developers as possible. I personnally love this game and think that it was designed beautifully. I know that not all of you are whining and I know that Im newer to the boards so go ahead and rip me a new one. But stop trying to find the “faults” to the game… LH is smarter than you think
I have not yet finished a game of G40. So I will not yet post an opinion. But all of this is Larry and his own playtesters fault. Pacific1940’s awesome potential and abysmal failure has changed people’s policy of “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent”. Until people think that the game is a success, they will think of it as a failure. And I agree. I would go so far as to say “seriously?” to people who complain about complainers. Aka you. We’re all trying to make the game better, and although some people will be content to sit back and bleat that “everything is good and perfect” I am not one of those people. And until I see a perfect game, I will continue to critique.
-
RE: New Pacific/Global Setup
I love how this game is a constantly evolving. Its like its alive! :-o
More like how we bought a rough draft. But I do think that fixing it is better than leaving alone. And I’m glad I’ve seen them before starting my first global game. Can someone confirm that these are official (for now) and are for the global game as well?
-
RE: Are Tech Dice back to only one roll per 5 IPCs spent?
I agree. This “optional tech” rule pretty much means the same playing with it as without. It’s a bad buy. And if you disagree, then fine. But you probable don’t know how to play. Or maybe your just lucky. But for those who want a new system (even better than AA50) I will be coming up with a house rule. I’m developing it right now. Will post it here when finalized.
-
RE: Color of the Soviets -vs- the Italians
agreed. Red should be the soviet color. But it not a big deal. I can tell the difference. And since turkey is now completely impassable w/o making a stupid attack, the italians and russians will probably not see action against each other.
-
RE: Japan-Soviet Non-Aggression-Pact
I’m more in favor of a negative national objective (5 or 10 ipcs) for fighting in each others territory. Those rules would very conceivably end up just making the manchurian and siberian zones dmzs until it appears a capital is going down. the -NO still requires a military presence.
-
RE: Why isn't Mexico pro-allied neutral?
They didn’t want to do that in the P40 game, which had no neutrals except mongolia
That’s a retarded reason. There never should have been a pacific 1940. We should all be awaiting the release of the greatest game ever. One that was one game. Not two that happen to be able to combine although really the way they made it you would never know. Honestly here are the facts: Pacific 1940 (the game as we all know it to be a game with good ideas put into it but riddled with more errors and problems than you can shake a stick at) was produced for money and packaging purposes, as well as a rough draft for europe 1940. they should have made them both perfect and cohesive and then released them at the same time.
-
RE: Cruisers and tac bombers new abilities
@The:
@The:
Speaking of AA Gun territories, I’ve always wondered why AA guns don’t fire every round. What about having them do that, but only having them shoot once (instead of at every plane) but also allowing lots of AA Guns. So you could have like an AA gun with two chips under it, which would fire three times a round (even if there were like 10 planes) and then maybe you could choose aa guns as casualties or something? Thoughts?
That would probably throw off the balance of the game quite a bit, seeing as attacks can include around 30 planes. I imagine a lot of battles in the Pacific would change if AA guns fired like this.
Well, I’m not suggesting a house rule. I don’t like those. Just a thought for future games. And, hopefully, future games won’t “balance” the game in the bs way they did it this time with a Japanese air-force that has more planes than practically every other power combined.
They have 28 planes. The US has 12. The UK has 10. Germany has 8. They don’t even beat 3 of the other powers. Adding Russia’s 3, France’s 1, China’s 1, ANZAC’s 4, and Italy’s 2, its 41 vs 28
Really man? you call them having almost as much as the three largest world powers acceptable when they should barely have more than germany? What is this?
-
RE: Cruisers and tac bombers new abilities
@The:
Speaking of AA Gun territories, I’ve always wondered why AA guns don’t fire every round. What about having them do that, but only having them shoot once (instead of at every plane) but also allowing lots of AA Guns. So you could have like an AA gun with two chips under it, which would fire three times a round (even if there were like 10 planes) and then maybe you could choose aa guns as casualties or something? Thoughts?
That would probably throw off the balance of the game quite a bit, seeing as attacks can include around 30 planes. I imagine a lot of battles in the Pacific would change if AA guns fired like this.
Well, I’m not suggesting a house rule. I don’t like those. Just a thought for future games. And, hopefully, future games won’t “balance” the game in the bs way they did it this time with a Japanese air-force that has more planes than practically every other power combined.
-
RE: Should this be under House Rules?
holy crap! are you getting paid to make your own game or are you just crazy?
-
RE: Cruisers and tac bombers new abilities
Speaking of AA Gun territories, I’ve always wondered why AA guns don’t fire every round. What about having them do that, but only having them shoot once (instead of at every plane) but also allowing lots of AA Guns. So you could have like an AA gun with two chips under it, which would fire three times a round (even if there were like 10 planes) and then maybe you could choose aa guns as casualties or something? Thoughts?