Lol, yea. Unless you seperate who is attacking from where!! If half your forces ate comming from Riems and the other half from Holland, then half your forces are going up against the maginot line! My rule is all or none.
Posts made by Tigerman77
-
RE: 1939 Map
-
RE: 1939 Map
@Sgt.:
A couple of questions:
1. Can a single mech/tnk activate 2 minor axis in one turn? Or does it have to stop in the first Minor Axis it activates?
2. Was looking for an explanation of the convoy rules and couldn’t find one, forgive me if this has already been answered.If you have a naval unit in an enemy convoy box that country loses those IPC’s. Thats it!!
Do those convoy boxes function to link the surrounding seazones to a convoy path? So if I have 1 Italian sub in sz27 and 1 ss in sz32 I can do 4 convoy damage against the UK? Does the 3 IPC limit mean a limit of 3 from each sea zone or 3 total?All IPC’s
3. If Poland is not attacked or survives the attack from Germany on round 1 it becomes Pro-Allied, does that refer to Warsaw or all of Poland? If only the units in East Poland survive the attack can they attack Germany (or Russia if they survive a Russian attack on Round 1)?
4. Is Iceland Pro-Allied?Owned by Denmark, Strict neutral and if Germany takes Denmark then Iceland is allied.
5. Is the fortification in Reims disabled if part of the German attack comes from Holland? Or does the whole attack have to come from Holland in order for the Maginot Line to be ignored?Yes, the whole attack will have to come from Holland.
6. The setup chart doesn’t say which territory the 4 Finnish infantry start in (I would assume Helsinki).
Thanks a bunch!
-
RE: 1939 Map
The setup chart doesn’t say which territory the 4 Finnish infantry start in (I would assume Helsinki)
yes he said that a while back.Yes, Helsinki
Can a single mech/tnk activate 2 minor axis in one turn? Or does it have to stop in the first Minor Axis it activates?
i dont think so. i belive he said something about this beforeIt’s a NCM so Technically it can!
If Poland is not attacked or survives the attack from Germany on round 1 it becomes Pro-Allied, does that refer to Warsaw or all of Poland? If only the units in East Poland survive the attack can they attack Germany (or Russia if they survive a Russian attack on Round 1)?
you’d matter as well end the game if Germany cant take Poland on the 1st turn, but the UK player will represent the pols if (in the rare chance that they dont get taken)Only if Warsaw isn’t taken. If Warsaw is taken Poland as a whole is defeated.
-
RE: 1939 Map
@Sgt.:
Lol some more questions:
1. Can mechanized infantry blitz by itself?Mech Inf. move at a 2, combat or NCM
2. Does mech boost artillery +1 in movement only on blitz? Or can it tow artillery through a friendly space and then into combat?
Mech Inf can tow artillery , 1/1 pairing of course.
3. If Russia is at war with Japan can Communist Chinese and Russian forces attack the same territory at the same time?
Yes, C.China move at same time as Russia.
4. Do UK/ANZAC/French forces attack at the same time?Yes
5. It says that the UK can move at the same time as Russia as long as Russia isn’t at war with Germany and Japan isn’t at war with the UK. So that means for the first round at least the UK can move it’s forces out of position from Japanese attack?No, Because Japan has already moved with the Germans! If Germany and Russia are not at war, then Germany and Japan can move at the same time. On turn 1, Germany and Japan move first. If Japan does not attack Russia then Russia and UK/Commonwealth move at same time. Once Russia is brought into the war they move in between germany and Japan and UK moves after Japan.Thanks for all of your answers.
-
RE: 1939 Map
@Sgt.:
yes. at least i think. that is how i plaed it.
if you hold it you dont collect the income.
but the represented player doesRight, so by holding it you prevent the other player from receiving that income, but you don’t steal it for your own.
Correct
-
RE: Battlecruisers?
@CWO:
Gents, In this discussion on Battle Cruisers did anyone figure the fire power of the HMS Hood was 8 x 15 inch guns the same fire power of the DKM Bizmarck? Yes Bizmarck’s guns were a new design but they fired the same broadside of the Hood.
Their 15" calibers may have been the same, but their performances were completely different. The Hood’s main guns were 42 calibers in length, and could fire an 871-kg armour-piercing shell at a muzzle velocity of 750 m/sec. Those of the Bismarck were 52 calibers in length, and could fire an 800-kg armour-piercing shell at a muzzle velocity of 820 m/sec.
Remember the Hood took a fatal hit to one of her main magazines.
-
RE: Battlecruisers?
Ryan,
Lol. I’m a navy man myself, well ex-navy! It was said that the early battleships had to stay close to a base because they drank fuel and the navy didn’t hve the oil:fuel ships at the start of the war. But by 1943 the ships had longer range and they had the logistc ships also. You could make it where they can only load supplies from a base! My rules I have the navy bases use their AA guns if there is a battle in that sea zone. Just an idea
-
RE: Battlecruisers?
Ryan,
best way to do that would be to incorporate supply tokens into the game. They cost 2 IPC and they are transported by truck and transport. If your fleet is out to sea it needs a transport carrying supplies sailing with it….like an oiler. Technically ships can stay out to sea indefinetly as long as they have food and fuel and ammo!!!
-
RE: Invasion of Italy
Got setups and rules v1.0 in playtesting. ETA for this game is 3 weeks. I’ll post pics in a day or 2.
-
RE: Battlecruisers?
I’m not arguing about how to use the pieces! I’m arguing the fact that if made available there could be house rules made to fit the units in the game….global or tactical game…any game! IMHO, I think the 3 naval units I mentioned before could add to a game, obviously not as historic as adding the mechs and tacs!! Since we have 2 people willing to make pieces I think it would be good to expand unit catagories as much as possible. Just sayin!
-
RE: Medium Bombers and Dive/torpedo bombers
Yeah, I can get that the current Axis bombers would be more comparible to Allied medium bombers. In fact, Germany deliberatly stayed with medium-sized bombers because they only thought of war against neighboring states so had no need for a long-range strategic bomber and many more medium bombers could be built for the same price. That tactic served them well until they invaded the Soviet Union and the Soviets moved their heavy industry behind the Ural mountains. Then Germany needed a longer ranged bomber but didn’t really have one, at least not out of the prototype stage.
I think all the Axis countries did have either prototype versions or at least plans for long-range heavy bombers. I think that we should have a corresponding game piece to represent those planes so that Germany, Japan and Italy could possibly get those bombers for gaming purposes. Also, I think that there should be medium bombers for all the Allied countries so they would match the Axis types. At the start of the game, ALL countries should just have the medium bombers and can get heavy bombers later in the game – either by graduating into them or as a tech. Historically, both sides started with medium bombers, but the Allies worked more to increasing to heavy bombers while the Germans kind of slipped behind. By the way, just my vote, the Fw 200 Kondor for the German Heavy Bomber piece.
I’m not sure about having bombers only hit @2. That seems to be too weak. I do understand your thoughts on TAC bombers being more precise therefore hitting better than regular bombers. How about TACs @4 and regular/strat bombers @3? I like the idea of heavy bombers rolling 2 dice, but ONLY if you count BOTH dice. So, if you have a heavy bomber and roll two 3s, you get two hits and destroy 2 enemy units. None of this “roll 2 dice and choose the best result” crap. I hate that rule! Rolling 1 dice @3 for medium bombers sounds good too.
One other thing regarding heavy bombers; I don’t think it necessarily needs to be a tech, especially if we get medium bomber pieces. I know it’s on the tech charts currently, but I imagine that could be changed. Perhaps medium bombers could cost 12 and heavys cost 15-18. This way we could have both types on the board. Plus, if you start with medium bombers and get the “Heavy Bombers” tech, it would seem kind of silly to replace all the medium bombers you already have with heavy ones. Again, maybe that tech could be changed to something else and heavy bombers would be a new piece to add to the game along with medium bombers. I think there would still be a place for medium bombers as heavy bombers would be a fair amount more expensive.
This was my idea exactly for my 39 setup. All nations start out with medium bombers and have to develop heavy bombers….so if Japan and Germany want to skip this technology for another they can. These new pieces are going to open the games for more house rules…isn’t that what we want? It’s what I want…! I think making Heavy bombers for the countries that don’t have an OOB heavy and making medium bombers for the countries that don’t have an OOB medium is the smart thing to do.
-
RE: Battlecruisers?
@Imperious:
BC didn’t have the same firepower as BB. These were stronger than cruisers but still having lower caliber guns. If they carried larger guns they would need more weight and become larger and lose speed.
Their defense was their speed because armor plating was poor due again to the need to keep the ship lighter so it can catch or out run Cruisers or Battleships.
ships should not goto 3 hits and 2 hits. Its not KISS.
If you don’t give the BC a special ability like a speed bonus, the advantage of adding another warship is not adding anything to the game. If anything the only new warship should be escort/jeep/light carriers.
People barely buy cruisers as it is, to have a one hit 4-4- unit or 2 hit 3-3 unit is really like just cutting a pie into more slices. Your not really creating anything new and not adding more to the game
What does a Tank Destroyer or an armored car really add to the game? Nothing except its a new piece that can be used as a tank or have special abilities as a tank destroyer. I think the Navies of the game need a CVL, BC, and Destroyer escorts. These 3 units would really open up the the variant games with new and different rules for naval combat.and tactics.
-
RE: N.Africa map.
Cool! Do you have the edge of each territory cut off to be abeach for an amph assault? I like it….be a good one to make!
-
RE: Battlecruisers?
@Imperious:
A D12 system is definitely coming but i feel we need both systems. many people just prefer D6 and we cant lose them at all.
SO make both D12 and D6 by all means.
Thats fine, I’m partial to the D12! I started using it last year and it is so much better. I know people don’t like to change but going to a D12 would be for ther better
-
RE: Battlecruisers?
@C_Strabala:
I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but I don’t like the Battlecruiser idea. If for no other reason, they were historically a total failure. Can anyone say Hood??
The Hood went against the Bismark! The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sank an aircraft carrier! I don’t think they were a total failure just not very many of them were built. I’m thinking of any way to expand the naval units for a more advanced AA experience. why would you have a PZIII if there is a PZV on the board, or a Tiger? I think it would be a cool piece to have especially for Germany who may not be able to field a Bismark but might be able to build 2 or 3 Scharnhorsts by turn 5 or so. By the way the Hood was classified as a Battlecruiser but it actually Displaced 12,000 tons mor than the OOB Battleship! Just sayin! You could have a new piece and play how you want with it!!
-
RE: Battlecruisers?
I understand about the D6, but remember with all the new pieces that are comming soon some units will be left out. A D12 system isn’t complicated, and it will allow for all new pieces to have a role in any AA variant. In a D6 system why would u buy a TD or SP artillery if it att/def the same as a tank?
Remember a Battlecruiser outgunned the cruiser and smaller ships but it didn’t have as much armor as a battleship. The BC mission was to hunt down cruisers, destroyers, and shipping vessels. It wasn’t a fast cruiser it was actually a fast battleship. 30knots was the max for most battleships other ships had 30+knot speeds. I think you give the BC the attack of a BB and the defence of a cruiser for a few IPC’s more than a cruiser. Then 2 hits to sink if not in battle with a battleship.
-
Battlecruisers?
In a D12 system a Battlecruiser:
cost- 15
att- 7 or 8
def- 5 or 6
move 2
only takes 1 hit to sink. -
RE: Medium Bombers and Dive/torpedo bombers
I understand what you are saying. So if a B-25 was a piece just make a medium bomber category and have tactical bombers also. The tactical bomber role would change, no bombing SBR on naval/air bases.
I would like to see someone do a country specific D12. It is definetly more dynamic, allowing more specialized units for variant games. I think future games will have to go with a D12.
-
Medium Bombers and Dive/torpedo bombers
If I could get a B-25 or B-26 piece, i would use the OOB tacs as dive/torpedo bombers.
D/T bombers wouldn’t change from the OOB or Global 39 rules. Except cannot perform SBR.
Tactical Bomber (B-25) would change: cost - 11-13
Attack- 7
Defend- 4
Move- 5
can perform SBR. Of course this is on a D12 system. -
RE: Should TAC bombers have to choose which unit to be paired with?
Keep It Simple Stupid. Lol I heard it alot in the Navy!!