Thank you.
Some units are overpriced
-
My personal view is Soviet Union is communist. everything is provided by the government. therefore soviet pieces should be free like in comminusim. :wink:
-
@ncscswitch:
No, DST’s would still shoot only once, they would just get to fire BEFORE all others, and then ONLY if targeting enemy SUBs (thus making the DST a true sub hunter, which seemed to be the point of adding them to Revised in the first place).
Oh I see it now. So destroyers can now either combat normally or perform as sub hunter.
Or, if you want to eliminate double firing, just have the BB’s able to fire in “Opening fire” but only against incoming aircraft…
Oh, would that make it battleship can either combat normally or perform as antiair?
-
I don’t know if that logic works. I think of an infantry division being like 10,000 guys, but a bomber unit having maybe 500 planes?
Yeah. I think of approx. INF as 10,000 guys, ARM as 1000 tanks, FTR as 100 planes, SS as 10 submarines.
But then an Aircraft Carrier piece can hold two FTR pieces which throws it totally off.
While we are talking about units I might as well bring up the implicit-naval-fighter in aircraft carrier piece rule. -
Actually the BB would fire BOTH ways.
A BB in a fleet would be just like having an AA gun there, but the BB would conduct normal combat on round 1 also.
Boosts up the BB a bit and might encourage their purchase a bit more for $24 also :-)
-
You’ll never get bombers to attack at 6. That would mean they never miss.
However, if you had to keep the price at 15, for some ungodly reason, why not just raise their defense to 2? One would expect the bomber crews, support crews, air base crews, etc to be able to defend at least as good as an infantry unit.
If you’re an infantryman, you get an assault rifle.
If you’re bomber/support crew, you get a pistol.
-
While we are talking about units I might as well bring up the implicit-naval-fighter in aircraft carrier piece rule.
:? :? :?
Not familiar with that rule…
-
While we are talking about units I might as well bring up the implicit-naval-fighter in aircraft carrier piece rule.
:? :? :?
Not familiar with that rule…
The logic is that you don’t build a carrier unless you have fighters, so carriers should have fighters with them.
I tried the same thing at the supermarket the other day.
Wat u mean, this hot dog bun not come with hot dog? It’s a HOT DOG BUN foo!
imma sorry sir, please put that rubber chicken away. we sell hot dog buns and hot dogs separately
uh . . . wat?! lemme talk to ur manager
oh gee sir, i really dunno
(whack!)
Im da manager. ive called the police, please put that rubber chicken away
gimme my complimentary hot dogs
hm, ok, will u leave then
sure . . . hey wat the hell these hot dogs come in packages of ten but hot dog buns come in packages of six, wat gives?
he’s rite over there officers!
-
Also, just a thought, but maybe replace super submarines with super carriers? Carriers carry 3 fighters instead of 2. :P You’d still have to roll the tech, but think of the advantages if you get the tech.
-
That would make the Baltic AC a little more attractive…
-
Yea, except you’d need the technology. I don’t know if Germany wants to spend the money for the technology and the aircraft carrier.
To be honest, I’ll aim for Rockets first for Germany.
However, America and Japan would like it. England might like it.
-
Getting OT, but I don’t like the way techs work. You shouldn’t have to gamble to get them. Because if you win, you win big, but if you lose, you can be out a lot of valuable IPCs.
I still have yet to play a single game with NAs or Techs, but if I do I’d want them pre-allocated at the beginning of the game (though only taking effect after one’s first turn)
-
I wouldnt mind a game where you get 2 random NA’s and 1 Random tech per nation. (Axis chose 1 NA or tech each, allies chose 1 NA or tech)
-
I wouldnt mind a game where you get 2 random NA’s and 1 Random tech per nation. (Axis chose 1 NA or tech each, allies chose 1 NA or tech)
Isn’t there enough randomness in this game already? :? :? :?
Why not play a game where you CHOOSE them so that these items become more a part of the game strategy instead of ‘I got lucky and got some cool NAs?’ 8-) 8-)
-
I’ve thought that it could be interesting to assign some techs / NA’s randomly and THEN allow the players to bid for each side. You might even make a negative bid (or a bid for the allies) if the Axis got some cool shit.
-
I’ve thought that it could be interesting to assign some techs / NA’s randomly and THEN allow the players to bid for each side. You might even make a negative bid (or a bid for the allies) if the Axis got some cool sh*t.
I guess the bid could be an equalizer, but the bid has to be within a certain range… who would allow a bid of >= $12 even with cool NAs?
-
Axis:
The point is to not always have the SAME NA’s in effect. If you randomize it, then people can play with or against them all. Also, with the choice selection on top of the random, you can still ensure you get one of the “good” NAs.
Also, I’ve gotten the Axis in a NA game with a bid of 22. 2 infantry, armor in Ukraine, 11 IPC germany.
-
Why not just bid NA’s then?
I bid the Axis with 3 NA’s and 1 Tech…
-
Axis:
The point is to not always have the SAME NA’s in effect. If you randomize it, then people can play with or against them all. Also, with the choice selection on top of the random, you can still ensure you get one of the “good” NAs.
See the problem is that all the NA’s are not even/balanced. That imbalance invites problems. Enhanced NAs tried to make them all about the same, even across countries (as much as possible). Now you are not ‘stuck’ with one or two bad NAs. The bid is not required to make up for sucky NAs random choices then.
Also, I’ve seen just about every NA used in Enhanced.
Also, I’ve gotten the Axis in a NA game with a bid of 22. 2 infantry, armor in Ukraine, 11 IPC germany.
Ah, a FIDA bid. I can then see something as high as 22.
All that being said….. I probably would enjoy a random NA game as I like to have to strategize more than run the same game plans (READ KGF) as efficiently as possible. -
@ncscswitch:
Why not just bid NA’s then?
I bid the Axis with 3 NA’s and 1 Tech…
It is more the NA’s selected instead of the how many NAs you have.
-
mediocre?
our strategy is kicking ass! only 32 lost in october, 12 of those to non hostile accidents. there have been spans of no soldiers lost for 5 days straight!
or are you one of those harry reid types who declare “the surge is a failure” even before it started. the surge has worked very well, and our strategy to side with the sunni’s against their fear of iranians involvement in iraq has worked very well. Anbar province was the worst place, but the marines and their iraqi allies have made that area a non combat zone. many marines wont even wear helmets or armor there anymore.
mediocre……thats a laugh. we are winning, no doubt about it.
Suggested Topics
