Unit abilities

[kendric]

Romulus, I was referring to Rakeman, not you.
Rakeman I guess we will just disagree. If my country lost 1/2 of its population and you lost 1% and i lost less people then you, I will feel that I was much more devastated then your country. Your country will go on, mine will probably collapse.

[Imperious Leader]

OK no more of these posts. I don’t want to lock this up because of a perceived issue that has no relevance to the thread.

[italiansarecoming]

I hope that they make canada a bit better i am sorry but canada was good in ww2!

[Imperious Leader]

Yes yes fine. Canada won the second world war. Enough.

stay on topic…

[Bluestroke]

Ok Challenge,

Use the new unit costs in your next game.  We have, using 2004 Revised Board.  There is enough information on this site to play some house games with the new unit costs and mechanics.  You will see, I believe how much more mobile the Navies have become, especially subs, very useful unit.  I am curious to see if you guys are having the same results we are getting.  Then a real discussion of how good subs are or are not will some potency.

item:I salute the brave soldiers and sailors of Canada and Italy for their contributions to their countries, right or wrong the average soldier went out and did his job, bravo!! 
No one sucked.  You can have an opinion, fine, your tactical assessments are poor IMHO. We are suppose to be students of this war. 
Unforunately, the victors write history, and leave out the brave, bright contributions of the losers, German and Italian or Japanese and important members, like Canada.
Think Poland, 4th largest Allied Army, no press, fought every where and zilch credit. 
Speaking of percentage losses, the Russians, can you imagine being told to charge across a battlefield without a weapon and told to pick one up from your dead comrade, ouch.

[Guest]

@Lynxes:

Probably you have reason, Craig, with people thinking subs were not enough good, but I think forcing aircraft have a dd to attack them and the reduced cost was enough. The thing most annoys me is a lone trannie ignoring a sub and sending people to other place, but I guess, as you say, opinions will vary with the time

I love these sub changes, and can’t wait to play it out! I think the tracking of enemy destroyers and moving of subs into striking position can be a new and exciting part of the game. Let’s see if this change will make Convoy interdiction house rules disappear, time will tell…

I agree, tracking will be great.

[Constantinople]

The Russians weren’t merely told to cross the battlefield without a rifle and pick up one

from their dead comrade.

They had a gun at their back!

[Perry]

@Krieghund:

Subs get to fire first only in the first combat round if no enemy destroyers are present.  They may submerge instead of firing in any combat round before any dice are rolled if no enemy destroyers are present.  They don’t block combat or noncombat movement of any enemy ships.  When a warship ends a combat movement in a sea zone with an enemy sub, it may choose to attack it or ignore it.  Air units can’t hit subs unless there is a destroyer friendly to the air units on the battle board.  Subs attack on a 2 and defend on a 1.  They cost 6 IPCs.

One change that will really affect the decision wheter or not to buy subs, is the 2/1 attack/defense values.
With a ‘1’ on defense, you will not want to get stuck with a bunch of subs, if you are faced with a defensive naval position.
However, if you expect to be the attacking party, then you’ll be happy with your subs.

But how shall you know if you’ll be playing defense or offense. Interesting dilemma!

[Bluestroke]

@Constantinople:

The Russians weren’t merely told to cross the battlefield without a rifle and pick up one

from their dead comrade.

They had a gun at their back!

Agreed,

Good point, I was wondering, if I should have stated orders at gun point.

[Lisi7266]

@Bluestroke:

, the Russians, can you imagine being told to charge across a battlefield without a weapon and told to pick one up from your dead comrade, ouch.

It was more likely that Russian soldiers were sent into battle ill-equipped in WW1. Rare was it when Russian soldiers were sent to fight weapon-less in WW2. In fact, it almost never occured. I hope you aren’t getting your history from movies such as ’ Enemy at the Gates '…

[losttribe04]

I have sometimes wondered if one of the lesser reasons that other allies were never allowed to step foot in Russia was that Russian soldiers would see how much more well equipped the US soldiers were then themselves and possibly start another Bolshevik scenario.

This to some degree did become an issue with US troops in England.

I know that the big reason Russia was taboo for other allies was Stalin’s ego.

LT

[Imperious Leader]

i love 2-1 subs because it makes destroyers the ‘infantry of the sea’ because 1) they negate subs, 2) they can shoot at planes, 3) they got better defense, 4) they can protect transports , while subs cant do jack.

I have said for 5 years now that the Destroyer and not the submarine should be the ‘infantry of the sea’ and finally they listen.

[Guest]

@LT04:

I have sometimes wondered if one of the lesser reasons that other allies were never allowed to step foot in Russia was that Russian soldiers would see how much more well equipped the US soldiers were then themselves and possibly start another Bolshevik scenario.

This to some degree did become an issue with US troops in England.

I know that the big reason Russia was taboo for other allies was Stalin’s ego.

LT

I wonder what would have happened if Germany just left Russia alone?

[losttribe04]

@mwindianapolis:

@LT04:

I have sometimes wondered if one of the lesser reasons that other allies were never allowed to step foot in Russia was that Russian soldiers would see how much more well equipped the US soldiers were then themselves and possibly start another Bolshevik scenario.

This to some degree did become an issue with US troops in England.

I know that the big reason Russia was taboo for other allies was Stalin’s ego.

LT

I wonder what would have happened if Germany just left Russia alone?

I guess that would have been up to Stalin.  If say when Germany invaded Poland that Russia felt they had more claim to that country they may have declaired war on Germany.

Then again Stalin may not of wanted to have been out done by the US so they may have entered the war any way even if Poland was left untouched.

Who knows?

LT

[axis_roll]

@Imperious:

I have said for 5 years now that the Destroyer and not the submarine should be the ‘infantry of the sea’ and finally they listen.

They seem more like the tanks of the sea as they do more than subs.

So the analogy is inf:tanks
as subs:destroyers

[Perry]

@axis_roll:

They seem more like the tanks of the sea as they do more than subs.

So the analogy is inf:tanks
as subs:destroyers

You are clearly in error axis_roll  :-)

It goes like this:

inf = sub
rtl = dd
ca = arm

Or, like this table puts it. The only thing that deviates from a ‘perfect match’, is that CA’s should cost 10  :-)

Inf:          Sub
Cost 3      6
Att  1      2
Def  2      1

Rtl            DD
Cost 4      8
Att  2      2
Def  2      2
Cost, in % of previous unit (Inf/Sub, respectively):
133%        133%

Tank        CA
Cost 5      12
Att  3      3
Def  3      3
Cost, in % of previous unit (Rtl/DD, respectively):
125%        150%

[Imperious Leader]

You are clearly in error axis_roll  smiley

It goes like this:

inf = sub
rtl = dd
ca = arm

Or, like this table puts it. The only thing that deviates from a ‘perfect match’, is that CA’s should cost 10  smiley

Inf:          Sub
Cost 3      6
Att  1      2
Def  2      1

Rtl            DD
Cost 4      8
Att  2      2
Def  2      2
Cost, in % of previous unit (Inf/Sub, respectively):
133%        133%

Tank        CA
Cost 5      12
Att  3      3
Def  3      3
Cost, in % of previous unit (Rtl/DD, respectively):
125%        150%

i guess we are both in error. Thanks Perry. but to my credit the destroyer can actually attack planes and prevent the transport from taking the hit and infantry is a soak up admittedly for armor, so it can be argued that the destroyer fills the role as a proper protector=soaker for naval units attacked by air, which is pretty common. Also, who is gonna bring in subs for defense anyway? i would not even buy them if i had a fleet to protect as the Axis. I would buy them as only attack ships and if the claim is they are infantry, then they would be better on defense because that’s why we buy infantry for defense not attack. I dont buy transports for defense in revised because a one is nothing. I need at least a 2 to have a chance to kill the enemy based on any cost investment basis.

Thats my 2 cents anyway

[italiansarecoming]

So the battleships are the fighters/bombers of the sea. I am thinking of Fighters are the aircraft carriers and the battleships as the bombers.

Though subs as the inf. as the sea i totally agree and then the rest is perfectly great!

[Imperious Leader]

Remember also its hard to access the intrinsic value of items like:

ability to hold planes

to shore bombard

to negate subs first strike

to shoot at air units

to not be able to be fired at by air units…unless yada yada…

etc…

[italiansarecoming]

The tank can move 2 spaces!