'Second edition' rules versus 'third edition' rules.

Wouldn’t do it unless you’re a collector. Rules are available online and pieces are available on ebay or HBG. just my opinion

I guess Sealion isn’t the best idea.  Germany would have to do all the work by him/her self.

Going at the US would be better both Japan and Germany could work together and like Jen said who would think that was going to happen.

LT

Addressing the FlaK guns issue, according to the rules;only one gun may fire, no matter how many guns you have in a territory.
On a personal note, my flaK guns never hit, so I think this rule should not exist. If you want to go to the expense, and  put 4 Flak Guns in a territory, then you should be able to fire them all!  :evil:
Just be sure to put in some ear plugs in before you do, because the noise will be deafening! :-o
No, not the little toy guns, from the crying of your opponent when you shoot down all their planes.  :-P

Crazy Ivan
The Mad Mad Russian

I allow for neutrals in 2nd. in fact i give them a few pieces because i dont like the allies just paying 3 dollars and landing a load of me
in Spain just to get a cheap ride into france. Ill post a few more things that make more sence…

Neutrals
Neutral countries are inactive until war is declared on them. Once a country declares war on a neutral, the country may attack and enter the airspace of the neutral country. Only Axis nations and Russia can attack neutrals. However, Russia can only attack bordering neutrals. There is no IP penalty for declarations of war. Place 3 infantry units from the opposing player whose capital is closest to the neutral country. However, Spain or Turkey receive the following units:

5 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 armor, 1 fighter, 1 destroyer, and 1 IC.

The opposing player controls undefeated neutral countries and also receives their IP value. All neutrals have an IP value of one when they are controlled or conquered by a major power, except Spain and Turkey, which have a value of three.

This is to all those who have a copy of Dogs of War…

Has anyone ever attempted editing the game? Through editing the MAP.DAT file, it is possible to add as many new territories as desired…

I have considered editing it to make a Europe split up much like Xeno Games’ “Europe at War” expansion. It would make for an interesting, and long, game. However, it takes a considerable amount of time to edit the MAP.DAT. There is simply too much work involved doing it by hand.

Has anyone else ever tried to do it? Or perhaps coded some kind of graphical front-end that would make editing it easier?

Just curious. Any comments would be welcome.

-Nyght Shyft

I think it was allowed in 2nd Ed,
or better: there must be one edition where you could do that.

On the other hand, I believe a South african IC can work rather well:

Ger1: Invade french east africa with 4 inf (2 from transport), 1 tank. Assume no losses.

UK1: Transport over 2 inf into territory directly below frech east africa, fly fighter to south africa, build IC there.

Ger2: Attack Territory below fr. eas. afr, assume 1 inf. lose.

UK2:build 2 inf, or possibly 1 inf 1 fighter.

Germany will now face 3 infantry and 1 fighter( or, preferably, 2 infantry and 2 fighters) vs. likely 3 infantry and 1 tank. Barring lucky dice, germany will not be able to take it, and the UK can now pump 2 tanks a turn and retake africa.

The germans are now faced with two options:

Build transports, and pump more men into africa

or

Forget africa, concentrate on defending europe, crushing russia.

If they choose the first option, they’ll have to buy at least 1 or 2 transports, and it’ll be at least 4 turns before they can take S. Afr, and even when they do take it they will gain very little from it, as they will already have all of africa at that point.

If they choose the second option, UK gains the 11 prod. from africa, and then can push forces into asia in attempt to aid the likely beleagured russians.

I agree, as well. It’s just I wonder at the investment: If you’re thinking pure Sea Zone defense, you’d think 3 SUB would be a better investment than 2 FTR: in an attack, the 3 SUBs would score about 1 hit consistently, same as 2 FTRs. But SUBs can defend in Sea Zones (at least against ships), where FTR’s (without a CV) cannot. SUBs are more survivable than FTRs because they have their submerge/withdraw abilities. SUB hits (unlike FTR hits) cannot be countered. And 3 SUBs represent 1 extra casualty you can take should the battle go poorly.

I guess the reason German SUBs never seem to appear in signifigant numbers is the threat of USSR. It’s easy to justify the money spent on FTRs because when you’re not using them to fight sea battles, you can use them against Russia. SUBs are virtually useless against the mainly landlocked USSR and so nobody ever purchases many of them…what a shame.

Ozone27