Get the Brit Inf back in Egypt and a Russian Bomber for 2nd Edition

I am very pro russian bomber!

The Kalin K-7!

I wonder what happened when i suggested it back in 2010 ( Russian Bomber) and these same people said it was a bad idea, like the second German bomber, like the change from Russian Battleship to Cruiser, and like the Italian bomber that i also suggested way back.

Now once after exhaustive playtest, people are already trying to reopen the discussion for yet another laundry list of changes. Like Larry would even consider ANOTHER version of the rules after WOTC just spent money of the new games.

I say leave the damm games alone and regulate changes to house rules, rather than bugging Larry for more changes.

Nothing wrong with house rules.

Strange to say that I agree w/IL. I can’t see Larry opening himself up to yet another set-up change for G40 for a personal laundry list. I would rather see him look into a 39, 41, or 42 version. I have bought the 1939 map from HBG, and played through a couple of games with their set-up and rule set, it’s a blast.

BTW I have given Russia a bomber in a couple games of G40 (seems like a good fit). One game it ended up on England so the Russians could use the sub and bomber to kill off the German blocker ship (dd) off the coast of France that was delaying the US invasion of Norway via Gibraltar. It was a good move, but hardly seemed historical with that giant maroon plane sitting on London LOL

Support given to Questioneer.
His logic is undeniable.

Still Larry might want to remove any dubt that the bid is needed. :wink:

And good luck with microscopic Axis and Allies for those who prefere that over global.  :mrgreen:

I wonder what happened when i suggested it back in 2010 ( Russian Bomber) and these same people said it was a bad idea…

and like the Italian bomber

PFFTP, you had NOTHING to do with that bomber entering the game.  That was a Gargantuan campaign - I personally marched to success, with no thanks due to your recent plagaristic effort.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167&start=504

I say leave the damm games alone and regulate changes to house rules, rather than bugging Larry for more changes.

I agree with this sentiment however, spelling mistakes aside.

@Gargantua:

I say leave the damm games alone and regulate changes to house rules, rather than bugging Larry for more changes.

I agree with this sentiment however, spelling mistakes aside.

Agreed, time to stop asking dad to buy us a car when we should just do the obvious…. steal one. Besides, if I were Larry and I just released 2ndE, I would be done with all these suggestions. The House Rules forum is where you will find the only ears willing to listen, HGD is a waste of time hoping for rule or setup changes.

Alteast we all pitched in to get alpha +3 published….

Remember how bad OOB was? lol…

Wow.  A fan, and developer achievement.  Amazing that Larry got Alpha 3+ published as RAW as we made it.

Also, the Russian Novisibirsk NO is awesome for the Europe games now.

Atleast Germany has a chance to stop that +9 business… that held me up a few of my games as Germany.

PFFTP, you had NOTHING to do with that bomber entering the game.  That was a Gargantuan campaign - I personally marched to success, with no thanks due to your recent plagaristic effort.

Actually you stole the idea from me as usual, like everything else.

Also, the correct spelling plagiarism. “plagaristic” is one of the invented words that only you speak…just before they kicked you out of school in the 2nd grade.

Lastly, don’t comment of something i posted, that’s how you get into problems.

I suggest all of this back in 2010, because i felt all nations should have at least one of the major pieces.

I also suggested a change in the Soviet Far east force ( not 18 infantry, but more mobile to reflect the ability to get back to Moscow and help.)

Any links to this J1 Gambit strategy?

It didn’t make sense from OOB setup, but it’s always nice that nations like Italy could have a bomber because they can’t usually afford one. I feel aside from battleships or carriers, every nations should have at least one piece of land and air. It makes more sense because it also offers the most gameplay options and is also realistic from a Historical view.

Remember how important the Russian fighters are in AA Milton Bradley? They are also important in Global 40, almost to the same level.

I don’t see any links to your claims IL?

Unlike my CLEARLY posted information.  Until then your claim is a bold lie, and aninsult to everyone here who contributed to the Alpha 3 Project.

I’m also not your DOG, so I will encourage you to refrain from barking orders at me about “do this” - “don’t do that”.  I’m not going to do what you request one way or the other, and it only serves to derail threads and make you look like a bafoon. It’s pre-adolescent behavior on your part.

All that said, thank you for giving me credit where credit is due, per the creation of phrases and words I have invented. I really appreciate it.

“Get your paws off me you filthy ape”

-Charlton Heston, planet of the apes

@Young:

“Get your paws off me you filthy ape”

-Charlton Heston, planet of the apes

Sorry, wrong forum.