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.
You know it is somewhat entertaining to read the junk you post. Now it’s just boring because a 2nd grade education can only have limited creative retorts. I have decided to respond in a new fashion. But before that let me clear up the spelling for you…
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.
Here is the correct spelling:
buffoon not bafoon
aninsult= and an insult
Also, If i produce the link you can’t ever reply to any post i ever made in any form direct or indirect…ok?
If you are man enough to agree to that term, I’m prepared to provide the link. Now here is that reply.
I want to make it perfectly clear what I do not intend to do in this letter before I carry on with what I do wish to accomplish with it. Some background is in order: I find that some of The troll Gargantua’s choices of words in its doctrines would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted “merciless” for “anatomicophysiologic” and “irresponsible” for “syncategorematically.” The troll Gargantua says that bad things “just happen” (i.e., they’re not caused by The troll Gargantua itself). The inference is that the worst types of callow malingerers there are have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. I’m happy to report that I can’t follow that logic. I’ll now end this letter by reminding you that only by striving to scrap the entire constellation of tyrannical ideas that brought us to our present point can I create a world in which privatism, totalitarianism, and Pyrrhonism are all but forgotten. That may not be the profoundest of insights to take away from such a long letter, but The troll Gargantua’s uninformed, loopy rejoinders create alleged excuses for all forms of wrongdoing.
Any chance you guys could work this out in the private message forum?
Don’t you know?
Being the party that always takes the higher road, I’ve tried that before, and it’s ‘expressly forbidden’.
Don’t you know?
Being the party that always takes the higher road, I’ve tried that before, and it’s ‘expressly forbidden’.
He is forbidden from doing that and he does it anyways, so much for integrity. Notice who started the problem yet again ( who replied to whom and how first). He is a true bottom feeder :roll:
Notice that he dropped the 'link" issue because he lost there too.
IMO, it only matters who’s idea it was if Larry acually listened, and put a Russian bomber in the new set up. Instead, he ignored the suggestion that you two are arguing over.
Quit your B itch in and get back on topic. Do i have to put you two in a corner until class is over? Every topic you two happen to grace us with words there is a dumb, VERY dumb argument that does not even matter. Do it privately, or not at all. No one cares. I don’t want to have to read through your childish rants to each other every time someone starts a new topic. We get it, IL is a pompous pseudo intellectual, and Garg is a wiseass. No more rants!
Hey Garg, ask Djensen if you can put “wiseass” as your forum title lol
But yeah, you two really like eachother.
The only thing I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London, it becomes increasingly problematic for Germany to use naval blockers. The intended effect of strengthening Russia on land might end up weakening Germany at sea. Maybe adding 2 armor to Russia would be a better solution.
That said, the changes suggested would lead to a more balanced game.
I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London
They should have a rule for no Soviet pieces in her allies territories and vice versa. Stalin would never allow either to happen and didnt.
I agree that no more changes should be made, but I am curious as to why adding a Russian bomber magically balances the game?
IL is correct on that issue.
Any major house rule package for 1940 has to have rules that treat the USSR as an independent faction.
The only cooperation would be lend/lease, and the western allies would be able to turn of the faucet if the USSR doesn’t play along with their agenda.
On that note….the rules must also allow for the USSR to have the option to annex neutrals, or other allied territories, if it goes rouge, and collect IPCs that way, instead of through lend lease National Objectives.
Righto my comrade.
The tradeoff is lend lease, which for whatever reason the game made it into one of the Soviet NO’s
Id rather have them get something better than 5 IPC a turn ( perhaps about 10 IPC) and total prohibition of Soviet mix with UK/USA land and air units.
Soviets should have separate victory conditions from UK/ USA along with THE AXIS. Germany and Italy were bound fates, Japan had their own goals not related to what Europe was doing.
Thats the only major flaw in the game at this point. I support those changes along with Russian Bomber and UK Infantry
I’ve always advocated that Global 1940 should have been called Axis, Allies, and Comintern. With 3 distinct parties vying for victory [2 parties not in open conflict obviously, but always watching the balance;)]
Axis, Allies, and Comintern
I quite like that idea.
Well, someone whip up some house rules then….
The only thing I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London, it becomes increasingly problematic for Germany to use naval blockers. The intended effect of strengthening Russia on land might end up weakening Germany at sea. Maybe adding 2 armor to Russia would be a better solution.
That said, the changes suggested would lead to a more balanced game.
True, but remember, that bomber can’t get to London before turn 3 or 4 or whenever Germany attacks them first which isn’t until round 3-4. 2 tanks makes little impact in respect to the dozens of land stacks between Germany and Russia that are built in the Eastern front. Thats 2 tanks out of scores of land units versus one bomber that can make more of a dent which is what is needed for the Allies to gain some equality over the long run.
I agree that no more changes should be made, but I am curious as to why adding a Russian bomber magically balances the game?
Not saying it does but it bring you a lot closer than the 6-10 IPC bids we are seeing consistently now. Out of several little tweeks to help try to reach equality the Russian bomber makes the most sense. It can balance and it is a unit people orginally wanted to see included. All major powers have one except Russia.
It is also the most intriguing option b/c of what you can do with it. In a Barbarossa, it can pick off key targets help Russian ground units in several ways. In a Sealion, watch out!!!, Russia can build a second one!!! A good tradeoff along with the Africa $$$ from the NO for losing a vital partner in the Allies (UK- London).
When this idea came up briefly near the end of the Alpha+3 project people were salivating at the idea. Unfortunately and regretfully, I shot it down b/c I thought it would give Allies too much strength. Now after playing and watching other games, it is clear that the Russian bomber would help and satisfy many players who not only want to see the piece entered in the game but also regain the best balance possible. It piece’s placement on Moscow at the beginning of the game is also very intriguing- oops, I think I already mentioned that. :-D
I posted this on Larry’s site so I thought I would share it here also:
"…the Russian bomber would have a profound effect- more on the Europe side than the Pacific side. That is why when the idea came out near the end of the Alpha project I was strongly opposed to it.
However, many Alpha+3 games are tending to give a $6- $10 or $12 bid cash to the Allies-- and that is WITH the original Alpha+3 which INCLUDES the extra Brit inf on Egypt.
After scores of games played with Alpha+3 (essentially 2nd ed) setup here is what is happening:
Since Axis goes first they will determine the opening.
There are 2 main lines in Global- Sealion and Barbarossa. Every other strategy falls under these two openings in some way or another. Italy will assist and follow Germany’s lead as they work together, Japan will follow up by either attacking on J1 (a sharp yet very playable gambit that works) or attack on J2 (standard). J3 and J4 attack have now been proven to fail as they give the Allies too much time to build and contain Japan.
Sealion games- whether baited into it or purposely directed for it, Sealion happens on G3. There are times when the naval battles and such don’t go well for Germany and they have to abort the mission but most of the time they seem to have a decent shot at it. Usaully a successful SBR on G2 precedes the assualt on G3 softening up the landing. Germany can have anywhere between a 45-95% chance of success depending on the circumstances.
Britain can do 2 things, either turtle and hope to tharwt off the Germans or at the very least make them lose tons of units OR if they think the odds are against them they can half-turtle and use their navy and airforce in the Med to Taranto- suckerpunching Italy’s navy. Taranto is almost a standard move now b/c it is proven that in the longrun if the Allies don’t do this Italy will become a major power not a minor one.
In doing Taranto, you give up London though as those aircraft are needed to ensure a win in the Med. So the Allies can cripple Itlay and give up London or turtle London and give up the Med- not an easy choice.
When players give up London for an advantage in the Med the games tend to be long and dragged out. Russia with the help of the NatObjs will become stronger making $50 a turn or so. They will own own some Italian and Axis neutrals in MidEast and Africa to get some bonus cash and make a solid front in the East Poland region. In the longrun, it is difficult for Russian and US to make it on their own without a UK players turn, however, they can drag the game out and make it exhausting for the Axis player to get the VC win they need.
When players give up the Med and turtle London, they are not always guaranteed London will survive (although their chances are much better- good calculation is needed at this point) but they will at least deplete Germany forces to get the capital and maybe even repel the invasion if Germany did not “count the cost”. However, the Med is then completley under the control of the Italian who rack up nice bonus cash and begin to become a production power complete with a solid navy. Allies will have a hard time cracking the Med. This also can be a long grueling game.
In both of these situations, the Axis have proven to outproduce the Allies and seal a win thus forcing players to consider and play with a bid in the following games. A bid of 6-12 IPC is usually given to the Allies.
Barbarossa games- These tend to focus on securing the Med, trying to strap Brits to the island and going balls to the walls on Russia. Japan plan comes in very handy here as they can send aircraft and such to support in middle rounds.
What about Japan???
Japan can easily support a Barbarossa or a Sealion and it is discoveries in the Japanese strategies that have tipped the scale in favor of the Axis in most games, in which players now require a bid to go to the Allies.
Japan will either attack on J1 or J2 for the reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. They can gun hard for India and take it between rounds 3-6 or choke out Indian, ANAZAC, and Chinese economies while getting into a “building” war with the US always threatening a quick 6VC win. Japan can indirectly help the Euro Axis greatly by either forcing the US to engage in the Pacific by going after India hard or spend tons on navy forcing the US to do the same while threatening Honolulu, Sydney and/or Calcutta.
It is also hard for the US to liberate London when Japan is ready to pounce on a quick 6VC win if the US spends too much in Europe. It can be very tricky for the US on how much and where to spend its cash. It must spend wisely every round knowing that those units won’t see the front for another round or 2 whether Pacific or Europe.
The Russian Bomber and the Getting back the Brit Inf in Egypt- The game is on a $6-$12 bid WITH the extra Brit Inf. So that is a given that we put the Brit inf back in Egypt. How does the Russian bomber help???
1. In Sealion games it will give the Allies (specifically the Russians) the punch needed to keep Axis on its toes. In Sealion games Russian WILL have the flexibility to buy a second bomber. This is pretty fair considering UK-London is out of the game- at least for a long while anyway.
2. In Barborossa games Russia will not have the opprotunity to buy a second bomber but it will help many ways as far as can openers and naval pot shots as well as an SBR if needed.
3. The option to help the Allies in the Pacific is always there too although this will be a little tougher b/c of the turn order- Japan is always after Russia.
4. As many have wanted before- every major power has a bomber except for Russia- just doesn’t look right and now that bid money is consistently needed for the Allies, the Russian bomber makes perfect sense now."
I would even go as far as to say that not only do we need…
1 Brit inf back in Egypt but also…
1Russian bomber along with either… 1SS in z98 or 2inf in London
That is an excellent piece of writing and work, thank you Questioneer.
