Quickie Q about Siberian Conscripts rule interpretation

Very cool idea. I like it a lot.

:-D

I agree that it helps the Allies.

And there could be a malicious surrender: UKE surrenders, giving the African territories to Germany, and before Italy can react US starts blitzing through the south, ADDING ABOUT 15 IPC’S TO THEIR VALUE. Same could be done with France.

It really helps the Allies and screws the game balance.

@FieldMarshalGames:

Uzo is the Greek version.

Thanks for clearing that up FMG  :-D Though I would still rather use Red wine for Italy, there are already so many harsh liquours on the list sambucca seems a bit extream.

Can anyone think of an acceptable beer for the Soviet Union?

I added various links and made some changes to the first three parts of the rules, technology, and units.

@Variable:

@spartan:

I think that is a really good idea how about you battle test it and tell us how it works out :-)

Okay, as soon as there is opportunity I will. Real life has taken over a bit lately  :|

darn real life! :lol:

Well, the reason why I would like it a little bit better than decent is so that tech tree 1 is actually worth using. It takes a lot to convince people away from heavy bombers, jet fighters and LRA.

@Cmdr:

@Raeder:

@Cmdr:

Ever consider Super Carriers that could hold 3 fighters?  (3 is good because you can physically put three fighters on the carrier model!)

For crying out loud… I posted exactly this idea in the New units thread like months ago… no answers, and now you post the exact same thing here. I’d like to be credited.  :wink:

I was doing that in 1993 though. :P

But yea, figuring out 3 fighters fit on a carrier doesn’t exactly take brain surgery. hehe

Using it without my permission… hmm, you owe me royalty then.  :-D

well kamikazi’s were hardly ever succussful so there has to be some realism in its effectiveness