Posts made by Corbeau Blanc

Looks like ITaly was key to victory :)

Just allow defenders to retreat after first round of battle like the attackers can do. That’s one of the rules of axis and allies that don’t make sense to me, defenders can’t retreat. If they are surrounded, I can understand they must make a last stand however.

@Krieghund:

It was intended that this NO only apply if the USSR is at war with a European Axis power.  This will be in the FAQ.

What part of Krieg’s statement was’nt clear  :?

I think tank divisions and the bulk of the army would be farther in land and out of reach of naval guns. Same for air force bases.

Once the ennemy is on the beach, the defending army would move in to destroy them. Unless naval guns are ready to fire on their own troops as well once the battle starts, their efficiency is very debatable.

In short, this ability is way more effective in game than it was in the real war. Allies success in D-day was mostly because of disinformation, surprise, landing in the weakest area and above all, total air supremacy. Had Romel divisions been in the right place and had  the Luftwafe somewhat been still active, it would have been over quick for the allies.

All this to say it is perfectly ok that defenders gets to fire back. If it was for me, inland air forces should be able to engage the ennemy fleet and transports before they land. AA guns should be usable to represent coastal batteries. etc…

I am not sure why Krieg even answered a moron with 4 accounts.

That was my own gratuitous one liner of the day

oh yea, forgot I must add a useless digit, here :
#911

@oztea:

id actualy like to see them use the japanese mold
and alot of japanese equipment. It looks more 1930’s-esqe, like much of the french army of 1940

Oztea, the French tanks at the start of the war were more modern and superior to thoses of the germans, both in numbers and individual strenght. The french tank divisions fought hard in the Dardennes but the German had significant air superiority, almost if not 3 to 1. It’s the massive Bf-109/Stuka attacks on tanks and artillery positions that spelled doom for France on top of the fact they got totally surprised by a clever manoeuvre. Air superiority would later spell the same doom for Rommels division and even the Japanese Imperial Navy. The point here: There is no valid reason to use ‘‘1930’s esque equipment’’ for France and it’s certainly not why they got beaten.

41 for me, the only balanced version that does not need a bid.

1. Patience :  Yes, you are going to be stuck 10 hours + playing.
2. Stay Healthy: A good player can drink beer, soda, eat junk food during 10 hours+ without developping fat tissues or pimples. The best of the players won’t even have a stale breath or oily skin when done rolling over you.
3. Sacrifice : Yes, its 10 hours + that you won’t be spending trying to get/with a chick or having quality time with your wife and kid.
4. Lucky : Because dices are dices. The more luck you have, the faster you finish the game.
5. Annoying: The more you get under the skin of your opponent, the more he fails.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Corbeau:

Guess I’ll have to repeat myself like an old broken record….

Why but oh why would I choose a CA over a fighter?

For 10 IPC I get:

• More range
• More defense
• Same attack
• Can be used on both land and sea.
• A unit that safely withdraw after combat which translates to not exposing itself to any counter attack.
• Lastly, and not the least: A unit that can support ANY assault ( including amphibious ones ) for the whole battle which is more than 1 round pot shots. It can also be sacrified unlike the CA so you actually can spare an infantry to grab the land in worst case scenarios.

Did I mention it was 2 ipc less than a CA?

Want to know more about the fighter?

• It is also a unit that can do kamikaze attack 4 squares away as long it MAY land, by any ricidulous margin including landing on ACs that MIGHT get trough 100 BBS because it’s friendly submarine kamikazed itself upon them. Because you know, the sub MAY win… If that’s not enough, the AC is not forced afterward to conduct it’s move if the sub fail the battle or if no kamikaze planes actually survived… ( worst stupid rule of the whole game )

CAs are useless unless it’s a starting one, then at least you did not pay for it so might as well use it. So guys, please stop beating on that dead horse, it’s not gonna resurect.  :x

CA’s can’t be hit with AA.

The fact that you can’t sacrifice the CA can be a good thing: if you strafe a TT with a ftr and some inf, the ftr will die. The CA will not

Fighters don’t need an infantry feeding each of them to enter land combat… It does not mean you have to be stupid about it and strafe a TT without at least the minimal infantry meat shield, infantry you would sacrifice anyways to feed every single of your 1 pot shot CAs…

If France is too heavily stacked with infantry and AA gun for you to take it, instead of hoping to whitle it away, you might want to do something more useful like a double drop in NWE and use your fighters to actually hold it… Poland, Bulgaria and Balkans comes to mind too for the 10 NO.

And if it really comes to it, I have yet to see Europe covered with AAs, I will risk AA hits anytime over being stuck with a useless bunch of rotting CAs.

Guess I’ll have to repeat myself like an old broken record….

Why but oh why would I choose a CA over a fighter?

For 10 IPC I get:

• More range
• More defense
• Same attack
• Can be used on both land and sea.
• A unit that safely withdraw after combat which translates to not exposing itself to any counter attack.
• A unit that does NOT need 1 infantry to enter land combat.
• Lastly, and not the least: A unit that can support ANY assault ( including amphibious ones ) for the whole battle which is more than 1 round pot shots. It can also be sacrified unlike the CA so you actually can spare an infantry to grab the land in worst case scenarios.

Did I mention it was 2 ipc less than a CA?

Want to know more about the fighter?

• It is also a unit that can do kamikaze attack 4 squares away as long it MAY land, by any ricidulous margin including landing on ACs that MIGHT get trough 100 BBS because it’s friendly submarine kamikazed itself upon them. Because you know, the sub MAY win… If that’s not enough, the AC is not forced afterward to conduct it’s move if the sub fail the battle or if no kamikaze planes actually survived… ( worst stupid rule of the whole game )

CAs are useless unless it’s a starting one, then at least you did not pay for it so might as well use it. So guys, please stop beating on that dead horse, it’s not gonna resurect.  :x

It’s already the case on land, 1 infantry can stop 100 tanks from doing a blitz

I understand you can’t really draw a line on that ‘‘MAY win’’ rule but in my opinion, the whole rule should go so there is no need to draw that line.

Why not simply force the carriers to move to the location where they plan to retreive their engaged fighters ( thoses depending on them to land ) in the combat move sequence.

That would be way simplier and would prevent ACs from ignoring ennemy screening forces and artificially extend the fighters range by a fictious 2 leading to possible kamikaze runs. More importantly, it would force carriers to commit before knowing the end battle result if they are to operate at maximum fighter range.

Anyways, that was my 2 cents.
Game is not likely to change at this point.

Geez…  :-o

So this means as long you suicide the cheapest of your unit against a blockade, you can assume you MAY win, even if there is 100 BB waiting for it???

And then launch a Kamikaze fighter attack over that blockade at max range ( 4 ) as long you have one CVs that MAY get there for each pair of fighters ( even if it is actually utterly impossible for them or the sub to get trough the 100 bbs ) ?

The icing here is you fully know no fighter will make it or you won’t be able to retreive them, so the ACs are actually free to withdraw…

I am the only one finding that rule flawed?

I guess this opens up for new strats and rule abuse in the pacific…

Standard fighter attack range - no tech

Let’s say:

• Zone A  current AC location backed by a submarine
• Zone B  there is an ennemy DD blocking the path
• Zone C  Zone in which the fighter is planning to attack using all it’s 4 range.

Assuming the standard rule that a fighter cannot attack a zone if it cannot land at the end of it’s move, the fighter cannot attack zone C unless the AC makes it there.

The AC must go trough B in order to get to C. Here, it cannot do so in combat phase.

Now let’s say the submarine attack the DD.

Questions are:
Can he now claim he ‘‘assumes’’ he MAY win in zone B and his CV MAY make it to zone C afterward in non-combat so he can launch his fighter attack in C? ( which can be very well a suicide run at that point… ). Or does the DD effectively block that move?

From what I read, you are forced to go trough the declared AC move to retreive the fighter even if it will happen in non-combat move and even if no fighters survived. What happens to the AC if the sub died and DD survived, the AC should be still forced to go trough… Is it auto-sunk or this simply says what seems logical here: You need a clear path for the CV to the target zone to declare a non-combat move there?

Can someone clarify for me please this ‘’ MAY land ‘’ rule when it come to carriers ?

As in cargo if they enter combat on an allied turn.
Find me the line where it states they MUST move with the AC

Also, allied fighters DO defend if attacked by an ennemy. It’s not contrary to the rules.

hrmm, I did not find any rules that states you must bring along the planes on an AC, quite the contrary in fact. When it’s your own planes, they must move with their own movement.

As for guest planes, technically they do not move at all if you leave them behind. They stay in their zone, thus inactive. Only the AC is moving under it’s own movement. While it is stated that if they move, it is as cargo, I did not read anywhere they MUST move with the AC.

I never really had a clear answer in the rules about this so I tought I would ask. We view our fighters as patrolling that sea zone like any other unit, not landed on the AC but rather supported by it. They will defend like any other units if attacked but can’t attack on their host turn.

The only difference/condition we agree on for planes in regard of other units is they must have an AC to support them by the end of any turn.

We also have a gentlemen rules so a host AC cannot extend the range of guest fighters by more than it’s normal maximum range between US+UK turns combined.

Question: 
Can a UK AC next to an IC abandon USA fighters that are stationed on it behind before moving?

What if UK build a second AC in same sea zone where the US fighters were left ( if you can ), do they land on it?

Thanks

About Karelia, I have already proven a year ago that you can take and hold it from G1.

The trick is to keep the 2 tanks in poland in reserve so that when you break the baltic states, you can move the 2 tanks trough to Karelia as reinforcement in the non-combat phase.

Should we say Pacific or Indian Ocean? Pacific itself have some key points but what makes Japan a Godzilla is that Indian Ocean push. For the allies, I’d say the main region you want to defend is the whole Indian Ocean coast line, from SA to India to Australia.

While the need to defend UK’s Indian Ocean belt is obvious, people generally are not too fond of UK having an IC in either of theses 3 territories mentionned above.

Personally, I don’t see how the USA can be really able to threathen Japan seriously without Uk assistance, and for that you need an IC.

So the overall question should be how to split UK and USA between both theaters, and at some extent how can Russia be flexible enough to patch the holes.

While I don’t have the clear answer, the games I have won turned around allies successfully defending/retaking UK income.

P’S: Zhukov, I still hope you will give me a rematch :)

What my friends and I do when playing on the board is ‘‘player’s choice’’.

It’s really simple, the player can choose either low luck or dices everytime it’s his turn to roll.

So an attacker could elect low luck on his initial attack, the defender then can choose dices on his rolls. On rnd 2 of the battle, the attacker still has the choice and can switch to dices and so can the defender decide low luck from there.

We found this settled any discussion about ‘‘dices’’ . It also keeps AA guns a real threat. You can decide for yourself but you won’t decide for your opponent ;)