…when you say “other than that sounds good”, do you mean besides the fact you are going to lose it’s ok?
This is what a high ranking officer said to Hitler before he comitted suicide, I speculate. :D
Instead of spending full funding on the fortress, spend only about a quarter of it so you can use the rest for fighting the Allies - like on the Eastern Front, keeping Russia at bay.
I only analyzed the part with the Navy fortress. I didn’t quite go into the financial and opposing forces part of it. I did, but not really thoroughly. Perhaps if one could tweak this fortress strategy, it might be profitable, but until it is altered it remains a dilemma.
I have never used that many big words in one paragraph. Two brain cells for the Major!
The thing is what if the Allies start attacking that fortress? The Russians or American certainly would eventually be able to send a task force at it… You defend obviously, but they just keep attacking and attacking until one of you is completely wiped out. You’d have to spend a fortune on strengthening that fleet rather than on invasion forces… That’s my thoughts… Other than that, sounds good!
I’d give them no attack and maybe one defense as well as cost 8 IPCs. Just like regular transports. Perhaps to solve the infantry loss problem you could do it like this. Any plane hit on the first round of combat loses the infantry. Any round of combat after does not, to simulate the jumping and landing in enemy territory.
Im going to write some of this stuff down and try it…
I’ve got another quick question out of curiosity if that’s okay. When would it be worth invading a neutral country? You see I’m working on a new plan and I wanted to know if incorporating neutral territories was worth it. You have to pay 3 ipcs which could be better spent on infantry, but perhaps you could invade a neutral rather than do an amphibious assault… I dunno, just thinking out loud.
my head hurts. I gots the brains pains coach!
Heh. Of course they are talking about the changed rules in Edition 26 of the game. In Edition 27 bombers can land on the compass rose and send kamikaze attacks off sea zones and into map insets. It’s in the rules, you can check it…
Rommel said what I was thinking. I didn’t agree on the AA guns attacking the troops along with the bomber. If I were firing off a flak cannon I wouldnt shoot at the guys, I’d go for the whole plane. That way I get to hit all of them at once. And another thing I was thinking, what if airplanes are also defending the assaulted territory, do they get a special ability on the paratroopers? I’m kinda just thinking out loud…
It’s already incorporated in a version I don’t have? I see… So would it be okay to add this into my version of the game? I probably have second edition or something.
that last guest message was by me I just forgot to sign in.
thankyou guest that’s the reply i was looking for!
you wouldnt reveal this written down number until you attacked or surfaced the sub. I think that’s a cool idea, but did you write on the board? I wouldnt want to get pen all over the board. I’d be very upset. I might try that idea later!
Going through the A&A Variant forum, I realise this post is in the wrong forum, sorry, my bad.
it’s a good idea and all, but maybe instead of doubling it you could just do 1 and a half times more so it won’t be so great a change. you’d round up or down for uneven numbers. (like 5 infantry X 1.5 would be 7 and a half or just 7). You may need a calculator handy for the 1.5 change though. And for the SBR’s should do 2 yes i agree on that, and heavies would continue to do 3. that’s my thoughts.
I don’t know if this is under the correct forum, but:
Perhaps a later version of A&A could have paratroop assaults. Attach (not literally) an infantry unit to a bomber and have the bomber fly to a target territory and back, midway dropping off its infantry cargo. I know I’m going to get a lot of negative feedback, I only request that you don’t say something dumb like my brother would say, “how can that little plane carry so many taller troops?” or something like that. But seriously think about it: It would only be done to infantry and it would pretty much act like an amphibious assault, with changes made to the way it works. It’s gonna be big! Just think…
yeah, ur right it is a horrible plan. I haven’t been playing long I must admit, just got it during Christmas. I got a lot of feedback saying I should keep with attacking Eastern Europe and that area. This I never forget, so I guess I’m not that bad. The American player I play against is usually too busy with Japan to get into Africa, and Russia never does it. Britain is a small problem I have to work with in the African campaign, but despite the 15 IPC’s I “waste”, I still think it’s worth it. But that’s me, not you guys, and you guys would be right not me. I’m thinking it through now and I understand that I shouldnt divert so much attention to all those countries worth 1 IPC in Africa. I should keep on Russia, and have my Japanese friends keep the pressure on the Russians when possible. About IC’s in general, where would the best place to build one and under what circumstances? I figured I’d ask considering this is all about ICs in the first place. Anywho, have a nice day everybody!
my strategies with Germany often help me prevail. :)
