Messages

61

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Re: Pacific Setup & Rules

« on: November 06, 2015, 10:53:11 PM »

Great! Can't wait for the map!


New Question:

Does the British cruiser that starts near singapore have any restriction until at war?

62

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Re: Pacific Setup & Rules

« on: October 30, 2015, 11:01:11 AM »

Ups sorry , don't know how i was overseeing Suiyuan. You are right.


-The British PTO Chart says "If playing the 1939 Pacfic Scenario, Britian starts the game with 20pp but may not spent or collect any PP until at war with Japan.
Shouldn't it include also the 1941 Pacific only Scenario?

- Japan 1941 Setup is missing the two Siam 2-3 Infantry?

63

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Re: Pacific Setup & Rules

« on: October 29, 2015, 07:17:03 AM »

More

US PTO - Chart

- Setup calls the Dauntless = Naval Bomber.. why not calling it Dauntless ? Like Wildcat , Swordfish ...

-  Medium Bomber Row  = It's empty so why not removing it from the chart?

- Replenishment Ship = Does it have supplies or is it emtpy?

64

Game Design / Re: Operation Rhine Exercise

« on: October 28, 2015, 10:53:59 AM »

I am working on it and then will turn over to John to make changes in the map file.  Not sure what his timing / schedule looks like.  Please make sure there are not other edits you would like to suggest.

No i would be happy if i could test our changes.
I think again and again about your and my changes.
They fix alot of Little issues and i don't see any problems with it.
Please make it happen so i can print & test 

65

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Pacific Setup & Rules

« on: October 28, 2015, 10:51:11 AM »

Hey guys,

Setting up a Pacific 1941 Scenario atm.

Some mistakes instaly come up.

1. Papua and Marshal Islands 
Both have 6 Units while the Island only supplies 5 Units. Therefore 1 unit would be out of supply.

2. No Setup for Suiyuan (in China)
Which Nation does it occupy in 1939 & 1941? Communist Chinese or Japan? How much Units?

3. Manchurian Army
There is no longer a Penalty for Japan for not maintaining the Manchurian Borders in a Pacific only Scenario.
I know it is rare that Units get killed.. but there should again a rule for it if Units get attacked and killed.


Please fix it
Thanks you 

66

General Discussion / PM messages Broken?

« on: October 02, 2015, 01:43:15 AM »

Heya anyone Else having Problems with PM messages ? Says For me that connection timed Out

67

Game Design / Re: Japanese Leaders

« on: September 22, 2015, 08:10:27 AM »

Sorry had no free time earlier for Response..

maybe just my thinking but i somehow don't like 6 japanese ground 0/0 leaders stats while the allies have 0 and china 2.
Isn't it more fun to have some influence to the battle with some rerolls?

ok but i agree with kondo. You are right on him.


to the entries and Exits..


Nagumo (Currently Autumn 39-42)
Historical:  From November 1940-April 1941, Nagumo was Commandant of the Naval War College.

Ozawa (Currently Autumn 39-42)
Historical:  retired after October 1944 and leaded a Naval College

Yamaguchi   (Currently Autumn 39-42)
Historical: Went down with an aircraft carrier in 1942. Dunno if we remove KIA Generals?

All others are correct i think. So not that many, i'm sorry for writing "many"

68

Game Design / Re: Japanese Leaders

« on: September 18, 2015, 08:19:37 PM »

Hello Mark!

Yeah thank you i looked over it.

Mostly i like and look brilliant!

Except

1. Toshizō Nishio was a Japanese general, considered to be one of the Imperial Japanese Army's most successful and ablest strategists during the Second Sino-Japanese War, who commanded the Japanese Second Army - I think he is reflected too weak.

2. The Japanese has alot 0/0 Leaders compared to the Allied. Especially on the Sea Battles. I would give Kondo his 1/0 back at least.

3. You made many AHistorical Entry / Removal Tables especially on the Japanese Naval Leaders. Why?

 

69

Game Design / Re: Leaders and Nationality

« on: September 18, 2015, 04:24:21 AM »

Mh true , ok i did not thought about Naval Leaders... on the other Hand i often use british leaders on US/British fleets....  mh maybe giving the italian some valueable naval leaders would fix it ;-) or making this a naval rule only

70

Game Design / Re: Changing the "fly-over" AA rules?

« on: September 17, 2015, 08:28:59 PM »

Huge blow to the axis ;-) but i like removing this rule . Intrinsic AA might be a good solution if bombing gets too massive

71

Game Design / Re: Sea zone control does not impede non-combat movement - only supply

« on: September 17, 2015, 07:50:57 PM »

Good change .. I will try it together with my Proposed Advanced naval rules

72

Game Design / Re: Leaders and Nationality

« on: September 17, 2015, 07:47:40 PM »

Well historical each Battle had several generals from different Nations .. You either have To allow much more leaders been active in battles or if the rule is really needed to use Johns Suggestion as many Axis leaders  Huge forces of other Nations without having large own forces. ( rommel , kesselring , messe ).

i think in the Pacific there is also a us General that helped the Chinese .. You would Need a Special rule for him

I would not implement this rule .. I often find It enough unneeded complex that you can't move infantry of the other allied Nation in mech phase together with your tanks

73

Game Design / Re: Adopting Wolf's Japanese SNLF rule

« on: September 17, 2015, 07:30:03 PM »

What about giving the german Mountain troops the same rule for the invasion of norway

74

Game Design / Re: Japanese Leaders

« on: September 15, 2015, 03:46:00 AM »

i only included him because give the japanese 3 leaders that exist over autumn 1944 till end and this was the only famous one that would work

75

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Re: AA fire

« on: September 13, 2015, 10:31:24 AM »

i wouldn't give up the idea that factory increase base AA aswell. Makes sense that increased industry get increased defense priority. But everything for Strategic Attacks only