A World Ignites... (AAR)

[Orm]

This gives France one extra pilot, next turn, that can be used for land based aircraft.

There is no difference between land based pilots and CV based pilots.

I thought I explained it in post #: 92 but i suppose I fumbled it. [:D][;)]

[composer99]

warspite1:

Pilots are pilots. A pilot used to run a CVP, once placed in the spare pilot pool, can be used to run any other unit.

(You may recall a couple of posts upthread that Orm moved his CVP to the reserves instead of putting it on the map.)

This means that France will have an extra pilot available to place in an air unit starting Nov/Dec, but the Béarn is pretty much useless, until the USA interns it.

Edit: Ninja'd

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

This gives France one extra pilot, next turn, that can be used for land based aircraft.

There is no difference between land based pilots and CV based pilots.

I thought I explained it in post #: 92 but i suppose I fumbled it. [:D][;)]

warspite1

No you explained it [:D]. I knew I had seen you mention it and looked for it (assuming your comment was in the scrapped units post). When I couldn't see it there I thought I was going mad... so asked the question!!

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

I share your sentiments about having too few units on the Belgian border, but offhand, I can't think of anything to do about it.


I suppose you could move some of the guys in Metz and Strassbourg to the open hexes, and rely on the reserves (possibly move Georges closer to the line so he can re-org?) but that leaves you vulnerable to a direct attack across the line, especailly if the Germans are willing to O-chit up their Engineer and some big guys, you can crack a weak Metz that way.


Do you have a set German plan already, or are you just kind of playing it by ear? Because a France first could be really interesting in this game. [:D]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Speaking of being a busybody - or in this case, pedant, I believe, pauldernyck that you are referring to "buggers"? [:)]

Edit: Corrected spelling. I believe it is practically a law of the Internet that any grammar/spelling nitpick will inevitably have an error of its own.

ORIGINAL: composer99
Oh, it certainly is a real word. Just not the word pauldernyck was using. (At least, the sentence doesn't really make sense if it is.)

I had a prof in first year (many, many years ago) who said: "I don't wish to be pedantic - which, of course means: 'to make an ostentatious show of one's learning'". I thought that was hilarious, but then when I looked around the lecture hall and no one else was laughing, I realized I was the only one that got it... that made me pedantic, but I kept that hilarity to myself...[;)]

At any rate, if I check out the on-line meaning of the word, I see from the following examples how "choice" it was indeed:

1. noun
1a. "one that begs; especially : a person who lives by asking for gifts" - that's my opponent just before the die roll to see if the partisans appear

1b. "a person who is regarded as lucky, unlucky, lazy, etc." - that's my opponent if the partisans appear,[:)] if they don't appear,[:(] and because he can't take Bombay with his own real combat units;[:D] respectively

2 transitive verb
2a. as in that's me saying: "it beggars the imagination that you could roll that well!"[:@]

2b. "to exceed the resources or abilities of" - well obviously if I now have the same number of resources but one less factory, I'm exceeding my ability to produce the maximum in India [&:]

...I could go on...

But speaking of mis-spelling, the really amazing thing is that people can constantly mis-spell my last name even when it's right there, staring at them, on their screen. [:-] Don't worry about it, this happens all the time.[>:]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

I share your sentiments about having too few units on the Belgian border, but offhand, I can't think of anything to do about it.


I suppose you could move some of the guys in Metz and Strassbourg to the open hexes, and rely on the reserves (possibly move Georges closer to the line so he can re-org?) but that leaves you vulnerable to a direct attack across the line, especailly if the Germans are willing to O-chit up their Engineer and some big guys, you can crack a weak Metz that way.


Do you have a set German plan already, or are you just kind of playing it by ear? Because a France first could be really interesting in this game. [:D]

Before I begin to set up this game I had a plan for Germany, Japan, CW and USSR. But then I changed my plan for Japan. And for CW and Germany I am in doubt. So only the plan for USSR remains. With that said I have a build strategy for several countries.

Maybe it is time to ask Baldrick to help me out. [;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

I share your sentiments about having too few units on the Belgian border, but offhand, I can't think of anything to do about it.


I suppose you could move some of the guys in Metz and Strassbourg to the open hexes, and rely on the reserves (possibly move Georges closer to the line so he can re-org?) but that leaves you vulnerable to a direct attack across the line, especailly if the Germans are willing to O-chit up their Engineer and some big guys, you can crack a weak Metz that way.


Do you have a set German plan already, or are you just kind of playing it by ear? Because a France first could be really interesting in this game. [:D]

Before I begin to set up this game I had a plan for Germany, Japan, CW and USSR. But then I changed my plan for Japan. And for CW and Germany I am in doubt. So only the plan for USSR remains. With that said I have a build strategy for several countries.

Maybe it is time to ask Baldrick to help me out. [;)]

Blackadder

"Am I jumping the gun, Baldrick, or are the words 'I have a cunning plan' marching with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this conversation?"

[Orm]

Now I have a cunning scrap plan for Japan. [:)]

It more or less follows the strategy of scrap 'em all. [:D]

Japan have most likely some time when it goes to war with the Western Allies and then the CVP that I scrap would be to bad to put on the carriers. Maybe one or two of the scrapped CVP should have been saved since they cost 0 BP to build. I know some prefer to save the 2 strength artillery that I scrap but by doing so I am guaranteed to get the 3 strength ART.

I like the idea of building plenty of sea lift with Japan but I can seldom afford to build them all. So, once again, I scrap heavy among the transporters to increase the quality.

[Orm]

Just one set up rule for Japan. And getting the 2 resources and 2 oil from USA to Japan is important so it is with joy that I comply with the trade agreement that we have with USA.

And as with most nations there are several set up areas.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Now I have a cunning scrap plan for Japan. [:)]

It more or less follows the strategy of scrap 'em all. [:D]

Japan have most likely some time when it goes to war with the Western Allies and then the CVP that I scrap would be to bad to put on the carriers. Maybe one or two of the scrapped CVP should have been saved since they cost 0 BP to build. I know some prefer to save the 2 strength artillery that I scrap but by doing so I am guaranteed to get the 3 strength ART.

I like the idea of building plenty of sea lift with Japan but I can seldom afford to build them all. So, once again, I scrap heavy among the transporters to increase the quality.

For those players not quite as ruthless, another way of deciding which to scrap is to add the air-to-air rating (upper left) to the air-to-sea rating (upper right) and scrapping those whose sum is less than, say, 3.

[AxelNL]

Following you closely - learning a lot. Excellent thread! Thanks.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Now I have a cunning scrap plan for Japan. [:)]

It more or less follows the strategy of scrap 'em all. [:D]

Japan have most likely some time when it goes to war with the Western Allies and then the CVP that I scrap would be to bad to put on the carriers. Maybe one or two of the scrapped CVP should have been saved since they cost 0 BP to build. I know some prefer to save the 2 strength artillery that I scrap but by doing so I am guaranteed to get the 3 strength ART.

I like the idea of building plenty of sea lift with Japan but I can seldom afford to build them all. So, once again, I scrap heavy among the transporters to increase the quality.

warspite1

Ormster, question re those light blue 1-quality aircraft carriers. Is there a danger that you scrap so much there are no aircraft that Japan can build to fit on them?

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Jumping in to answer, even though not directed at me.

warspite1

Ormster, question re those light blue 1-quality aircraft carriers. Is there a danger that you scrap so much there are no aircraft that Japan can build to fit on them?

Even if Japan scraps every single possible CVP, they'd still have 6 CVP that will be size 1 by 1941 (I've never seen a game where things got hot in the Pacific before 1941), and twice that if the CVPIF units are included. (Not sure when the optional tick for "carrier planes" includes the extras from CVPIF or not)

Since Japan will probably want to build some carrier planes in 40 and 41, they should have enough handmedowns to be able to operate the light carriers. And there will be even more once 1942 rolls around.

That being said, it does hamper Japan's ability to scrap later down the line; if you have a separate force pool for your light carriers, it means that you can scrap some of the older CVP 1 when they get killed, and then make sure you have tougher planes in the force pool when things start heating up in 42-43.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

Now I have a cunning scrap plan for Japan. [:)]

It more or less follows the strategy of scrap 'em all. [:D]

Japan have most likely some time when it goes to war with the Western Allies and then the CVP that I scrap would be to bad to put on the carriers. Maybe one or two of the scrapped CVP should have been saved since they cost 0 BP to build. I know some prefer to save the 2 strength artillery that I scrap but by doing so I am guaranteed to get the 3 strength ART.

I like the idea of building plenty of sea lift with Japan but I can seldom afford to build them all. So, once again, I scrap heavy among the transporters to increase the quality.

warspite1

Ormster, question re those light blue 1-quality aircraft carriers. Is there a danger that you scrap so much there are no aircraft that Japan can build to fit on them?

This is a real danger if you scrap as heavy among the CVP as I do and I should have mentioned it.

At the moment I have 3 CVP available that fits size 1 carriers. 1941 I get 4 more and in 1942 I get 2 more CVP that fits. So not until 1943 will I have enough CVP for the size 1 carriers. That is if I build all the size 1 carriers. And I suppose that by 1943 I plan to have them all on the map.

The reason that I scrap among the CVP as Japan is that I rather have the CV in port or under construction than to sail with a bad CVP.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

Now I have a cunning scrap plan for Japan. [:)]

It more or less follows the strategy of scrap 'em all. [:D]

Japan have most likely some time when it goes to war with the Western Allies and then the CVP that I scrap would be to bad to put on the carriers. Maybe one or two of the scrapped CVP should have been saved since they cost 0 BP to build. I know some prefer to save the 2 strength artillery that I scrap but by doing so I am guaranteed to get the 3 strength ART.

I like the idea of building plenty of sea lift with Japan but I can seldom afford to build them all. So, once again, I scrap heavy among the transporters to increase the quality.

warspite1

Ormster, question re those light blue 1-quality aircraft carriers. Is there a danger that you scrap so much there are no aircraft that Japan can build to fit on them?

I can answer that - Yes.

One rule that helps offset that is that at the beginning of each new year (Jan/Feb turn), some of the carrier air units with high numbers have their number reduced, making them eligible to fit on smaller carriers.

---

[Orm]

In Manchuria I plan to transfer a large portion of the Kwantung Army to China and the units that I will relocate I place on the Chinese border.

[Orm]

Where few Japanese units in the North part of China. The armies transferred from Manchuria will be needed and Terauchi (HQ) will bring supply to this area when he arrives.

[Orm]

In central China I place almost all the forces that Japan may deploy in China.

[Orm]

And a bare minimum of Japanese units in the south.

[Orm]

The main portion of the Japanese fleet I place in Tokyo along with two marine corps and sea lift for them. In Fukuoka I have just placed eight cruisers of dubious quality. In the China sea I have a small task force that contains two CVs and two fast battleships.