Page 1 of 2
Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:59 am
by TF 38
Does the landing depicted in the image below invoke rule 8.3.2?
TF 38

RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:08 am
by rogueusmc
lol...like a sub full of troops is gonna do anything to the old US of A...[:D]
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:11 am
by Fallschirmjager
If that was Canada in 2004 that platoon and their AT gun would be marching on Ottawa right now...
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:48 am
by carnifex
you think those 5 support guys are manning that AT gun or are they cooks?
or both?
just wonderin...
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:58 am
by TF 38
you think those 5 support guys are manning that AT gun or are they cooks?
or both?
just wonderin...
It's a film crew for the documentary. [;)]
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:03 am
by Drongo
ORIGINAL: TF 38
Does the landing depicted in the image below invoke rule 8.3.2?
TF 38
Is this a trick question???
On the turn following this landing, San Fran will be overflowing with troops, etc.
Are you asking this because what was specified in the manual didn't happen?
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:11 am
by TF 38
No,
I was just wondering if what could otherwise be construed as an undermanned commando raid could cause the U.S. and Canada to divert their focus from a "Europe First" strategy to one focusing on Japan.
TF 38
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:14 am
by TheHellPatrol
ORIGINAL: Drongo
ORIGINAL: TF 38
Does the landing depicted in the image below invoke rule 8.3.2?
TF 38
Is this a trick question???
On the turn following this landing, San Fran will be overflowing with troops, etc.
Are you asking this because what was specified in the manual didn't happen?
Correction...two turns. One turn would be spent doubled over laughing..."Ha Ha Ha , we surrender[&o], Ha Ha Ha[:D][;)].
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:19 am
by Drongo
Ah, so it wasn't a trick question but a loaded one. [:)]
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:20 am
by Captain Ed
Hey that is Canada and they have obviously just invaded Estevan Point off Sooke where I live The Japs did shell the lighthouse there during WW2 they won`t be there for long though as we have some raggedy ass loggers there who would make short work of them
as an aside a lot of that area has been bought by japanese interests in recent years so you see they got it anyway[:D][:D]
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:24 am
by TF 38
Jeez,
Can you imagine how much trouble the raid C.O. would be in when the brass figured how badly he'd pissed off the Canucks? [X(]
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:02 am
by carnifex
I was just wondering if what could otherwise be construed as an undermanned commando raid could cause the U.S. and Canada to divert their focus from a "Europe First" strategy to one focusing on Japan.
no of course not
but for game purposes it makes no difference
in the game the japanese would never send a commando raid because it would have no effect - not even a minimal one
so there doesn't need to be a mechanism for a proportional response on the part of the allies since any landing can be assumed to be massive
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:06 am
by PeckingFury
Go ahead and laugh, those civilians sun bathing on the beach there wont think its funny when the dreaded Japanese wakeboard kamikazes land in force [X(]
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:09 am
by von Murrin
LOL[:D]
I think this would trigger the 8.3.2. However, I really can't come up with a better definition of "boxing" the system either.[:'(]
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:31 am
by Xargun
ORIGINAL: TF 38
Does the landing depicted in the image below invoke rule 8.3.2?
TF 38
According to the manual your landing at hex 133,28 will NOT trigger the allied speedup... BUT, if you move 1 hex east it will.. Hex 132 (inclusive) and east triggers the allied affect. Anything west of 132 is fair game... - pretty much all alaska..
Xargun
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:36 am
by Drongo
ORIGINAL: Xargun
According to the manual your landing at hex 133,28 will NOT trigger the allied speedup... BUT, if you move 1 hex east it will.. Hex 132 (inclusive) and east triggers the allied affect. Anything west of 132 is fair game... - pretty much all alaska..
Xargun
Xargun,
Is your monitor upside down? Hex row 133 is EAST of hex row 132.
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:36 am
by Arnir
Interesting. I would figure that Ottawa at least would freak if the Japanese landed on Vancouver Island.
Even if a small raid landed on the West Coast, I would imagine that public opinion would demand a shift towards safeguarding the coast. A small raid is often a precursor to a big raid, at least in the eyes of the public. The public may or may not be assuaged by the small force size. They might just state (read: yell and scream) that they managed to get to the West Coast once, they may do it again.
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:43 am
by Xargun
ORIGINAL: Drongo
Xargun,
Is your monitor upside down? Hex row 133 is EAST of hex row 132.
Hmmm... I don't think it is.... BUt maybe my whole apartment is... But alas you are correct... I'm just tired and staring at the monitor waiting for my next PBEM turn [:D]
Xargun
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:44 am
by Drongo
For a minute there I thought it was because I live in Australia.
RE: Question for Rules Chairman
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:45 am
by Xargun
ORIGINAL: Drongo
For a minute there I thought it was because I live in Australia.
Well there is that too
Xargun