one idea: always have a few transports here and there . you never know when they might make a difference to give your forces a little more mobility.
oVo wrote:OK... I've just joined jay's 11969 game although everyone might survive 100 rounds... and the early victory of holding all 6 capitals isn't exactly an early win.
I'm in two games already which have gone 15-20 turns. be aware, some of these games can take a while. lots of little twists and different things happening.
This CCers game needs one more player. Game ID: 1246355 PIN: 114474
Two more public games... # 11964 and # 11834
FYI - There is a FREE 31 day upgrade to PREMIUM on the membership page. Click membership on the left column, then look below the features and there's a tab to click.
jay_a2j wrote:4 Players/ 2 teams/1 troop per territory to start/scattered territories
Joined.
Japs wrote:I found Neoteny, BigBallinStalin, and Jay on there, Im playing against Neoteny now in WW2
I'm there too, as Thezzaruz ofc.
BigBallinStalin wrote:and if the AA is just 0atk 15 or so def and it's $20, what's the freakin point? does it really only target aircraft? I assume, but who knows..
They only cost 15 and they target ALL aircrafts that enter their territ. Meaning that they have the possibility to fire multiple times every round, that's unique to them.
Neoteny wrote:The AA, when in a territory with an enemy's planes, will prevent them from being launched.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Is this game played exactly like A&A? I play that game all the time.
Exactly would be a bit misleading. You do all turns simultaneous and (IIRC) there is a minor variation in the rules for Subs, AAs work differently but they still do the job v planes and not v anything else and sea units never take part in amphibious assaults and all aircraft's can do Kamikaze runs. The cost of units is a bit different as is their chance of successfully destroying an opponent and there are no artillery or battleships (but destroyers funny enough). Also you do not have access to any weapon developments and there are no strategic bombings either. All in all a bunch of minor dissimilarities but overall the feel it's pretty close.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Send troops (and artillery) with too. That way instead of losing tanks, you lose inexpensive troops. Or do you not have the option to choose what you loose?
No you don't get to choose but the game picks the cheapest choices first (troops on a transport ups its value).
Juan_Bottom wrote:Send troops (and artillery) with too. That way instead of losing tanks, you lose inexpensive troops. Or do you not have the option to choose what you loose?
No you don't get to choose but the game picks the cheapest choices first (troops on a transport ups its value).[/quote]
Which is potentially bad, as it could lead you to having two planes left but no troops...when having troops might have allowed you to conquer the territory. Or do planes count for that in this one?
The one thing I'd like to see is for combat to happen "at the border" in instances when troops from the same two territories are attacking each other. To have them avoid each other to swap places seems...odd.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Thezzaruz wrote: All in all a bunch of minor dissimilarities but overall the feel it's pretty close.
I think they should drop the "blocking" around capitals. In the board game, if there were enemy ships next to your capital you could still produce ships- you just were instantly in a battle and couldn't move.(except subs which if I remember correctly could retreat) Blocking this allows you one way to "free up" the waters around your capital..... aircraft.
Just one thing I don't like about the game. Otherwise it rocks!
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
oVo wrote:The soundtrack could be better and in particular the explosions when the casualty mode occurs.
I'm guessing that this game auto deploys when a player misses a turn as someone one of my games didn't bother showing up and got stuff anyways.
hey, has anyone figured out how the "auto-play" feature works? does it take your turn for you the minute that the new round begins? If so, your opponent could force the game to play all the way to the end, before you have a chance to get back. I'd rather it wait about 20 hours for me, to give me a chance to get back. I would use it only to avoid missing turns.
Woodruff wrote:Which is potentially bad, as it could lead you to having two planes left but no troops...when having troops might have allowed you to conquer the territory. Or do planes count for that in this one?
I'm not completely sure tbh. Any defending planes left do stop the attacker from conquering the territ I have found out. Yet another small deviation from the board game.
Woodruff wrote:The one thing I'd like to see is for combat to happen "at the border" in instances when troops from the same two territories are attacking each other. To have them avoid each other to swap places seems...odd.
An effect of the simultaneous turns. But yea a battle on the border (with both being attackers?) would seem more intuitive.
Woodruff wrote:Which is potentially bad, as it could lead you to having two planes left but no troops...when having troops might have allowed you to conquer the territory. Or do planes count for that in this one?
I'm not completely sure tbh. Any defending planes left do stop the attacker from conquering the territ I have found out. Yet another small deviation from the board game.
Woodruff wrote:The one thing I'd like to see is for combat to happen "at the border" in instances when troops from the same two territories are attacking each other. To have them avoid each other to swap places seems...odd.
An effect of the simultaneous turns. But yea a battle on the border (with both being attackers?) would seem more intuitive.
They just pass right by...waving to one another and laughing.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:Which is potentially bad, as it could lead you to having two planes left but no troops...when having troops might have allowed you to conquer the territory. Or do planes count for that in this one?
I'm not completely sure tbh. Any defending planes left do stop the attacker from conquering the territ I have found out. Yet another small deviation from the board game.
Woodruff wrote:The one thing I'd like to see is for combat to happen "at the border" in instances when troops from the same two territories are attacking each other. To have them avoid each other to swap places seems...odd.
An effect of the simultaneous turns. But yea a battle on the border (with both being attackers?) would seem more intuitive.
They just pass right by...waving to one another and laughing.
LOL! Actually, if two opposing players BOTH took more territory because it was undefended, the one really laughing would be whoever got a better deal by using less forces to do so, leaving other forces free for operations elsewhere.
Woodruff wrote:Which is potentially bad, as it could lead you to having two planes left but no troops...when having troops might have allowed you to conquer the territory. Or do planes count for that in this one?
I'm not completely sure tbh. Any defending planes left do stop the attacker from conquering the territ I have found out. Yet another small deviation from the board game.
Woodruff wrote:The one thing I'd like to see is for combat to happen "at the border" in instances when troops from the same two territories are attacking each other. To have them avoid each other to swap places seems...odd.
An effect of the simultaneous turns. But yea a battle on the border (with both being attackers?) would seem more intuitive.
They just pass right by...waving to one another and laughing.
LOL! Actually, if two opposing players BOTH took more territory because it was undefended, the one really laughing would be whoever got a better deal by using less forces to do so, leaving other forces free for operations elsewhere.
Right, but it's still ridiculous to see it happen. If the troops go in the direction the enemy, they should at least stop and kill them before moving on...
oVo wrote:Just had a Heads Up game in Africa that went RT and damn it was sweet to finally bust some moves.
Cypress333 is likely to be the first to make the block list now that he's done a slowpoke disappearing act.
I tried to figure out how to set up a real-time game and couldn't find it.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote: The one thing I'd like to see is for combat to happen "at the border" in instances when troops from the same two territories are attacking each other. To have them avoid each other to swap places seems...odd.
An effect of the simultaneous turns. But yea a battle on the border (with both being attackers?) would seem more intuitive.
They just pass right by...waving to one another and laughing.
sm8900 wrote: LOL! Actually, if two opposing players BOTH took more territory because it was undefended, the one really laughing would be whoever got a better deal by using less forces to do so, leaving other forces free for operations elsewhere.
Woodruff wrote:Right, but it's still ridiculous to see it happen. If the troops go in the direction the enemy, they should at least stop and kill them before moving on...
but that's the point...in this game, they DO block each other, if enemy troops occupy a space at the same time. the only way they pass is each other is if they never actually were in that space officially, but moved out immediately.
Woodruff wrote: The one thing I'd like to see is for combat to happen "at the border" in instances when troops from the same two territories are attacking each other. To have them avoid each other to swap places seems...odd.
An effect of the simultaneous turns. But yea a battle on the border (with both being attackers?) would seem more intuitive.
They just pass right by...waving to one another and laughing.
sm8900 wrote: LOL! Actually, if two opposing players BOTH took more territory because it was undefended, the one really laughing would be whoever got a better deal by using less forces to do so, leaving other forces free for operations elsewhere.
Woodruff wrote:Right, but it's still ridiculous to see it happen. If the troops go in the direction the enemy, they should at least stop and kill them before moving on...
but that's the point...in this game, they DO block each other, if enemy troops occupy a space at the same time. the only way they pass is each other is if they never actually were in that space officially, but moved out immediately.
Incorrect. If two opposing territories border one another (we'll say you own one and I own one) and we both attack each other with everything we have, we will take over each others' territory and NEVER HAVE A BATTLE. That's ridiculously ignorant, insipid, silly...whatever derogatory term you want to use. I prefer "ridiculously illogical".
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
sm8900 wrote:has anyone figured out how the "auto-play" feature works? does it take your turn for you the minute that the new round begins?
No, the Auto Play feature will manage your moves when you press play. If you miss a turn personnel/weapons will be auto deployed on your capitol, but no attacks will occur. If you miss successive turns your income is diminished and the time between moves becomes shorter once your opponents have moved.
Just had a game with cypress333 who never bothered to make a move. Troops and tanks piled up on his capitol, his income shriveled up and eventually new rounds commenced without waiting for him. He's now the sole occupant of my block list there and I went ahead and foed him here too.
Woodruff wrote:Incorrect. If two opposing territories border one another (we'll say you own one and I own one) and we both attack each other with everything we have, we will take over each others' territory and NEVER HAVE A BATTLE. That's ridiculously ignorant, insipid, silly...whatever derogatory term you want to use. I prefer "ridiculously illogical".
Would it be better if they fought at the boarder?
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
LOL! Actually, if two opposing players BOTH took more territory because it was undefended, the one really laughing would be whoever got a better deal by using less forces to do so, leaving other forces free for operations elsewhere.
