Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Messages List

143525

Re: Covert Operations in USAT in 1942

I hadn't followed up on this because I was waiting to hear whether it was a hypothetical, but Don's answer is incorrect. The rule quoted states that the use of
Bruce Harper
9:54 PM
#143525
 
143524

Re: Covert Operations in USAT in 1942

... While a Covert Operations may be used to affect USAT whether or not DPs were activated for USAT in that turn, it seems there still has to be the
donmoody_prons_net
9:10 AM
#143524
 
143523

Re: Russian pre-war force pool additions

63.51C is actually unnecessary, and was left in the rules to avoid confusion. Maybe it created it instead. It was intended to be the effect on Russia of the
Bruce Harper
8:50 AM
#143523
 
143522

Russian pre-war force pool additions

Re: 63.51C Before war or RGT40, Russia may not produce more than five BRPs of military units per year. If Russia produces a 3-3 infantry in 1940 and defers 2
richdiff
8:41 AM
#143522
 
143521

Russian pre-war force pool additions

Just starting a new FTF European game after a couple years off from AWAW and playing Russia. 63.51C Pre-war/RGT40, Russian may only produce five BRPs of air
richdiff
8:41 AM
#143521
 
143520

Re: Notional hexes in South Pacific near Australia

I sure hope not – he’s my partner at the convention! From: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Bruce Harper
May 26
#143520
 
143519

Re: Russia unit construction in Siberia

Thanks for the detailed reply, Dave.
garygoh_25
May 26
#143519
 
143518

Re: Notional hexes in South Pacific near Australia

I definitely think its fair - for some reason I incorrectly thought that the original question was posed by a new player but I'm terribly mistaken! ...
Spencer Miller
May 26
#143518
 
143517

Re: Notional hexes in South Pacific near Australia

I understand. And you can do the former at the cost of using (but hardly risking) a handful of naval factors. If the question is “is this fair”, I think
Bruce Harper
May 26
#143517
 
143516

Re: Notional hexes in South Pacific near Australia

It is a matter for oil usage. The Western Allies are faced with a strategic decision to either use onboard resources to attempt a supply run from Pearl Harbor
Spencer Miller
May 26
#143516
 
143515

Re: Cover on USAT question

Okay – this absolutely *has* to be a hypothetical, right? From: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Bruce Harper
May 26
#143515
 
143514

Cover on USAT question

Hi May a Cover op be played in USAT in 1942? I know that DPs can`t be played in USAT after YSS42, but I can't found similar restrictions on cover op. 47.21
luismiguelgarcia2002
May 26
#143514
 
143513

Re: Notional hexes in South Pacific near Australia

I don’t like having to look up rules when people asking questions don’t post them, but this year I may have to make an exception… There are several other
Bruce Harper
May 26
#143513
 
143512

Re: Notional hexes in South Pacific near Australia

... Situation: a Japanese sub is patrolling (from either Rabaul or Lae) to LL28 in Spring '42. If the WA could trace supply through two rows of notional hexes
randy_scheers
May 25
#143512
 
143511

Re: Notional hexes in South Pacific near Australia

What rules? From: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 8:40 PM To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com Subject:
Bruce Harper
May 25
#143511
 
View First Topic Go to View Last Topic
Loading 1 - 15 of total 143,525 messages