New Version of Ironman Nasty
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7191
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
AndyMaC,
Been hooked on IronBabes C for a while, but decided to give this a try again.
A little confused on what is the correct "most recent" version.
I have a "Nasty Version 5" that is scenario 10. I started it up over the weekend.
I also seem to have one that is a scenario 60....any idea what this is?
Is the version 5, scenario 10 the correct one?
Been hooked on IronBabes C for a while, but decided to give this a try again.
A little confused on what is the correct "most recent" version.
I have a "Nasty Version 5" that is scenario 10. I started it up over the weekend.
I also seem to have one that is a scenario 60....any idea what this is?
Is the version 5, scenario 10 the correct one?
Hans
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
The 60, that's THE scenario. Death, blood and tears... [:D]
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
I think scenario 10 was added to the list in the last official patch right? The one newest one though is #60.
"Sergeant the Spanish bullet isn't made that will kill me," Bucky O'Neil seconds before receiving a fatal shot to the head at the battle of San Juan Hill.
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7191
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
Thanks guys.
I'll take a look at 60.
I had already started 10 and it is pretty well over the top with a first turn CV strike on Seattle along with invasions of Coal Harbor, Midway, Johnston and Hilo as well as infiltrators in Burma and India.
All this in addition to the Pearl strike.
Is 60 even beyond this?
I'll take a look at 60.
I had already started 10 and it is pretty well over the top with a first turn CV strike on Seattle along with invasions of Coal Harbor, Midway, Johnston and Hilo as well as infiltrators in Burma and India.
All this in addition to the Pearl strike.
Is 60 even beyond this?
Hans
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
The 60 is the 10 in steroids.
- CaptBeefheart
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Seoul, Korea
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
Those dacoits in Burma are ridiculous. They can practically clear the country out by themselves.
To me the big issue is the robust commerce raiding. This scenario requires a lot of micromanagement of convoys to avoid losing all of your merchies and tankers in three months. Those far southern borders are not immune.
Cheers,
CC
To me the big issue is the robust commerce raiding. This scenario requires a lot of micromanagement of convoys to avoid losing all of your merchies and tankers in three months. Those far southern borders are not immune.
Cheers,
CC
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
+1. Dacoits rules
Andy, im dissapointed, its 15 january 1942 and in still hold java, singa, bataab and manila. But half CDN is under attack ( poor canadians ).
Andy, im dissapointed, its 15 january 1942 and in still hold java, singa, bataab and manila. But half CDN is under attack ( poor canadians ).
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
Hopefully, Andy is working on an updated version of Allied Ironman ... Nasty, Nasty
Pax
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
I am not sure how to make that one nastier maybe add some more BB's or a few more CVE' in late war or perhaps a few more Cruiser/Carruiers
Anyway thanks to everyone that sent a save in much appreciated a big help has anyone got a game going where the AI didn't go for SOPAC strategy ??
Anyway thanks to everyone that sent a save in much appreciated a big help has anyone got a game going where the AI didn't go for SOPAC strategy ??
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
January,26. Im being invaded at Aus, tahiti, cdn, alelutianas, new guinea, line islands... Looks like i got the "attack everywhere " script.
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
Hmmm ok thanks
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
Now serioulsy: BBs dont give more headaches to the allied player, and the CVE fall to the british and dutch SS. Some CL "uber raider" would be more troublesome.
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
[quote]ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
I am not sure how to make that one nastier maybe add some more BB's or a few more CVE' in late war or perhaps a few more Cruiser/Carruiers
[/quote
CAn you point a link, or report, the Nastiest Allied Ironman. Cannot figure out if I have it or not ...
Pax
- CaptBeefheart
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Seoul, Korea
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
I was thinking an invasion by Germans out of Canada, or the Afrika Korps popping out of northern India would be pretty cool. Actually, I shouldn't be giving Andy any ideas.
Cheers,
CC
Cheers,
CC
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
ORIGINAL: Commander Cody
I was thinking an invasion by Germans out of Canada, or the Afrika Korps popping out of northern India would be pretty cool. Actually, I shouldn't be giving Andy any ideas.
Cheers,
CC
Manstein at Vancouver, Rommel on Karachi... Hummm, too easy with those wonderful replacement rates and no experienced troops.
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7191
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
Remind me of an old board game I have titled Tomorrow the World.
Predicated on the assumption that Germany conquered Europe and then went rampaging across the globe.
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7625/tomorrow-world
Predicated on the assumption that Germany conquered Europe and then went rampaging across the globe.
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7625/tomorrow-world
Hans
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
I am still in Apr '42. My comment is (besides GREAT Scenario, THANK YOU! [&o]) Too many airplanes and carriers. When you have a seven carrier TF sailing in your rear, your options are limited to run away; not much of a give and take game when that happens. On the other hand, make them seven BB's, CA's, raiders- far different story, even with the limited Allied OOB there are options beside run and hide. There also maybe too many killer gnats (B3N5 very small graphic, hence killer gnat). They are great as raiders, but they are showing up more and more in my game as the primary bomber for invasions. I suppose that is a result of code since they are based off the very ships that go into invasion TF's.
So, change up the mix to more surface and less air would be my suggestion.
P.S. I see no reason why the Bismarck can't be in game. Yes, it was sunk before Dec 7. So, what? This is a fantasy OOB game.
Why am I sharing my opinion? Because I am such a special snowflake that others need my knowledge. What…there are like a billion snowflakes? Oh, well isn't that special.
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
ORIGINAL: Califvol
P.S. I see no reason why the Bismarck can't be in game. Yes, it was sunk before Dec 7. So, what? This is a fantasy OOB game.
Tirpritz? Graf Zeppelin? I haven't run into either yet. I wanted to see Italians in the Indian Ocean...
- CaptBeefheart
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Seoul, Korea
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty
I ran across a DD or CL the other day that sounded pretty Italian to me. I need to see if I can find it on the sunk list.
Cheers,
CC
Cheers,
CC
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.