Page 1 of 1
Colonies and Conquest
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:26 pm
by rbodleyscott
MING CHINESE
KOREAN
JAPANESE
JAPANESE WARRIOR MONK ALLIES
IKKO IKKI
MONGOL
TIBETAN
MUSLIM INDIAN
HINDU INDIAN
INDONESIAN OR MALACCAN
THAI, BURMESE AND KHMER
VIETNAMESE
DESERT BEDOUIN
SETTLED ARAB STATES
ETHIOPIAN
ZANJ
HORN OF AFRICA
MAORI AND PACIFIC ISLAND CULTURES
HAWAIIAN
COLONIAL PORTUGUESE
MUGHAL
WOKOU PIRATES
JURCHEN, LATER JIN AND QING
COLONIAL DUTCH
MARATHA
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:35 am
by kevinj
I have received an email from Amazon to tell me that this has been delayed
Has anyone else had anything?
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:10 am
by timmy1
Not a sasuage
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:42 pm
by quackstheking
Tip - cancel the Amazon order and order instead from Caliver - I recieved my C&C on Wednesday from them!
Don
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:08 pm
by Scrumpy
Got my copy at Cold Wars. Looks it's usual nice pictures & layout. For me there were one or two interesting armies & troop types in there.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:47 am
by azrael86
amazon UK claim to have dispatched
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:59 am
by kevinj
They have made the same claim to me...
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:26 am
by kevinj
... and it's just arrived
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:37 am
by rbodleyscott
kevinj wrote:... and it's just arrived
Bah. I haven't even got my advance copy yet!
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:40 am
by nikgaukroger
rbodleyscott wrote:kevinj wrote:... and it's just arrived
Bah. I haven't even got my advance copy yet!
Ditto.
I blame McNeil
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:11 pm
by azrael86
Likewise.
But I would like to question page 31, where a specific rule change has been applied to address a miniscule point - i.e the extra 1 AP per base for 'Samurai dragoons'. It seems to me that this is the wrong way to handle it, for numerous reasons.
1. If armoured dragoons cost more, then the rule book should say so (like the old 'arab and indian horses' rule).
2. Unlike the other 'in list' changes, we've seen this increases the cost - I'm only waware of the 'free javelins' of B&G, so I might be wrong about this
3. It makes list checking much more difficult - I only noticed it because the cost for the unit was coming up 'wrong' on the spreadsheet...cue ..If army=Japanese AND trooptype="Dragoon"...
4. Frankly this is most significant in my mind - this has been done for a troop type that you can have THREE elements of in the army, and none in an ally, and for 23 years of the 150+ covered by the list!
Surely it would have been easier to say, OK, we missed it, so they get free armour, it's just 2 or 3 bases!
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:17 pm
by rbodleyscott
azrael86 wrote:Likewise.
But I would like to question page 31, where a specific rule change has been applied to address a miniscule point - i.e the extra 1 AP per base for 'Samurai dragoons'. It seems to me that this is the wrong way to handle it, for numerous reasons.
1. If armoured dragoons cost more, then the rule book should say so (like the old 'arab and indian horses' rule).
2. Unlike the other 'in list' changes, we've seen this increases the cost - I'm only waware of the 'free javelins' of B&G, so I might be wrong about this
3. It makes list checking much more difficult - I only noticed it because the cost for the unit was coming up 'wrong' on the spreadsheet...cue ..If army=Japanese AND trooptype="Dragoon"...
4. Frankly this is most significant in my mind - this has been done for a troop type that you can have THREE elements of in the army, and none in an ally, and for 23 years of the 150+ covered by the list!
Surely it would have been easier to say, OK, we missed it, so they get free armour, it's just 2 or 3 bases!
Indeed, it is a shocking outrage. Nik and I are dishonoured and will commit seppuku immediately.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:30 pm
by azrael86
rbodleyscott wrote:
Indeed, it is a shocking outrage. Nik and I are dishonoured and will commit seppuku immediately.
I should think so.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:47 pm
by nikgaukroger
rbodleyscott wrote:azrael86 wrote:Likewise.
But I would like to question page 31, where a specific rule change has been applied to address a miniscule point - i.e the extra 1 AP per base for 'Samurai dragoons'. It seems to me that this is the wrong way to handle it, for numerous reasons.
1. If armoured dragoons cost more, then the rule book should say so (like the old 'arab and indian horses' rule).
2. Unlike the other 'in list' changes, we've seen this increases the cost - I'm only waware of the 'free javelins' of B&G, so I might be wrong about this
3. It makes list checking much more difficult - I only noticed it because the cost for the unit was coming up 'wrong' on the spreadsheet...cue ..If army=Japanese AND trooptype="Dragoon"...
4. Frankly this is most significant in my mind - this has been done for a troop type that you can have THREE elements of in the army, and none in an ally, and for 23 years of the 150+ covered by the list!
Surely it would have been easier to say, OK, we missed it, so they get free armour, it's just 2 or 3 bases!
Indeed, it is a shocking outrage. Nik and I are dishonoured and will commit seppuku immediately.
And there was I thinking we had put it in as a service so that it guaranteed something for somebody to complain about
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:25 pm
by timmy1
Amazon UK claim to have dispatched my copy but no sight nor sound of it...
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:30 pm
by timmy1
I now have my copy, time to look at the options.
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:29 pm
by azrael86
In fairness, I liked the insight that "Vietnam was poor cavalry country".