Bob_A_Mickelson's AAG40 National Production/Objectives and Setup Charts

@regularkid:

If I get a bid of 12 or more for allies, i definitely think an IC in Egypt is worthwhile.

I think bids are far outside the scope of this specific conversation, but since you mentioned it, I think that the way you use bids by adding extra units to the initial set up, ruin the game balance in earnest and are both moot and lame. At the same time. In a slightly derogatory way. Now if you play against real men, they will probably offer the US NO bid, which gives US extra NO money, distributed each and every turn. This money will not come to effect before Turn 3 or 4, so they will not ruin the first Turn set up balance. IMHO anyway, not alway but sure in Norway.

And in this case, the Persian factory is more worthwhile

I have to say I like the idea of giving all nations more money.  Perhaps each nation collects their normal income + national objective income and then adds 2d6 bonus economy to add in randomness?

That should only average an extra 6 IPC per nation (6.090909… really) but would be flexible enough to give only +2 or as much as +12 both of which could add some flair and randomness to the game.

nope, we didn’t do it  :?

worked out in my favor though lol

Guest said in Minor Threat's Alpha+3.9 (Global 1940) COMPLETE! Setup Charts:

Wow, these are super, muchos gracias :-D

And now KICKS SELF FOR NITPICKING
-United States card: NOs #1 and #4 the word ‘Sovereignty’ spelled wrong (extra ‘i’)
-UK card: UK (London) operations: the phrase ‘exclusively only’ seems redundant, just ‘exclusively’ would do (same on India card)
-UK card: the word ‘Canadian’ spelled wrong (extra ‘n’)
-Japan card: NO #1 the word ‘resource’ spelled wrong (second ‘s’ instead of a ‘c’)
-ANZAC card: wording of NO #2 seems weird ‘Strategic cornerstone - to far East British Empire’. Does this miss the words ‘Malaya considered’?

KICKS SELF AGAIN

Beside these little wording mistakes, they are still great and stick to the latest updates and rules!

While I checked my stuff again I found something but I am not quite sure if there is a benefit when you will change it:

It is not necessary but you could add the (2) for all anti-aircraft gun at DEFENSE… they only occur when Radar is researched…
Fighter Attack (4) when Jet Fighters
Submarines --> Super Submarines (3)
Heavy Bombers Roll 2 Dice (but not easy to show this while not causing confusion)
Etc…

and maybe on the turn sequence to add the polictics move “to declare war”

Just suggestions, no need! As said above, maybe you should leave it like it is… The player should use a Research Board, so that they can see which technology they got… hopefully they do not forget it during the game ;)

Totally agree Cow. Most games are won by axis because of how fast they can expand, as well as how many air units they have that can do SO many differen’t moves. The allies air power must all be used for defense for a long time. Eventually I think the allies would win almost every game, if it were about total world conquest, but this game is based on the VC win. This means allies don’t stand much of a chance, in my oppinion. Honestly it reminds me of an 8 VC game in Revised.

@Meethos:

@Get:

I would also like to make a request to anyone that has a scanner: to scan the pages of the Europe rule book which contain the unit profiles & stats, i believe they’re located way in the back of the booklet.

upload them in .PNG format

Thank you!  :-D

Meethos if you’re reading this, hopefully you can help me out one last time  :-)

Do you mean the Game Piece Directory which shows the silhouettes of each nations units or the profiles that describes the rules for each unit? If its the later then they’re the exact same as the ones in the Pacific manual w/ the excpetion of the air base scramble rule saying that the UK isn’t an island. FYI the Game Piece Directory doesn’t contain any stats.

yeah the Game Piece Directory.  :-)

I played it. DJensen is correct.