Hi ANZAC. For the HBG 1939 map, think of a 4x8 sheet of plywood. Its is HUGE and awesome. You need a big room for that size table plus room to walk around on all 4 sides. I only played the 1939 game one time and I can say it is definitely superior in a hundred different ways, but playing it is an order of magnitude more complex than global 1940. Global 1940 seems like the kiddie game next to it, which is nuts because global 1940 is not an easy game by any means. I’d say your best bet is to get the global 1940 if only for the pieces, and then blow the extra money for the 1939 map and elite pieces if and when you and your crew outgrow it. Another option is to play 1940 on this site with triplea.
Alpha +1, only for global?
-
Does alpha =1 only apply to global,
Or are the setup and rules change still good if playing only europe or only pacific?
Tha a lot! -
Well, the setup hasn’t been playtested for the half-games, so they may not work.
-
The goal is for the changes to apply to all three games, but so far they’ve only been tested for global.
-
Does alpha =1 only apply to global,
Or are the setup and rules change still good if playing only europe or only pacific?
Tha a lot!Our Battle Group has been using the Alpha + .1 changes for the Europe ‘half-game’ and like them very much. We only changed one of the NOs for the US at war which was to reduce the 15 IPCs for control of the Continental US to 10 IPCs. Also, any ANZAC units were replaced with French units. We are scheduled to play on Jan 8 at which time we will use the 12/15/2010 modified Alpha + .1 Plus Larry’s most recent mods and see how it goes. I really don’t like the airbase in Scotland nor the French fighter in the UK so we might try a game without them.
-
The 2 ANZAC inf are supposed to be replaced by 2 British inf, though I think 1 British inf is better to keep the balance
-
The 2 ANZAC inf are supposed to be replaced by 2 British inf, though I think 1 British inf is better to keep the balance
Fair enough! We just wanted the two units to be of a different nationality so they would be used mainly for defense. Granted, they could move on their turn but couldn’t move with the British troops.
-
@Hellmutt:
The 2 ANZAC inf are supposed to be replaced by 2 British inf, though I think 1 British inf is better to keep the balance
Fair enough! We just wanted the two units to be of a different nationality so they would be used mainly for defense. Granted, they could move on their turn but couldn’t move with the British troops.
Well, changing ANZAC to French also presents the discrepancy that ANZAC moves before Italy while France moves after. Thus, the 2 inf in Egypt, if they become French, can’t shadow the UK forces.
-
@Hellmutt:
The 2 ANZAC inf are supposed to be replaced by 2 British inf, though I think 1 British inf is better to keep the balance
Fair enough! We just wanted the two units to be of a different nationality so they would be used mainly for defense. Granted, they could move on their turn but couldn’t move with the British troops.
Well, changing ANZAC to French also presents the discrepancy that ANZAC moves before Italy while France moves after. Thus, the 2 inf in Egypt, if they become French, can’t shadow the UK forces.
I see your point!..…maybe changing two ANZAC to one British is better.
-
it is better.
ANZAC and UK should be allowed to fight together anyways.





