So, you think you are good at figuring out who is ahead in a game?

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.

Thanks for the feedback guys!  Very thought out reply TheMethuselah, that helps, thanks.  I was thinking that 8 Mechanized Infantry might be enough and that some might only use two, so I was surprised to see that 12 can be used by many of the major powers.  Are you sure that there could be 12 different Mechanized Infantry on 12 different territories?  I could see that if Russia was attacking Japanese forces in Asia by land or vice versa.  I was also surprised to see 6 additional fighters for Italy, which would make 8 total.  I had thought that 4 might do it, so I really appreciate your input.  If anyone has a different experience, I’d love to hear from a variety of people, since I never know who I might be playing with and what units might be realistically used with the various strategies out there.

I imagine my mental estimate for fighters and bombers of other countries is off as well.  Do you have an aircraft estimate for some (or all) of the other countries?

Right now I just have some sub par quality photos of the Europe pieces, but maybe I can post those some time; the IJN probably is my best work, but I don’t have any good photos right now.  If I have free time I should be painting rather than setting up a photo shoot.  I’ll plan to post a link here if I end up posting them.  Thanks for the interest.

@Gargantua:

@Paksos:

Never played 2nd ed. What’s the difference in the Mongolia rule?

I’m up for 2nd ed though if you are game, Gargantua……

Let’s Rock.

I need to “practice” my axis strategies.

So do I  :-D

@valtteri771:

why would japan have to attack russia I have won many times as germany without sealion and japanese help in barbarossa.

Oh ,  and if you check out the early GNazi buys,  my Axis opponent  even admits he didn’t buy enough tanks since he used his airforce to destroy the British Navy in turn 2 and the Mediterranean Navy in turn 3  early in the game.  so the extra 9 IPCs from the far east could have been elminated earlier.  He didn’t hit it till Japan Turn 8  which meant the Soviets colleted 72 IPCs for the game from the far east.  cutting it down by turn 5 or 6 well after Germany was pressuring the Soviets and with Japan stomping to to india could have swung the war against the Allies!  I had also moved 15 far east troops all the way back to moscow and they were big help in retaking Stalingrad.

@Daedelus:

It means you can win the Game without having to capture any Russian Cities.

Well, yeah, theoretically.  Just seems like, particularly with new rules bringing in the U.S. if Axis is in Canadia, that’s not a very realistic proposition.  South Africa seems like it would make for more viable strategery options.

I mean, I haven’t ever put a lot of thought into an Ottawa strategy, mostly because, just looking at it, it seems pretty well doomed to fail.  Might as well try to grab New York.

Many thanks, heading over now.

I think attacking a strict neutral may become a late game move in which the other tt on the board are worthless to the outcome of a game that may end in 3-4 turns.