Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived

@Cornwallis

Nice. I’ll try it out by myself sometime.

Okay, I did that and now the numbers all look right.  Thanks.

I prefer the pressure to be on the axis to make things happen. Right now it is a little too easy for the axis to catch up in income.

@CWO:

@knp7765:

Yes, the Pacific 1940 2nd Edition uses the thick, heavy duty cardboard like Europe 1940. Not that thin stuff like in Pacific 1940 1st edition.

And as I recall, the roundels in the 2nd edition of Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940 are both printed on thick, black-backed cardboard.  In the 1st edition, I think one of the games had white-backed roundels.

You’re right Marc.

It could facilitate blind games, which are loads of fun but currently very tedious and time-consuming.  (I’ve played one on AAR)

blind games=basically you can’t see the units in enemy territory, except perhaps in the ones adjacent to your own.  for now it takes 2 separate boards and one non-player person willing to be the moderator to keep the boards synced.

I am currently in the middle of my first game of Global using Alpha. It is going really well actually. We have played 6 games of global in our group (this alpha game is our 7th). Initially we certainly believed that there is a distinct allied advantage, and I still do. I believe that only very skilled players playing as the Axis have a chance of winning with them, and that is if they play against mistake prone allied players. If you have skilled allied players against equally or even more skilled Axis players, the Allies seem unbeatable barring extreme luck or blunders going in Axis favor.

We have 1 victory for the Axis, and that actually came down to our two best players who are much better than the rest of the group playing Axis, and the allies were made up of our third best player and two totally new players. America’s player was playing for the first time ever. And the Axis just barely won due to a 1/36 tech miracle and botched allied play (poor use of transports).

There were also 3 allied victories, and 2 games we called draws, but the allies would have won if we decided to play for weeks longer…

We are currently on J3 in our latest game with our first go at the Alpha setup. We also have the same two players as Axis, only this time switching powers. I have to admit that I think I like this setup better as Germany because our UK player is infamous for bringing the whole british empire into Egypt and holding Africa with overwhelming force while threatening Italy all game long. Less planes and ships and initial transports makes this harder for him and makes Italy more viable. Also we started with a G2 DoW on USSR. Things are going very well for them with the USSR’s hardware in dead zones, so by R4 they will be down to only Inf.

Japan is doing very well also in China and with the sizeable Manchurian land force nipping at the retreating Russian’s heels in Siberia. The lack of planes certainly is putting a cramp in Japan’s game play in the Pacific itself, and in its Caroline/Hawaiian posturing against the Angloish-Allies, but they are still in a solid position. I the new naval base in NSW is a very interesting double edged sword. It makes Australia very happy that they can move around a bit easier, and can claim DNG on ANZAC1, but they have to be careful because it no longer is a dead end for the IJN, which makes ANZAC a viable target for Japan.

Allowing a brief digression, if we were to compare AA50 to AA42, we find AA50 adds:

[liA nicer looking larger board[/li]

AA50 is a better game with more bells and whistles, but some might prefer the relative speed and simplicity AA42 has to offer.

Back to the topic at hand,  if we were to compare AA50 to AAG40, we find AAG40 adds:

More board spaces

A nicer looking larger board

Additional powers

Much better rules for China

Cool new factors such as Politics, bases, neutrals, and convoy disruption

Tactical bombers and mechanised infantry

New rules for ICs

expanded rules for 2 hit warships

AAG40 has more features above and beyond AA50 than AA50 has over AA42.  Some people still might prefer the relative speed and simplicity of AA50, but you have to decide if you think you’ll be one of them.

Me, I think AAG40 is the best A&A game ever!  It obsoletes AA50 more than AA50 obsoletes AA42 (though all three are highly playable solid games).

One more thing, although AAG40 is new and optimal strategies are nowhere near having been refined, it looks like AAG40 has more viable strategic options than previous versions of the game.

@Plasticdeathbydice:

$6.00 bucks an hour?!?!  At the rate my buddies drink - it is costing me $6.00 every ten minutes!

Exactly.  Over time the game does not add a significant cost to your gaming experience.  If you sick to AA50 you still have to buy that booze.

$6/hr is relatively high - ask me what it works out to this time next year.  Also I didn’t account for the games of Pacific alone I’ve already played.  This will be down to pennies an hour in no time.

@Koningstiger:

I do believe it’s worth it, but at the same time, I find A&A50 the better game (ease and relative quickness of play)

To each their own.  Some people might prefer AA42 to AA50 for the same reason, but probably not many because AA50 is only a little bit bigger and more elaborate than AA42.  Global is way bigger than AA50.  I personally think they’re all excellent.

One thing really cool about Global is that Germany (at this point seemingly) has a legitimate decision to make in terms of England or Russia.  What’s even cooler is that if England falls the Allies can still win!  I love this game!