Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived

I would really like to here the communities take on this subject. Praises and criticisms. I realize I’m late to the ball, but here I am and I’ excited about getting into this game.
Here is my take.

This board and map are great.

I love the hugeness of it; this thing is just massive.

The geography and how that effects play was very well thought out. Africa is squashed down abut as much as possible and there is more room available in Europe as one could have reasonably made without completely distorting the world map. The point being , the map still looks like the world while still being able to provide effective space for game play- that is a tough balance to achieve.

The idea of making the Himalayas and Sahara impassible was inspired. Of course they are impassible to large armies. If the Axis want to do damage to the British Empire in Sub Saharan Africa, they need to either turn the corner at Alexandria or win the Atlantic or Indian Oceans.

The neutral spaces are very well done. More on that when I review the Neutral Countries.

But the main thing the map gets right is what it’s supposed to get right, it provides the right geometry to promote good game play. Their are major regions and regions within those regions and each set has its own keys to being manipulated for offense and defense. That makes for interesting game play.

Even better, I haven’t found any rinky dink ways of manipulating the geography in ways that don’t feel true to the intent of the game/WW2. The space in the Pacific is an obstacle. The Space of Russia is an obstacle. As they both should be. The benefit from gaining Scandinavia is big, but its not a game changer. The Far East or the Black Sea can’t be used as some unanticipated flanking move. One doesn’t want to be tied down to replaying WW2 as accurately as possible, but one doesn’t want to completely break with reality either.

Every game I play I learn new things about this board. I’ve played 4 intensive games with myself and am still feel like I am a long long ways from mastering the geography of this board. That is a good thing.

Certainly there are things I could quibble about.
The names for the Chinese Provinces could be better. In that , as someone who lives in China, I would prefer the proper current Pinyin names for them, A westerner defiantly made this game. But I understand they are trying to keep with the Pre 1949 feel for the region and using the terms the west used back then; so ok.

Having Kazakistan so far south is a bit weird.

There are times where I wish certain spaces were larger; I’m looking at you Bessarabia and SZ110. But most of my spatial problems stem from my style of game play which is still rooted in monolithic stacks of enormous proportions which worked well in the Axis and Allies of old.

Which brings me to my biggest opinion about this board. This board is infinitely superior to the previous incarnations of Axis and Allies.

This is a very good and interesting game and it starts with the map.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for the tips and suggestions guys. I am really trying to find ways to reduce the overall time of the game since 8-15 hours is a tough sell when trying to find more players. We usually don’t even wait till all the necessary victory cities are captured either. We basically can tell once the game is lost for either side.

Perhaps having a timer on the Purchase and Combat Move phase as well as make a hard end date at the end of Turn 7 or 8 would make things go quicker? I think playing a setup where Russia and America are already in the war could speed things up too.

Since were all talking about G39…
Does anyone know if there is a simplified version of G39?
I have the latest map, it’s beautiful. But a little too complex and too many outside pieces required.
To me G40 is a great ruleset.

I would love to play a version that is G40 style with 39 setup on the 39 map.
It would also be much more appealing to new players.

There is:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=75.0

52 while not at war and then add up the NOs after. usually 70s

Note on Heavy Bombers:  We play with a house rule that you still count BOTH dice as hits or for SBR damage.  I think it is totally ridiculous to let them roll 2 dice but only count one of them as a hit.  Heavy bombers are just that, HEAVY.  They carry a much larger bomb load and thus create more damage – i.e. 2 hits against combat units or 2 dice rolls worth of damage in SBRs (+2).  Now, the 3 dice given to Heavy Bombers in Classic was a bit excessive.  Boy you could really rack up some damage with those.  I think 2 dice is good enough though.
By the way, this is not totally unfair to the defender either.  After all, you are still rolling dice which depends on luck.  In combat, you could very well end up rolling two 6s – No hits for heavy bombers.  In an SBR, it’s entirely possible that you roll snake-eyes – A whole 4 points of damage from you mighty heavy bomber.
Rolling 2 dice and choosing the best one isn’t Heavy bombing, it’s more like Precision bombing.

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.

post on the tripleA forums any questions you have, Kev is pretty good about replying.