Hasbro/WotC Priorites (Not 1914)

@mcclellansGhost

One thing I like to do as well is to have a transport or two in sea zone 8, then ferry forces from the US directly to Ireland (it only takes 1 turn for ships to move from there), then onwards to Picardy or Brest (the transports in sea zone 8 bridging). They can also move into sea zone 9 and desposit them in Belgium depending on the situation.

@DoManMacgee Totally agree with your thoughts. I also thought that Russia just needed to do something to throw the CPs off their game. In regards to the 1 Inf, I think its just an annoying move people made so the opponent couldn’t just grab free IPCs, but I’ll check with some of the other players to make sure that rule was understood right.

Couldn’t pass up the deal. The game is ridiculously overpriced usually. Europe and Pacific 1940 were only around $70 when I got them, but $100? And it’s apparently lacking enough pieces. C’mon! $60 was a good deal though. And free shipping.  :wink:Plus I have been meaning to get it, but couldn’t justify the cost. Here’s hoping for a good game when it gets here in a week. :-)

I did find it funny WW1 took place in Europe only lol. Japan was in this too.

In my experience the game is only playable by replacing ALL land and air units with chips bar the single infantry atop each stack. Even then it can still get crowded with units of 4 or 5 nations sometimes piling into a small tt.

So for me a future version needs a few more infantry each and drop all the other land unit minis; and a big pile of extra chips, a different colour for each unit type.

More likely a second edition will feature something along the lines of task force cards & markers; AH is not going to admit to the redundancy of plastic minis. Blow up boxes are a no-no.

protevangelium makes some great points about how lopsided the sea’s were, and sub warfare being the best option for the CP in the war. Subs are a bit lacking in this edition as well as others IMO (nearly impossible to raid convoys, or inflict econ damage). The Austrians, and Turks were very limited in their abilities. The Germans did have a more modern surface fleet (tried to enter a naval arms race before the war), but failed in comparison to the Brits. In this game the Germans can get temporary control of the North Sea early though and add to their fleet. Once the rest of French Fleet comes up the UK still doesn’t need to build much to protect allied transports OOB (two French BB’s is a nice way to start for the allies rebuild). If the allies want to knock the German fleet out, then it could get expensive, but do they need to, or just set-up a multi national defense that the Germans can’t touch to keep allied transports afloat. Then there is always the 1-2 punch if the allies want to go aggressive. I still believe the problem lies with the French fleet (and the abilities of the sub to a point).

When we play we always reduce the Atlantic French Fleet to just a cruiser (swap BB for cruiser and remove the transport). We have done this even before Larry introduced it in the Tourney rules. It does help for game play, and better reflects what the French had in the Atlantic. The French Atlantic fleet was more of a support to the Brits (not nearly equal). Before the war the French naval focus was in the Med not knowing the intentions of the Italians (fearing an Italian attack which the game doesn’t reflect).

It would have been nice for the sub to have a larger roll in this edition having more raiding ability or sz’s to attack econ. Should destroyers be introduced so subs have a better survival rate? Maybe the naval set-up cost should be tweaked. BB’s at 12 IPCs is too cost effective IMO (should they be 15 IPCs?), no one buys cruisers. Just thinking out load……don’t read to much into it. WB

There are many reasons for the failure of the Spring Offensive the nutritional status of the German Army, the Deciphering of German radio traffic by Georges Painvin, 1 mio CP Soldiers still hanging out in the East, but the main reason were the Strategic errors of the German leadership.
Ludendorffs decision to reinforce troops who encountered the stubborn resistance led to an improper use of the powers. The findings of the subsequent World War showed that to maximize the shock effect precisely those troops should be increased, which had already achieved the greatest success. Generally, the reserve management during the offensive was problematic, since only the troops in the front line were reinforced and that no full new units were brought there. This led to rapid fatigue of the deployed forces. Furthermore, the fixation of the General Staff only on the military concept of the breakthrough. The offensive had been planned by the OHL consistently methodically, but only up to the supposedly decisive goal, the shock through the enemy lines. An orderly plan for the exploitation of the resulting gaps, something like an (don´t know whats it in english) “Umfassungsmanöver” was not hit. The shock of the attack had been identified as shock troops tactically decisive factor, however, to use this principle as a strategic moment, was not considered.

Hey Flash, will you also simulate the Christmas Peace of 1914 ? Maybe with a little football on the map ?  :wink:

Wow Turn Coats! I never knew…

I like it…