Setup charts the same size as piece boxes?

Hello all. Just wondering if there are any custom setup charts for the Global 1942 scenario? I have the printout but was looking for setup charts to customize what I have. Thanks in advance.

@KennethViuff:

Hi All�

I�ll like some feedback one 9 charts, but how do i insert them in this tread??

Hey Kenneth,

In order to prevent spam on the forums… there is a minimum amount of posts a member must have in order to share pictures, links, or files. I think it’s 10 or more, but if you private message imperious leader, he may lift the restriction for you.

Looking forward to seeing your charts.

This is one of the rare topics that everyone seems to agree upon, because its pretty theoretical rather than applied.

Cruisers and Battleships are too expensive, use the ones you already have but build more sparingly if at all.  The bombardment shots are too easy to block and are not first-strike.

Carriers are awesome, the only drawback is that they can take hits (esp from kamikazes and subs) which would render them unable to support planes.  Carriers cannot attack but they can permit you to shuttle-stage your fliers (so as many as 4 planes can actually use the carriers on a single turn).  The fact that US, UK, Japan and Germany start with copious numbers of planes contributes to this belief.  It is actually a good idea to build even more carriers than you can fill with planes, because they can soak hits and provide free landing spaces for non coms and allied fighters.

Destroyers are too pricey, but they are the only cheap ship that blocks movement and sub ambushes.  This means you can’t live without them, but that you cannot build your stack out of them either

Subs are tempting, they are the best unit for the price until you consider that their special rules require that you must also have a traditional fleet to support your sub strikeforce, they can never really operate on their own unless your opponent is already suppressed.

Transports full of attack teams cost 14 IPCs, so they are almost as expensive as any two small units or a carrier, highlighting the challenge of playing the US.

Ah, I get what you are saying. No, I don’t have those numbers because I didn’t think of that. I would have to check out the whole setup again. In that case, it might go a little better for the Allies because they have a LOT of empty territories. The Axis have very few, I think just 2 or 3 of the Japanese islands.

@texasranger97:

Are the NOs the same?

Yes, look here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.msg1012638#msg1012638

This thread is really nice, but more importantly I think people are advocating for fun.  Not historical advocacy etc.  Fun.  So how do we give Germany more options without breaking the game.  Thanks for all the input guys!

@munchie19:

Another thing I noticed about the setup is that some of the starting incomes aren’t correct. For example, Japan starts out with 31 (which is correct according to the setup), but they are not at war with any of the Allies, except for China, so they should receive that NO.

This setup has them already occupying French Indo-China. That $10 NO for being at peace with the Western Allies includes Japan NOT invading FIC. Therefore, that NO is cancelled.

It looks like everyone has a lot more stuff in this setup. UK Europe seems to have roughly the same size navy – they lose a battleship but gain 2 more destroyers. I think I like it because I just LOVE playing with more pieces. Thanks again. Oh, and thank you oztea for putting it together.

Regardless, I believe the intention of a sticky - is to make something stand out…  12 items  vs 3 or 4 is a bit much…

Some of them are even locked, and I doubt are used - like some of the stuff pertaining back to October.