Any need for French units beyond the setup?

@Maddog77:

I actually put Japan markers (roundels) on the Chinese territories that Japan starts the game with. That way if those territories are liberated, we can remove the Japan marker and see the Chinese logo which indicates it is owned by China. Makes for an easy quick visual when counting IPC tally.

I do the same thing.  I just think it is easier marking the enemy controlled territories.  In this case, Japan just captured these territories before the game starts.

If we’re talking about just one ship in a sea zone carrying just one or two units, there’s not much potential for confusion.  If we’re dealing with a situation in which a large number of transports in a single sea zone are carrying a large number of units, the simplest solution would be to keep all the transported units physically off the board and to represent their presence on the board via one or more markers.  This is basically the principle of the task force markers that were used in the original A&A Pacific game.

There would be two basic approaches.  If you consider the transported units to be a single group, all you need to do is plunk the sculpts into a pile off the board and to put a small marker – anything would do – next to the group of ships transporting them.  If, on the other hand, you want to track in detail which-unit-is-aboard-what-ship (so you can figure out what troops and equipment get lost when ship X gets topedoed, for instance), then you’d need to put a little numbered (or lettered) marker next to (or under) each ship, and a corresponding marker off the board next to each unit or pair of units being transported.  Scrabble tiles could be pressed into service in that role, as one possible quick-and-dirty solution.  For a more elegant, you could use HBG’s cardboard naval task force markers, of which it has a wide selection.

In any case, this would fix the transportation problem without having to replace the ships themselves (or until replacement ships become available, if you want to look at it that way).

While it can be expensive to send just air units against ground units, sometimes it is warranted.
In a recent game of 1942 2nd edition, Germany was really giving Russia a hard time and Russia was having trouble having enough troops and tanks to retake their own territories. The US and UK had built up sizable air forces so they took turns attacking the German infantry and tanks so on Russia’s turn, they could simply move in and take the territories thus improving their income.
While the US/UK did lose some expensive air units, it worked out very well as Russia was able to roll up a lot of territory and Germany just couldn’t produce enough to reverse the tide. Russian tanks would blitz 2 territories while Germany could only take the 2nd territory back in combat. Then here would come those dang Brit or American planes again.

@Krieghund:

Yes.

Oh that is SOOO sweet! Wish I had known that previously.  I had not attacked a French Destroyer for fear of losing the non-Aggression NO for letting FIC be free (figured it was all or nothing.)  Ah well, my fault for not checking first!

@allweneedislove:

@Kobu:

Try it with the approved setup.

all the games i have been playing have been.

You’ve clearly been playing with the proposed changes to the Med. Apples and oranges and I’ve addressed both.

I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it, and we love the game.

SHARED THIS ON LARRY’S SITE ALREADY, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THOUGHTS HERE ALSO:

Ok Larry,

Me and an official playtester of yours here in Michigan (his name is mentioned in the rulebook for Europe 40) played Global with the new setup given with all the aircraft taken away and such. Here was a short summary of what happened:

On the Europe side:

Germany played pretty predictably, sinking most of the UK navy, taking France and the Eastern European pro-allied and pro-axis neutrals with Italy. They continued to build on their air force to keep the UK from building ships right away. Began to stack some ground units as well. Italy expanded into Africa and shored the Middle East slowly controlling the Med.

UK responded by NOT attcking the Italian navy and pulling back the rest of the navy it had left until it could come back to England with a strong navy that included the US. UK took the Pro-allied Brazil and shucked the troops to Africa to help the SAfrican force which slowly pushed the Italians back up to Egypt turning the tide in Africa.

Russia stedily built a force consisting of infantry spiced with some tanks, artillery, tacs and mechs. Stacking behind some dead zones and waiting for the declaration of war.

US spent about 70-80% of its cash in the Pacific since it could not even approach Africa/Europe before a state of war.

Now for the Pacific side:

India with little cash built mostly infantry and stacked. Combined navy near India and activated the Persian troops to bring back and help defend India. In Global, India has a little more help from some extra troops west and a few ships, including one French destroyer to help defend. Also, it can fall back with its stack to West India if needed.

ANZAC naval base is much needed and I am glad it is there- balances nicely.

China was stonger, but does what it normally does and stacks at Yunnan to wait to wear down Japs. China units are really used as a delaying tactic for the India crush.

Japan didn’t see an advantage to the India crush in J1 but felt that the initiative came to them in J2. They didn’t want to wait until J3 because they felt the Allies would have established a long-term defense of India. So with that the Japs declared war on J2 taking back the Dutch East Indies and unleashing the fury. Japan built transports J1 and J2 and built more planes to replace the ones missing from the new setup in J2.

Now even though both Japs and Allies have the same amount of planes removed, Japan can build them faster and move them closer to the action (India). US could also build their planes back but it takes them longer to get them to the battle scene (India). Brit India and ANZAC can’t build much of an airforce because of the typhoon of Jap units coming fast, so India stacks and ANZAC tries to distract and/or try to send some units.

Japan can make the US wait longer to send ships and planes down to ANZAC by using its navy as a shield. I as Allies, I made tactical blunder ruining my chance to meet the Jap onslaught of India from behind through Australia. However, if not for this the setup seems very balanced and gave some options to both sides.

A hot topic question will be “what to do with the Russian inf on the Pacific side??”
It is very frustrating for the Russians, if you attack immediately, Japan will bring the heat to wipe them out with now China and Russia give large concessions to Japan $$$. If you stack and sit. Japan has to garrison Manchu with a small force but continues to spearhead to India. I figure as the Russians, you have to attack with the 18 inf at some point. The hard part is when. Timing is everything in this decision.

With US entering the war at turn 2, the US began to throw a good amount of cash to the European side, mainly because of the blunder in the Pacific- India would not last long now- 2-3 more rounds. I recovered nicely putting pressure on the French coast quickly until I made another tactical error involving Gibraltar- arrggh!!!- new rules and new map takes a little while getting used to.  :-(

Besides these 2 blunders, I thought the Global game was pretty fair and balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. I definitely think the Allies are a little easier to play because that sides is spilt into 6 sub parts (countries) that are easy to prepare while you are waiting for the Axis to finish. The Axis with so many more units in the beginning, take longer and you have to be very efficient both in the short-term and the long-term planning.

Anyway that was are anaylsis so I hope it helps.  :-)

Most of the NOs in Anniversary were simply dependent on a territory (or territories) being held by one side, so UK often gets a NO for the US controlling the Carolines in the Pacific, or the US getting a NO for the UK controlling France, or Russia getting a NO for the UK controlling Norway, Finland, and Poland.  It’s basically the same thing; ANZAC was closely connected to the UK still, having been colonies/territories in the British Commonwealth/Empire up until just before WW2, so a good deal of British economics was affected by the status of Australia and New Zealand, just as it was with Canada (which is recognized in the game as an independent nation with their own roundel, but controlled overall by the UK player).

You don’t have to have the same person control ANZAC and UK for the NO to make sense, just like you don’t have to have the same player control the US and UK in Anniversary.