How many G40 games have you played?

@JDOW:

@taamvan:

Malaya is too vulnerable, and it takes too long to secure.   HK is far stronger for your later-game strategic defense (free NB), hidden square)

The opposite is the case for Malaya. Yes, it is vulnerable but strategically Malaya is the by far most powerful IC Japan can place.

I think you’re taking FIC as a given there. I can’t see how the Malaya IC is more powerful than FIC. Doesn’t need a naval base built to reach Calcutta?

I would not be G40 boxed set for a new rulebook or even for new French unit sculpts. However, I would buy a G40 boxed set for some combination of two or more of these changes:

1. Long standing balance issues were resolved officially instead of with the house rule hodgepodge we use now.
2. Historical inaccurances (Scapa Flow, Iceland, Sierra Leone, etc) were corrected on the map/setup (for instance, Iceland was occupied by the US on July 7th 1941, but the map shows it as a UK territory from the start).
3. There were cool new sculpts for multiple powers, and cleaned up sculpts for units that look too similar (ANZAC cruiser vs destroyer for instance, or corrected the 9 ft tall ANZAC infantry unit).
4. New map! For instance, eastern Russia is vast and would have been a Japanese sinkhole that brought no benefit, but in the G40 map those territories all actually produce income. The Global War map is a much better representation – combined German/Japan strategies that work on the current map would not work on Global War map.
5. Map supports faster setup – MICs and setup bases pre-printed, for instance.
6. Rule changes that allow the US to build bases on other Allies territories.
7. Rule changes to fix unit issues (cruisers!)
8. Separate control markers for UK Pacific vs UK Atlantic

Basically, a couple of big changes or a bunch of small changes make the investment worthwhile IMO.

Fixing NOs could be part of #1 – giving the UK an additional NO of no German navy in the Atlantic other than sea zone 112 would probably help the balance issue. Also, giving Japan an NO that costs it money if it DOESN’T control those islands once at war with the US might help the balance issue.

Marsh

@Karl7:

@Talleyrand19:

Been following this thread as best as possible so sorry if this was already mentioned and I missed it…

But what happens if Allies spend most of their money on the Atlantic with only a few capital ships in the Pacific to join up with Anzac. The Atlantic money goes to transports and capital ships and then tanks and infantry. With England’s help, you hit Spain and Gibraltar  (for the naval base). Then every single turn the US can land more stuff and set up a nonstop funnel. If Russia does its job then axis should not be able to keep up on both fronts. If Germany sent its Dark Skies bombers to try to stop the funnel, then fine you can wipe each other out and still land more US troops the next turn.

My friends and I have done this to each other and the Spain landing always overwhelms the Axis eventually. …

What have you all experienced when trying this?

Yes, this is a good strategy.  The weak point is then the Germans blitz into the middle east, ignoring Moscow.  They can get an economic advantage and then just sit back and outbuild the allies.

Perhaps have Iraq and the Persian territories be treated as True Neutral, just give the UK and USSR extra units to make up the potential difference.

Thanks for the feedback guys!  Very thought out reply TheMethuselah, that helps, thanks.  I was thinking that 8 Mechanized Infantry might be enough and that some might only use two, so I was surprised to see that 12 can be used by many of the major powers.  Are you sure that there could be 12 different Mechanized Infantry on 12 different territories?  I could see that if Russia was attacking Japanese forces in Asia by land or vice versa.  I was also surprised to see 6 additional fighters for Italy, which would make 8 total.  I had thought that 4 might do it, so I really appreciate your input.  If anyone has a different experience, I’d love to hear from a variety of people, since I never know who I might be playing with and what units might be realistically used with the various strategies out there.

I imagine my mental estimate for fighters and bombers of other countries is off as well.  Do you have an aircraft estimate for some (or all) of the other countries?

Right now I just have some sub par quality photos of the Europe pieces, but maybe I can post those some time; the IJN probably is my best work, but I don’t have any good photos right now.  If I have free time I should be painting rather than setting up a photo shoot.  I’ll plan to post a link here if I end up posting them.  Thanks for the interest.

How a cheaper Navy helps the allies is this. The US comes in after turn 4. With a cheaper navy, namely transports, Japan could be a real threat to Australia, forcing the US to pay attention to it, making it historically accurate.

The US paying some attention to Japan helps the Germans.

Lastly, IMHO, the game is close enough that these changes don’t ruin the game. But seeing your point, to go along with this, you would also have to fix the sub problem which is horrible. The advantage Germany had in the beginning of the war with their subs just doesn’t exist in the game. They need to make the subs more stealthy, like rolling the dice to locate them before attacking them, (destroyers would have a better chance than other units) and greatly expanding the areas they can convoy. Also giving the Germans a wolf pack advantage that the US copies and made use of much later in the war against the Japanese.

This whole incredible aspect of WW2 was somehow left out of the game.  A real shame. That would bring some balance.

@techroll42:

All hes trying to do is keep the forum clear of repeat threads

yep

Germany, Japan and Italy have to be aggressive. While also taking calculation on when to go to war with certain countries. So if you just sit and build without moving, you’re doomed.

Thanks for the help!