New to forums, sort of....need help

We had a game where Axis totally dominated, I mean, allied pieces were basically off the game board, put away, done. We called it day, left the game as it was, one of the players came back over the next day, and it was Germany/Italy VS Japan, where within 5 hours, Japan ruled the world :)

We only did something like that once, but was a cool variant. I don’t think I would like to start that way, but continuing a war after its over by a new declaration or war was a nice touch.

No. If Germany already owns Scotland and you offload units there, that would be done during non-combat. Whether it’s an amphib assault or non-combat, once you offload units, they can’t move until the following turn.

@WARRIOR888:

Did any other scuplts change in the Pacific 1940 Second Edition besides the ones mentioned already?Â

I finished inspecting the new Global sculpts last weekend and here are the main differences I was able to spot between old and new versions of sculpts which are supposed to represent the same model of equipment.  I took a few pictures (see below) to go with these notes.  (I haven’t noted cases in which some of the details on the sculpts are simply defined a little better in one version than in another, without being different in actual shape.)  Most of the differences involve sculpts which were introduced in 1942 (2nd ed) game, and which were then replaced by revised sculpts in the Global 1940 (2nd ed) game.

Artillery: 105mm LeFH 18 howitzer (German)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which the breech and the undercarriage are connected.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, there is a gap between them.

Antiaircraft Gun: 3.7in QFAA (British)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed). In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, there is an additional structure underneath the thick lower part of the barrel assembly, at the point where it connects to the mounting.

Antiaircraft Gun: M1939 85mm (Russian)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which the gun ends with a flared muzzle brake.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, the barrel is more slender and ends with grooves running around the barrel tip.

Antiaircraft Gun: 88mm FLAK 41 (German)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which a spur extends backward from the base of the breech, the horizontal element projecting forward from the front of the mounting is cylindrical, and two of the mounting’s legs are thicker than the other two.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, the breech is shorter, the horizontal element projecting forward from the front of the mounting is oval, and the mounting’s four legs are the same thickness.

Antiaircraft Gun: 75mm Type 88 (Japanese)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which the mounting’s four legs are thicker than in the 1940 (2nd ed) version.

Cruiser: Kent class (British)

Introduced in Anniversary.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, the third funnel is short instead of being the same height at the other two.

Sculpt Differences 1.jpg
Sculpt Differences 2.jpg

@ghr2:

I would soo want germany next time :)

Sure thing!

@Graunie:

The USS Lexington took two torpedo hits and 3 bombs during the Battle of the Coral Sea and continued flight operations until the battle was over.  Some explosions later sunk it, but that’s pretty impressive.  That was before they started putting torpedo hulls on the carriers.

The USS Yorktown dodged 8 torpedos in that battle.  Got all busted up with bombs and scrambled back for the defense of Midway after a few days worth of repairs.

If they were so easy to kill why didn’t they just kill them before they did so much damage to the Japanese fleet?  When the reality is every ship and plane is pretty much focused on taking out said carriers.

They are two hit pieces for sure.

Amen.

I also like Gargantua’s idea of having both carrier types available to purchase.  You could consider one an escourt carrier and the other the main battle carrier.  I am guessing Imperious Leader can tell us what their abreviations should be (CV, CVE, ABCD, etc.).

@Maddog77:

What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile. Do some of you need a time out? Or do I have to get the belt out?  :-D

As far as the “rule” goes, I like the current 3-3-2-6. Only for the defense factor. But when I play the original, it’s 3-2-2-5. So I don’t rely on tanks for defense as much as I do a stack of Infantry.

Amazing! when tanks defend at three I use them for defense
when tanks defend at two I use infantry for defense

@lnmajor:

But then you would never send unescorted transports to amphibous assault a TT containing a airbase with fighters present. Is that correct?

yup, gotta protect those transports.

@Gargantua:

Europe 1950?

SWEET game Idea!  The Germans and Japs still going strong! Choppers and computer technology! Jet Fighters and Moon Missions! I love it!

What about the Italians? :roll:

Europe 1950 could also be cold war style