This happend to me, Russia wasn’t able to defend against the Germans and since the AXIS only needed one more victory citie SU decided to put every single unit left in his cities and that let them hold the Germans for longer and with the help of USA recover and launch a huge counter-attack…
What do you think of this ?
So wherever I go everyone always says that Global 1940 is un-balanced but no one really tells why…
Can somenone tell me why you say it is un-balanced?
I’m going to buy Pacific 1940 ( already have Europe ) and I want to know if it really worths it, I know the game is really awesome, the map, the pieces, everything but what worrys me is the balance of the game …
Good Lord this Doze guy is everywhere! You know what Doze I’m gonna tutor you. You will be the next me and we will take the forums by storm! Alot like Nazi Germany except you won’t lose and our Holocaust will only be against spam!!!
LOL, I really like this FORUM
Hearts of iron 1 , 2 and 3, most depht ww2 playability video game
Yeah they really should have at least made the tanks and fighters different. And navy. The Italian navy once ran the Med.
And also for France, same as SU ? WTF
I think that British units will fit better, er…
New units for France, that would really be awesome !!!
This was a big disappoint to me, opening the game and seeing the same units for Germany and Italy … But what the hell, I still love the game !!!
@Minor:
Finished Setup Charts Alpha.2+
Well it took all afternoon and night to complete these… so here they are!Russia
China
France
India
Italy
Japan
United Kingdom
United States
ANZAC
Germany
Before i post the link to the D/Ls. please revise these and let me know of any errors, thanks!
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits: Borrowed some info from BobAMichaelson’s Charts :-)
Awesome dude, you should post these on BoardGameGeek, (www.boardgamegeek.com)
Sorry the camera is… (I don’t really know) maybe broken but I’m buying a new one tomorrow and I will post pics next week.
Bad news guys, I’m not gonna be able to take the photos this weekend, maybe next week, sorry dudes…
I got some news people:
The Allies air transport is finished and I will post pictures tomorrow, the paratroopers will only be ready Friday.
@special:
Does USA need any extra income? 65 IPC should suffice I’d say.
Extra is always nice, but yeah, 65 is pretty good already.
In fact, you could even give Brasil to the UK, they can use every extra penny. If there is no Sealion threat the Canadian transport could go down and take it in turn 2.
Yes, UK really needs it more than USA
@Bunnies:
Germany? With Germany I mostly build tanks and some fighters. I try to flank SU and go for sea lion and send some infantry to Africa
and with Japan? Fighters and transports mostly but also some other navy units. I try to take SU and UK closest territories and at the same time I try to take some of the US islands and go for Australia.
It’s probably a bit more than that. You might be opening yourself up to brutal counterattacks.
Let’s say that you send 4 tanks to attack 3 infantry for control of a 3 IPC territory. You kill all the infantry in one shot, and lose 2 tanks. Sounds great, doesn’t it? You killed 9 IPC of units (+9), gained 3 IPC from the territory, and lost 10 IPC (1 tank) in exchange. So you went +2. (+9, +3, -10)
But suppose Russia counters with 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter. There’s a good chance you lose 2 tanks (+10 IPC to Russia), while Russia loses about 2 infantry in exchange (-6 IPC). So there Russia went +7 (with the +3 for the territory).
Maintaining such a rate of exchange will quickly bleed Germany dry. Sure, your attacks go plus, but if Russia’s attacks consistently have even bigger pluses, that’s bad news.
In other words - watch those expensive German tanks. If you’re throwing them away, that’s an easy way to lose quickly.
Another comment - if Russia’s building all infantry early, you probably won’t have the power to push early with tanks unless Russia carried out a two-territory attack with lousy dice, or tried a risky triple attack. Try a G1/G2 infantry heavy build, and switching to more tanks later, and completely cutting out the air buys. (If you buy air, you can try to contest control of the Atlantic, but a total ground buy strategy works decently too, and is something you should probably try at least once or twice to see the differences in play).
Japan shouldn’t be buying fighters. Assuming UK killed the Japanese fighter at Kwangtung and moved its sub at Australia to range of French Indochina’s sea zone, your J1 buy should probably be something like 1 destroyer 3 transports. You start with 2 infantry on Phillipines, 1 on Okinawa, 1 on Wake, and 6 assorted ground on Japan (Tokyo). You’ll pull two of those units off on J1, leaving 8 units on Japan and the surrounding islands, so a 3 transport build leaves you starting J2 with 4 transports and 8 transportable ground units. At the end of J2, you will want Japanese transports at French Indochina in most cases; one of those can take units from East Indies (island) to French Indochina on J3, so you will want to build at least 6 ground on J2. So on J3, you will have 6 ground on Tokyo, and 2 on East Indies; with 4 transports, you can move them all into Asia. Slight variations include additional transport buy(s) on J2 for early attacks on Africa and Australia/New Zealand (for the last, using infantry from Solomon Islands, Caroline Islands, and New Guinea as applicable.
If you’re buying that much ground, then air’s pretty much out of the equation.
If US tries to build a big Pacific fleet, build a few subs (not fighters). Subs are WAY cheaper than fighters, and hit very hard. Japan starts with two battleships, two carriers, six fighters, and a bomber. US should probably only have a battleship and transport in the Pacific at the end of J1 (and a US destroyer at Mexico).
By the way, try to take China with Japan. The US fighter makes the US infantry a major threat. Without the US infantry, Japan’s pretty much neutered.
You can try installing TripleA; look for Bunnies_P_Wrath; I’ll try to take you through a game.
Thank you soo much, this really helped me, I’m goign to play with him this weekend and with this information I’m really exicted.
Thanks men !!!
@special:
I’m not completely sure, but i think USA isn’t allowed to take Brasil or any other country until it is at war.
Also, attacking Venezuela would be disastrous as this would turn all neutrals pro-axis, so Spain, Sweden, switzerland and Turkey would be anexated right away, giving your enemies about 7 IPC and 22 free infantry.
I’d say that is not worth it :)What you can do is send the existing transport to South Africa, by the time it arrives there USA will be at war, so it can go on to the Middle East, arriving around turn 5. But if it will turn out to be useful is not at all sure.
Thanks ! I now understand that is not that important to take Brasil or Venezuela.
In all honesty, Pacific 1940, just by itself, is not as brilliant of a game as Europe 1940. However, it is a very very good game, especially ounce you’ve played about 20 ames of AAE40, and are getting quite fed up with it.
Plus, of course, it allows you to play global, if you have about 16 hours to spare, which is fantastic.
I bought mine form Amazon.co.uk, it cost me £65, and everything in was in the box, no misprints. Although, it is true that the materials are of inferior quality to AEE40’s.
But how different quality? A lot worst quality or just a bit worst?
So, I’ve been thinking and trying some stuff to do until USA is at war.
I thinked of taking Brasil and the other South Africa territories, do you think it worths it?
Brazil has an income of 3 and Venezuela 2 ( if i’m right, i don’t have the game with me) but Venezuela is strict-neutral, Brasil is pro-allies, so even losing at least a unit in Venezuela, is 5 more IPC.
But does USA really need that extra income?
What is your opinion ?
