Well looking at a blown up picture of the map setup, all of the Austrian units that Larry used in his attacks are where he said they would be (He leaves one inf in the territories he moves troops from)…so it could be accurate.
Yet USA and Italy are using red chips instead of blue…
They always have inaccurate pictures of a set-up, I doubt it would be correct this time.
Remember you can always NCM past a blocking ship if you clear it during the combat phase. Blockers are not the be-all end-all of naval strategies.
Unless your target destination happens to be hostile.
Looking at the image of the map, it seems that both Allies and CP share the same naval sculpts.
Might be fair to guess that everything but infantry sculpts are shared.
That would be really crappy, though. I hope I’m wrong.
but again this is too radical for Larry.
And that is why we use house rules. :-)
I’m starting to look forward to the ideas that come once the game is out.
And your understanding would happen to be correct.
A Naval base will serve all adjacent sea zones.
As for Karelia, I only see one adjacent sea zone…
When you liberate Paris, France can then place 12 IPCs worth of units in that territory IMMEDIATELY.
Just know that this bonus happens only once in the game.
So, if USA liberated Paris, France can then place 4 infantry, or 3 artillery or 2 tanks or any combination of units into that territory
as long as the total value of french units being placed is less than or equal to 12 IPCs.
That’s all there is to it. When the French turn is up, they still won’t have any money to spend (Unless they somehow captured a capital…) but they will be able to collect income.
I understand what you mean. I’m sure the rule is meant for original Pro-Axis, but I can’t really support that.
We’ll just have to wait for someone else to clarify, I suppose.
If strict neutrals flipped towards Axis and Russia captured Turkey, Russia would not receive the bonus.
Is that something that was clarified in a FAQ? The rule says
original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral. Because of theorin there, I would argue that it doesn’t require the neutrals to have started out as pro-Axis, since strictly speaking it can be interpreted as starting an entirely new category of territories.
Note the word “original”. It is only talking about territories that start off German, Italian or Pro-Axis.
Yeah, in TripleA’s The Great War, Portugal was under British control. Perhaps it was because the designer wanted to split up more of africa among the allies so Germany would have a little more chance in that it wouldn’t be facing one united attacker?
Good point, that makes a lot of sense. There would be too much British control of Africa if Portugal was controlled by Britain.
I’ve noticed that Greece seems to be colored like the strict neutrals, even though it did join the war (although very late.)
It also has its own flag, no other major power’s flag alongside it. I guess this is implying that it will not join the war in the game.
Although, the neutrals seem to have production values. So perhaps we can violate the neutrality of strict neutrals in this game?
Seeing the map itself, it shows that these “minor powers” are controlled by the major powers.
From what I can tell…
Portugal - France (I wonder why France instead of Britain…)
Belgium - France
Serbia - Russia
Romania - Russia
Albania? - Italy (???)
Bulgaria - (Well, I can’t tell, tbh)
I have noticed that the mother countries have both their flag and the controlling major power flag, while their colonies only sport their flag. For example, Portugal has both its own roundel and France’s roundel next to it, while Portugal’s colonies only have Portugal’s roundel.
So its possible that minor powers have their own economy, but their troops are controlled by the major power. It seems to make the most sense to me just from looking at the map.
So to generate a rule, you two have to argue for 2 or more pages long?
Come on. This has essentially gotten off topic, again, all in a disguise that its to help make a rule. (Whether you believe that or not)
Its really ridiculous. Make up your own rules, if some one has a problem with it and doesn’t like your rule, so what?
There is no need for arguing that detracts from the topic and doesn’t get anywhere.
You may think you’re contributing to the topic, but it really isn’t.
It doesn’t matter whether the Pro-Axis neutral was activated or not. If Russia has conquered a territory that is Pro-Axis then it will collect the additional 3 IPCs. This only applies to Finland, Bulgaria, and Iraq.
If strict neutrals flipped towards Axis and Russia captured Turkey, Russia would not receive the bonus.
Pardon me, but what does a Russian revolution have to do with minor powers?
To add onto captain walker’s response…
The reason behind those 2 flag chips is to keep track of India’s money to avoid confusion. All UK forces move and attack at the same time in Global, but Britain and India have seperate economies. Both sides of the board use the yellow-blue-white-red flags for control purposes and to track Britain’s economy.
So the two Union Jack chips have no role whatsoever in just Europe 1940.
Taking a good look at the map at
http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/Sales/Solicitations/2012_12_19_AA1914_Solicitation_en_US.pdf
All the units are the same, except infantry.
It seems that there aren’t any allied specific molds nor central specific molds.
The artillery pieces and battleships are the easiest to compare there.
Yeah, but the problem with that is… Well, it becomes overpowered.
Using the rule that you said… If you were to have a couple of AA guns in a territory, who in their right mind would send planes to attack there if each AA gun can shoot at each aircraft?
The idea for the AA gun in this game was to have a chance to hit the enemy’s attacking planes without the hits being soaked on infantry, not totally destroy their attacking air force before the main part of the battle even begins.
Only 1 AA gun shoots, regardless of the amount in a territory.
Isn’t it already possible to have more than 1 AA gun in a territory, just that it won’t really matter much since 1 AA gun shoots at all enemy aircraft?
And from what I can remember, doesn’t Germany start with 3 AA guns? If so, then it REALLY has no need to buy more.
A kamikaze strike can target any specific
enemy surface warship (not a submarine or transport)
belonging to the attacking power.
Page 16 of Pacific 1940 2nd Edition rulebook.
1. Do you think the AA gun is sucks in the game? No attack value, no combat move, only attack aircraft unit at the first round, and have to roll 1 to hit (although it make three shot), but cost 5 IPC!! Is there any modifier about the AA gun?
Nah, I think the AA gun is just fine. 5IPCs for a chance to kill a 10-12 IPC unit. Seems fair enough for me. The mere chance that it can strike down 1-3 planes can cause an opponent to think twice about sending planes to a battle.
2. Are there any strategy value for the airport on Iceland?
Perhaps.
But I haven’t made use of the Iceland airbase yet, so I cannot really say.
it means the Axis have most adventage that the allies?
Well… The Axis certainly has a strong starting military and position advantage. Its what allows them to expand. If they didn’t have this advantage, they would never stand a chance against the Allies. The Allies themselves have an advantage, an economic advantage. They make a lot more money than the Axis powers, so it sort of balances out I suppose.