Posts made by cressman8064

Is it just me or do the Europe and Pacific boards seem to have large variation on how territories and seazones connect?

On the Pacific40 board I can only find 3 territories that touch multiple seazones (Alaska, Soviet Far East & Shan State)

On Europe40 there are 30! (Alberta, Quebec, southeast mexico, central america, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, French West Africa, Gibraltar, Spain, Normandy, Erie, Scotland, UK, Denmark, Western Germany, Germany, North & South Italy, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Novgorod, Turkey, Trans-Jordan, Saudi Arabia)

It makes blocking Amphibious landings much harder and naval bases are much more valuable on one of these territories. The two maps just appear to be made by completely different design teams.

According to wiki facts:

“During the Second World War, in 1943, the Portuguese dictator Salazar leased bases in the Azores to the British. This represented a change in policy. Previously the Portuguese government only allowed German U-boats and navy ships to refuel there. This was a key turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic, allowing the Allies to provide aerial coverage in the middle of the Atlantic. This helped them to hunt U-boats and protect convoys.
In 1944, American forces constructed a small and short-lived air base on the island of Santa Maria.”

So Azores should be a true neutral like Portugal or maybe pro-axis neutral & naval base only in 1940.

Do lone transports count as warships? I know this would be rare, but if Kamikazes are activated and a lone transport wants to take an undefended Formosa can a kamikazes be used to deter the transport?

@JamesAleman:

Perhaps Russia should be treated like UK.

Split the boards: Russia may be neutral on the Europe board and at war on the Pacific board.

It follows the example of UK splitting their income and is a simple way to state it while avoiding confusing scenarios.

Hope that “May” comes to pass. Either way, this is my favorite game now. Thanks Larry, Kevin and the gang for more years of entertainment to look forward to.

Thats an interesting way to look at the political situation, USSR gets to spend the 9IPCs on the Pacific board in those territories, perhaps only INF buys and placed anywhere like china buys? Helps round out USSR in the global game when they get 18 extra inf and +9IPCs and Germany gets nothing extra.

I’ve used this route before to exploit the far east with Germany, it was in round 6 and Russia had stacked Moscow with 12 extra far east inf, (Japan & USSR had conditional pre-game non-aggression pact). A single pair of German tanks where able to outrun Inf stacked in Moscow and the far east for several turns blitzing all over causing headaches for the USSR. It was a fun move to pull-off.
I do agree that this route has potential, but its difficult to determine if the benefits outweigh the cost. A 10 transport fleet is going to cost 70IPCs and the landing has no second wave for back-up, meaning that USSR will most likley be able to counter Moscow plus Germany will be taking expensive losses (tanks & planes vs. USSR inf).
To offset this Germany gets +37 IPCs, 1 round of no USSR builds & bonus of reducing Moscow to a Minor. This play would all depend on how the USSR player is stacking his forces, but it could be worth it.

The only reason I wanted to change the NO is it hard to see how a convoy raid of Italian warships in Egypt would disrupt the Canadian economy. The Atlantic seazones free makes more sence but as far a KISS rule the current NO is better

I played a game of Europe 1940 with the Canada as the 5th ally. I gave them the IPC for British Columbia as well just for good measure. Overall their performance wasn’t groundbreaking. Canada1 the transport moved down to South America and Can2 they took Brazil. Germany threatened sealoin but never built more than 2 extra transports. Can3 saw another transport join the fleet ready to move the 6 IMF into Africa. Turn4 US came into sz 91 in force and moved across north Africa  US was massive in comparasion & did most of the work. Canada was up to 12IPC with Brazil & a NO but was more of a pain have to build in Quebec with such low income. Axis still surrendered by round 8 as Italy performed poorly never holding Egypt more than a turn and a very weak med fleet obliterated by US early. Being a Canadian myself I loved having them in the game but it won’t be a permanent addition.
One thing to change for a NO would be a plus 5 for no axis warships in the 8 sz between Canada and UK. I can’t remember the #'s but that would help the income later in the game

@kcdzim:

@RedHunter:

How the hell did Germany pull off Sealion turn 1? They don’t have the forces to do so.

It’s theoretically possible if you get Paratroopers and send in the Luftwaffe.  There’s no other way to get landunits through so I’m guessing he meant G2, not G1.

Paratroopers still need to be supported by accompanying land units other than those dropped, so with the seazone 112 blocked G1 sealion is impossible.

This plan is even easier to afford if you build a aircraft carrier in the black sea instead of the standard one in the Baltic (assuming there is a USSR air threat). Ignore the UK and go all for USSR. I’d also recommend placing a major factory in Romania, it has worked well for me, I am always building 10 units per turn there.

Rolls: 4@1 1@3 2@4; Total Hits: 44@1: (1, 6, 5, 4)1@3: (1)2@4: (3, 2)

:1d6:

Rolls: 5@1 2@1 2@3 1@4; Total Hits: 35@1: (4, 3, 6, 6, 1)2@1: (2, 5)2@3: (1, 4)1@4: (2)

There is a find players forum for this kind of question if you scroll down, but just FYI I live in the KW area, but no longer get to enjoy the freedom of the college/university life.

My playgroup uses the Alpha set-up in Global because it is more enjoyable than the OOB pacific set-up. The games I have played as global with OOB were not as fun for the axis because Japan is encouraged not to attack early in global (no matter what set-up you are playing). So India has the extra turns to fly some planes into Africa and stall the Italians. 4 ANZAC fighters and the remaining India forces turn one of the DEI islands into a fortress, meanwhile Japan is still waiting to attack so America stays out of SZ 92.
In the Alpha games both sides are reduced in forces and need the first few at peace turns to catch-up.
*a side note is that we play with a non-aggression pact, Japan will not invade USSR as long as no allied units ever land in original USSR territory. USSR will not invade Japan until an axis capital falls. This has worked well for both sides as Japan doesn’t have to watch it back for American bombers in WUS doing long fly overs (landing in USSR) and USSR can truck those 18 INF towards the west turning Moscow into a fortress.

I’ve got my Canadian Roundels printed and glued to the back of surplus American roundels, but before I play my first game I was look over the set-up, and I actually don’t like moving the Naval base, there is just no way a ship departing from Hudson bay should be able to move 3 spaces, those are mostly undeveloped coastlines. Halifax was the port almost all Canadian ships departed from, so I will test my game that way. Another interesting thought was perhaps adding the Island of Newfoundland to the map and moving the Ontario airbase there. The title of Newfoundland is in fact printed over the Labrador half of the province, this territory would still be British owned but Canada could fly it’s fighter over for scrambling purposes or even more important, this island is the launch pad for America fighters into UK. Any thoughts?

what about IC on western USA?

I think this idea of splitting the UK’s income is great for balance purpose. There will now be a second Atlantic ally if London does fall, but it can’t be ignored that you’ve added 68IPC worth of units/facilities to Canada and not a single unit to Germany/Italy. Perhaps some more Baltic subs in zone 114 for Germany or a destroy for Italy anything to help fine tune the changes.

I love this idea because I too feel that the allies have a slight advantage in the global game, one interesting thought is maybe upgrading British Columbia territory into 2 IPC territory, then Canada would have an option of building a minor factory or more important, give them a 8 IPC total for early destroyer builds.
A second thought, would this commonwealth nation share any technology breakthroughs?

I’ve played alpha set-up and won as the axis but some contributing factors included the plus 10 IPCs for Japan only being at war with China (Japan received it twice). A non-aggression pact was also negotiated pre-game promising no Japanese aggression against USSR if all allies never land troops in the USSR Pacific Territory’s. Allied player agreed and slowly moved all 18 INF to Moscow but they failed to even see combat as the game was won without the fall of Moscow (Sea Loin was a success). Also some great dice rolls in huge pacific fleet battles favored the IJN (they must have occurred at night) lol.

1. I was America
2. Japan won by holding 6 cities (Tokyo, Honolulu, Shanghai, Sydney, Hong Kong & Manila)

I was blinded by kill ANZAC first strat. I will admit that retaking ANZAC was not on my piority list. Due to the resources spent by Japan on ANZAC mainland Asia was a stand still back and forth over Burma. America spent its time taking Korea, built a major factory and churned out 5 stacks mech/tanks. The blinding by japan came the next round as America was about to take Shanghai japan rushed Honolulu from the south to hold and bomber blocked my tanks from blizting. I was in no shape to take either VC back. It was an interesting victory but won’t happen in my gaming group again.