Posts made by cressman8064

If you have money then just buy the FMG Italian pieces, they are all unique, problem solved.

I can see on the map that Erie is pro-allies, so UK can place 1 land unit there on NCM to control it but can units walk from Scotland to Erie? Scotland appears to touch the top of Erie, whats the official connection there?

Hence why we will see a Gibraltar that is going to be fought over quite often and it sounds like Italian income can be in the 30’s by turn 3, giving them lots of money to reinforce the tiny territory. I owuldn’t let US have it without a large commitment of force.

From Krieghund

@Krieghund:

@cond1024:

Quick rules question for you, are subs able to pass through enemy controlled straits?

Only Gibraltar.

So subs are able to pass through Gibraltar interesting 1 rule exception, but on a similar topic one Italian strategy i was thinking of would be to capture Gibraltar early on, before US enters the war. US will inevitably try to liberate Africa, Morocco is 3 spaces away from the eastern USA naval base and a quick drop point for boatloads of soldiers, but what if Italy took Gibraltar and never occupied Morocco? Morocco would remain a useless French territory and without a naval base to help the US transport return in one turn this move could slow a US liberation of the entire continent. Troops would either have to be shuck over from southeast Mexico in 1 turn or some Brazil-French West Africa Strategy would be used. Just a thought, would Italy really miss that 1 extra IPC?

I am so freaking excited to play this game and the set up looks awesome, but I am getting sick of all those history buffs who say the set-up isn’t historical. I want a set up that is fun to play, which is what Larry is providing. If they made this game historical then the allies would win every time. Gamers seriously stop the whining.

Another idea to add to this tread is to play Pacific1940 with every nation having the “Improved Shipyards” technology. This technology will be included in the global game anyways, but by giving it to every nation in the Pacific only game it turns out to really help the allies. If you havn’t heard, this technology makes all subs, transports and destroyers -1 IPC, and all crusiers, Aircraft carriers and Battelships -2 IPCs. Since the allies generally will be building more ships to counter the Japs, it allows America to build up faster but at the same time also gives the same advantage to Japan if they choose to go for heavy naval builds.
I played a game testing this change and I as Japan still performed a massive Jap1 attack. America built destroyers and crusiers like they were going out of style and while Japan was mopping up the DEI and India America was threating the rest of the Pacific and Japan herself with massive fleets. ANZAC was also able to build 2 subs from turn 1 and they can become a real thorn in the DEI.

Maybe the global rule book will help clarify, but my guess is USSR will not be restricted territory in Europe or Global 1940. I believe that there will be severe punishment such as USSR will not collect any national objectives or even a negative IPC punishment for having other allies on original Soviet territory (reflecting a drop in national pride for requiring outside aid). So this deterrent could be used in the Pacific game as well if you want to house rule USSR in.

What about the USSR restricted rule? Will other allied units be allowed to enter USSR territory without penalty? The US player can take huge advantage of this change by shuttling troops into the far east or launching bombers directly from western US to sea zone 6 and landing in USSR.

Krieghund, what about using a carrier as possible landing location for more than 2 aircraft with the assumption that those extra figthers will be lost in battle. i.e sending in 4 fighters with only 1 moment point left each, only landing spot is moving 1 carrier to adjacent seazone, but you are expecting to loose at least 2 fighter in battle, is this legal?

Although I didn’t vote battle of Britain, having an air focused game with a larger variety of planes and goals such as attacking radar installations/airstrips/and cities might be interesting.

What about making Canada a separate minor power with a national objective, but to counter weakening the UK, don’t split UK income. It will give the UK more money and deploying options, and if Japan doesn’t attack, the DEI money will come in handy to replace lost Canadian IPCs.

Can planes on island be scrambled to defend sea units of another ally? eg. UK builds airbase on Borneo, ANZAC lands fighters there, Japan attacks US Destroyer off Borneo without attacking island itself. Can these ANZAC fighters participate in battle? Thanks.

@Talkzic:

will Alberta be in the game?
because there was a swack load of British pilots that were trained there

Looking at the 2 maps now posted it appears the north america tectonic plates have collapsed and the prairie provinces have vanished. If the board was set with north america touching both sides Hudson bay is bordering BC. It laughable, but its not like the majority of customers (Americans) will notice or care.

I hate using money, way too many mistakes, you have to spend time counting it to see how much you have and have 4 separate piles if your playing solo with the allies. I am glad to see the cheap paper money gone. I use this chart someone posted in the 1942 board, just change the countries names, it works so much better than cash, no lost money, ever. Note *This chart may have been a useful inclusion to the game so that one could simply photocopy more but hey fixing these small problems are what these forums are for.

IPC Record Sheet 1942.pdf

This thread is not going in the direction I wanted to at all. I originally wanted to start a discussion on how allied strategy will changed in the global game when it comes to dealing with Japan. With USA now moving AFTER the UK/ANZAC’s turns I think China will see the Burma road opened longer, even a chance to build artillery. ANZAC can liberate an empty DEI before the US move and gain extra income. I just wanted to discuss how allied Pacific strategy will change. Maybe even play a game with turn order of:
1. JAPAN
2. UK
3. ANZAC
4. USA
5. China

This will mimic the global game feel in the Pacific theater.

@purplebaron:

Has anybody run a sharpening filter on this thing to see if they can glean any additional detail?

You watch too much CSI.

Has anyone discussed how the global turn order will affect the action in the Pacific? I believe the order is:
1. Germany
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. ANZAC
6. Italy
7. United States
8. China
9. France.

With UK/ANZAC moving before the US/China, fighting Japan will take on a whole new dimension. UK will be liberating the Burma road before china’s turn and ANZAC fighters can opening for US ect. Any other ideas?

it doesn’t look like the board will line up on the north american side, USA seems way too low from the top, and Canada goes from the edge of BC right into hudson bay lol. This shouldn’t matter much because i think everyone will play it lining up india.

I’ve taken it J1 because i was waiting for a turn 2 attack, unlike most, i play to have fun and do random openers not this perfectly sculpted J1 attack you see every forum game started with. Back on topic….New Hebrides never amounted to anything, just one less space for allies to land.

Well I can see the short time span between AA50 and AA1940 editions as greedy money grabs to make A&A fans buy more copies of a similar game (with just a few more territories each update) But if WotC wanted a bigger cash grab they would have released a re-print of AA50 over a year ago as people on these forms have been petitioning, I’m sure they could have sold thousands of more copies (I would have bought one). Then dropped the AA40 announcement.