Posts made by dadler12

@FieldMarshalGames:

The British Empire had more troops in the African theater and in the Italian campaign than the US…  this is Historical fact.  The USA was tied up in the Pacific and in preparation for the real “second front”.  Remember British General Alexander was Supreme Allied Commander in the Mediterranean theater (Not Ike).  US and other Allied forces (Canadian/Polish/French etc) in North Africa and Italy were always under British High Command.

In fact, the British Empire had more troops facing the enemy on all fronts than the Americans until June 1944 (This is well represented in AAA)

The Allies would have lost the war without any one of the BIG THREE, but lets give the other two the due respect they deserve.

The AXIS would have won if:

The USSR was not attacked OR was beaten in 41-42
The British Empire did not Hold out while the other two sat and watched
The USA stayed Neutral and did not assist their allies with their industrial might.

For any ONE Nation to claim they “won the war” is just silly.

Good points but may I add that the Allies in the Med were not able to take all of Italy (they stalled out and stayed there the remainder of the war), they would not have cleared Africa as soon had the US not landed in Africa (and although they got whipped at Kassarine they created a second front so as to force the Germans/Italians to defend both), and they probably would not have even have attempted an invasion in Italy without the US involved.  Also, no one has been able to refute my point that the UK and Soviets depended heavily on US aid, vehicles, ordinance, and technology where (as far as I know but please correct me if I am mistaken) the only thing things those nations helped the US with was that the British provided some technology (ex radar, bomb designs, aircraft engines). Addressing your three Axis win points, the UK would not have survived without US aid. Period. Churchill knew this and that is why he pressed FDR so hard to join or at least give massive amounts of aid, both economic and military.

I apologize if I demeaned the other allied nations contributions. The Russians fought about 80% of German forces. I was simply stating that no other nation had as much industrial and economic power as the US and that the US was able to engage in, and win, both theatres in WW2 (Europe and Pacific), while every other nation (exception is the UK although apart from fighting in Burma and SE Asia they didn’t do much in the Pacific) was fighting a one theatre war. Russia declared war on Japan once the war was over! Germany would have defeated the Russians had it not been for Hitler’s interference, so I do think that front eventually would have ended in stalemate had the US not been able to lead invasions. The commonwealth was important but in reality was the junior partner in the US/UK alliance, I’m sorry but that’s how it was. Do you honestly think the Canadians and Brits could have invaded Europe alone (remember Dieppe)? And if the Canadian fleet having more transports and escorts make it “bigger” than the US navy I used the wrong choice of words, no navy could expect to defeat the US on the seas in 1945 with all their aircraft carriers. I steer clear of US propaganda, but you can’t argue the fact that they were the deciding factor of WW2. Yes Egypt, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow were major turning points the US had little to do with (short of supplying tanks to UK in Egypt and tanks and supplies to the Soviets). But without the US the UK would have eventually tired of a war it couldn’t win and elected another Chamberlain to negotiate a peace with Germany, in my opinion. And the Germans beat themselves out East via Hitler’s poor decisions such as diverting forces from Moscow.

I’m not as much a patriot as a history nut. And I don’t think you can argue that without the US on the side of the allies the axis would have won the war. There is no way Canada had a more powerful navy than the US postwar. I agree that Russia fought the bulk of the European theatre, but without US led invasions in both Italy and Normandy diverting German resources and troops, that front would probably have ended in stalemate. The USSR and the UK depended on US supplies and money early war and throughout. I could continue but I think it’s common knowledge that the US’s industrial and economic power was the deciding factor of WW2. I was simply providing reasons for why the US is so powerful in Global 40.

@Gargantua:

Well an AA gun is considered a unit, and all the book says is that it must be a ground unit.

Might not be considered a unit though, because it can’t be taken as a hit?

Really want to see this ruling too…

Transports are units and they can’t take hits. I think an AA should be able to activate a friendly neutral.

@tjt:

Can a player voluntarily destroy Facilities (Bases, Industrial Complexes)?

That’s a good idea for a house rule for USSR I think.

@FieldMarshalGames:

@dadler12:

Game play wise, the US needs to build a transport (7 IPC) for every 2 land units (assuming at least one is infantry). So in essence, it pays double what Germany or Russia has to spend on land units.

That is a good point.  Thanks

I agree that the US should be very powerful once they are at war…  my concern is over their pre-war IPCs.  By turn 3-4 when they are brought into the conflict they have already spent 150-200 IPCs on units!!  Historically they were unprepared for war.  After the Japanese attack they should be scrambling to fill the gaps and build a defense!  Sure their industrial might grows throughout the war and the Axis have to move fast…  but I find in this game that when they are brought in (unless Japan somehow pulls of a REAL Pearl Harbor type attack) they are already a monster and ready to pounce on Europe and the Pacific.

I think they should collect less while a neutral…  sure they had the industrial might but were they not building refrigerators and Automobiles before Dec 7th? AND/OR having most of their military production sent to UK and other Allies via Lend-Lease?

I do agree that a smart US player can prepare for war while neutral in a way the US simply did not historically (I know I have when playing US). Maybe if there was rule incorporating lend/lease into the game while America is neutral would help. Say, a cap on the total number of units US can mobilize per turn for itself while neutral and the ability to buy certain units for the allies while neutral (tanks for UK/USSR, destroyers UK, planes/artillery China)? Maybe also incorporate an IPC cost for transporting the units as well?

Historically the US was “the sleeping giant.” Yes it was still struggling from the depression pre-war, but it still had the highest industrial capacity on Earth. The US helped bankroll almost every allied power pre-war and throughout the war (Lets not forget that America became one of the banks of the world after WW1 and had been heavily involved in lending European countries money since the treaty Versailles). Once the US entered the war it was able to outproduce almost all the other powers combined. The US possessed almost every resource needed for the war, and those it did not have in great quantity (ex. rubber) it could import from it’s sphere of influence within South and Central America. Yes the war was won by the allies, but it was won with US dollars, weapons, and ordinance (except maybe Soviet Russia although it did receive massive amounts of lend-lease weapons early-war and copied American technology whenever it could late-war). Russia may have survived without the US, but not for long. England would’ve fallen as easily as France without lend-lease or if Hitler wasn’t intent on invading Russia. The US defeated Japan almost on it’s own and all while fighting a war on another front. By the end of the war the US fielded more aircraft carriers than all nations combined. The US conducted (with the British) the largest amphibious invasion EVER. The US dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs. Game play wise, the US needs to build a transport (7 IPC) for every 2 land units (assuming at least one is infantry). So in essence, it pays double what Germany or Russia has to spend on land units. In the Pacific, it is dealing with a monster (Japan) that no other power can fend off unless the US is involved in 30+ IPC per turn builds. Let’s not forget that after turn one Germany makes 70 IPC and around 50-60 IPC per turn after, and by round 3 latest Japan has 50+ IPC. Not to mention the US starts out with very few units compared to the other major powers. Almost every build the US makes (minus air units) will take at least 2 rounds to reach the front. I think the US is represented fairly in-game and fairly historically. If the US is not a beast, it cannot fight a war in the Pacific and Atlantic and the Axis will run all over the board. In fact in most of my games the Allies can only win by playing defense until the US gets involved (just like in real life!) and smart Axis players can knock out both UK capitals by turn 3 and whittle the USSR to 30ish IPC. The Axis needs to wait until turn 3 or 4 to bring the US into the war. When they have in my games, they have won.

I hope so. I’ve been checking daily and receiving daily let downs for months now.

@Lozmoid:

My friend, there lies the dilemma of matching sets of unit types for all FMG nations…  :-)

Agreed lozmold. You can’t do matching sets because some nations simply did not have/use certain unit types (like heavy tanks).

I understand this is all business, but I don’t think it is fair or smart business that I will have to pay one price when thee sets come out to keep them coming and then once they are all done they will get lowered. Doing this or saying this will be done will encourage the people who do not have completely expendable income (poor students, poorer adults etc.) to just wait it out. And as it has been mentioned, sales from each set are going to fuel the next. So were all in the same boat. If people think don’t want to spend $30-$40 bucks on Italy, the project will die right? I think the price should be $25 max. Or maybe there can be two sets as some have requested before. One just updating WOTC units and one that has all the new units (transport, second tank, commander). As much as I want to buy every single nation I really can’t spend around $300 bucks on plastic units, my girlfriend would kill me. I just dropped $130 on Global 1940 and that took me a while save up. I realize some people have the money to spend on a $30-$40 set, but won’t those people simply buy two or more sets at a lower price? I know I would if I were in their shoes. One more note, If there were a way to pre-order/invest in buying a complete 9 nation set at a discount to allow FMG to finish the set yet still not spend over twice what I spent on Global, that I would do. I would be willing to pay about $150-$175 for that to happen, but I would like to know asap so I can make a budget. As beautiful as Italy looks, these are plastic. These sets won’t be coming with a board, markers, or rules (to my knowledge but please prove me wrong FMG), so to have them cost more than the suggested list price of the game they go with (Global 1940 $180) seems silly to me. You’re going to turn off a majority of people in my opinion.

@DrLarsen:

Hey dadler: Here’s my latest table on how to maximize the number of useful units

|

| Unit                     
Infantry                       
Elite Infantry*         
Light Tank
Armored Infantry

Artillery                     
Medium Tank                       
Medium Tank Dest./ SP Gun

Heavy Artillery
Heavy Tank
Heavy Tank Dest./ SP Gun        | Attack
1
2
2
2

2
3
2

2
4
3
| Defense
2
2
1
2

3
2
3

4
3
4
| Move
1
1
2
2

1
2
2

1
2
2
| Cost
3
4
4
5

5
6
6

6
8
8 |

One of the virtues of this system is that it does provide room for a light tank!  Also, our chances of ever having both a heavy tank and a heavy tank destroyer seem remote at this point, but we can dream, can’t we?  Heck, we could even maybe put in a Medium-Heavy Tank (Panther ?) at 3/3/2/7 and a Super-Heavy Tank (Maus ?) at 4/4/2/10… But maybe that’s just crazy-talk…

Very cool. Thanks for the ideas. I would use this table but I would make things like Elite infantry and all the heavy stuff dependent upon unlocking them via tech. Do you have anything like this for air and naval units? |

@Yoper:

US tac bomber should be a P-47 with high velocity aircraft rockets (HVAR) molded onto the wings.

UK tac bomber should be a Hawker Typhoon similarly decked out with wing rockets.

I like the typhoon idea but I think the US tac bomber should be a b-26 marauder.

@DrLarsen:

I actually have made heavy tanks a tech in some of my experimental variants; then I just went ahead and gave the Germans automatic credit for it as a “national advantage”  (note that this game was set in 1942, after the Germans had already started fielding some Tigers and Panthers.)

I like the idea of heavy tanks being a tech. I usually play with custom tech rules anyway so maybe I will add that in some how. What cost, attack, defense, and movement values do you give them? I’m thinking 8 IPC 4/4/1? (I would be using them in Global 40)

These are interesting ideas. May I add the idea of a cap on total numbers of commander units in the field? It could be an across the board thing, or it could depend on the country (eg 3 Germany, 1 USSR, 1 UK, 2 US, etc…) What about commanders for naval purposes? I think the option of making a commander unit a general or an admiral would make the game more interesting, especially for powers with large navies such as Japan and US. I also think the commander unit should affect more units, maybe not the entire stack, but paying 10 IPC to boost 2 infantry seems silly. Just buy 3 more infantry, no?

I think if FMG ever gets around to tech units, the heavy bomber should be a B29. Come to think of it, why isn’t heavy tank a tech? I don’t think any country entered the war with a true heavy tank. They were all developed mid to late war were they not? And I understand what you mean about procurement, as a huge part of AA is buying a deploying units. My bad on that one.

I think it should all depend on the type of tanks said nation deployed into combat.

I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree on having heavy tanks for the UK and USA. They simply did not see combat long enough to merit being used. They were not even a part of Allied tank strategy until very late in the war. The allies used medium tanks supported by tank destroyers, artillery, and air support. I understand the armchair general thing, but design and production of heavy tanks had very little to do with the generals on the ground. I mean if you’re going to make a Pershing, why not a B-29? They are cool vehicles but they are more Post-war than WW2 era. They both saw service for a year at most during the war. I don’t think were going to talk one another into changing our minds though, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I personally play with tech tokens so I guess we agree.

I still think a M18 or M10 should be the US second tank. If you’re going to make exceptions for other countries, why not the US? I don’t think the Pershing even saw combat until 1945.

The command car idea is awesome. In another forum I suggested making Jeeps for the USA, but using them as command cars makes more sense. It will also allow Commander units to move 2 spaces would it not? Probably way too late for Italy but hopefully not Germany, USA, and UK. Maybe Japan can have flagships as commander units, or Flag units that attach to a ship. Just an idea. Also, how are these commander units going to be used? As stand alone units with attack and defense value, stand alone units with no attack or defense value but giving a bonus to other units in the same territory, or units that attach to a unit giving that one unit a bonus?

Also, is that going to be two tanks, or one tank and one tank destroyer? Personally I’d rather see a Sherman and a TD like an M18 or M10 over something like a Stuart. Light tanks aren’t as cool and were not as useful as tank destroyers. And I know people want a Heavy tank like the Pershing, but let’s face it, the US didn’t have a heavy tank until near the end of the war. They used tank destroyers, which look awesome and will be more realistic for a WW2 game. They were used from N. Africa to Berlin. And if you’re previous post meant that there will be two fighters, please make a P-51D and a Corsair. Pacific and Atlantic fighters, this idea is so awesome. I wish you made US first!