Posts made by DWoodchuck

Alright, I read your original post carefully, and I believe there were a few more differences.  The Japanese player moved his entire navy east except for a few ships to cover the home island and reinforce the mainland.  He did not declare war until J3, so the closest her could get according to our understanding of the second edition rules was SZs 4 and 14.  Once the UK/ANZAC player saw what he was doing they declared war on UK 1 and gobbled up the southern islands with the ANZAC.  I purchased two subs and and infantry, saving 2, and used a transport to to reinforce Alaska (his transports were in the SZ4 fleet) and abandoned Hawaii, bringing those infantry and ships to the western US.

J2, he built mostly transports and I think artillery, and he consolidated his position.  I was surprised that he did not hit Kwangtung, but the fighters he left in China were slightly out of position for that.  I am a bit fuzzy remembering.  He was worried about the other end of the board, but he really wanted to get me (I had cut him off in Catan our last game night, and such things are unforgivable).  He was not doing too hot in China, since the Brits kept the Burma Road open and the Chinese were still holding on.  The rolls were absolutely vanilla, with no surprises, so he couldn’t blame that.  UK2 saw Sumatra and Java taken, as well as Siam conquered, and the British fleet tried to gather most of its strength in SZ20.  ANZAC2 took Celebes.  My moves were a destroyer and submarine to SZ9.  I purchased a fighter, and three infantry.

J3 saw the DOW.  He invaded Alaska and the Aleutians and cleared SZ9 taking only one hit to a Battleship.  An attack on the Philippines with only one transport was unsuccessful; though he crushed the US destroyer and submarine with no losses, both sides lost all ground units, and the fighter remained.  That was a piece of bad luck to him.  UK3 liberated Hunan and Kwangsi with light losses, ANZAC reinforced the Philippines after defeating the UK destroyed the Japanese fleet there.  China, well, existed and lost an attack on Kweichow.  On US3 I moved a destroyer to SZ1 and built 4 infantry and an artillery.  Since most of his transports were in SZ2, he would not able to kite past my surface ship in SZ1, which is what I meant by blocking.  I left my ships cowering off the coast of Western US.  I then gathered my 50 IPCs for holding the US and the Philippines.

J4 saw him leave a small force in Alaska, and he built more surface warships to fight the growing UK/ANZAC threat.  He gathered his “escort” fleet and transports to SZ9 and did not waste time killing the destroyer in SZ1.  Instead, he killed my fleet off the Western US, and at least we traded roughly even.  Both of us were rolling 5s and 6s like they were goin out of style.  It took almost 12 rounds of miraculously indecisive combat before he took out my entire fleet.  He retook  some land in China, but the damage was done.  UK4 and ANZAC4 saw a stalemate in China and the ANZAC took the Caroline islands, but only just barely.  China finally had a successful attack on Shensi.  US4, I bought 2 fighters, 3 Armor, and 4 infantry.

J5, he saw I could stop a bombardment with a quick scramble of a single fighter, so he retired.  We then talked about how it might have worked with a few tweaks, and then I saw your thread.

If he had brought more and completely neglected the other fronts, and if he had anticipated the block to SZ1, then it may have been a different story.  Our aggressive UK/ANZAC player tipped the scales, though, and may have made even more progress if the Japanese player had gone all in.

I agree that it would be over for everyone if the US falls with full income.  I think it more tenable if the Japanese player attacks directly on J3 from SZ13 or 14, bypassing Alaska and Hawaii, but J3 conquering the US only nets them 17 IPCs, and the Western US is only worth 10, since the extra 30 are only from national objectives and are only collected at the end of US3 after a DOW.

A valid tactic, I think, but I still don’t say it is broken.  A tip of the hat, though, at it being incredibly ambitious.

It looks like an infantry and artillery grind.  I am already wondering how my purchase patterns will have to shift; Also, this style of long, fairly indecisive engagement could work well with the naval battles.  I wonder if things there will be similar.  It would make a “Battle of Jutland” type of thing almost inevitable.

I had a buddy try this on me last night– he went hard for Alaska, and waited for a J3 DOW.  It changed my purchase strategy, but I still beat him.  I bought a lot of subs and destroyers as well as plenty of infantry.  It was very close; we traded roughly even on rolls, and it made a difference that the ANZAC/UK gut hopped some fighters over to me-- he started forward deploying all his air cover as soon as Japan went east.

Using blockers effectively can stall the Japanese until after J3, at which point US production evens the playing field.  I lost most of my ships and fighters, but I did absorb the hit enough to survive.

It was fun and unconventional, and he almost had it, but I seriously doubt it is “broken.”  Even if he takes the US, he will take enough casualties that the UK and ANZAC can make an excellent fight.

I think the armor cost is more reflective of the wider array of units available and the new combinations possible in the global game.  I don’t feel like it has affected things too much, but it is more puzzling when the new units, such as tactical bombers and mechanized infantry, whose combination with armor enables special abilities and attack bonuses which justify the price increase, are not present in 1942, yet the price remains.  I feel that 6 is a good price for armor in global, but for 1942, it really is up for debate.  I know my group argued it once, and we decided our official stance was “too lazy to make a house rule.”

I found it fantastic– however, the CGI looks, well, not bad, but definitely not good, in 3D.  The movie is much better in a 2D version.

I love this game.  I first got it purely for the sculpts, since I am a 28-year-old child who is ready for his son to get here already so that it will be socially acceptable for me to play with toys again.  However, I have ended up playing it, and despite whatever criticisms I’ve read here, the game did what it said it was going to do and more.

I don’t find the Axis overpowered or any of the other things you might read on the boards (I find that we A&A players tend to love grumbling, sort of like that one Monty Python skit about the old guys fussing about their childhoods), but I am mostly using the game to break in a few new people.  The game is geared that way, and I think there is a slightly modified setup which adds a US destroyer to the Atlantic and 2 Infantry to Russia, but I haven’t felt the need to do that.  A couple guys and gals from a board-gaming group my wife and I have have expressed interest in playing, and I’ve been teaching them via 1941.  So far, the games go either way, with the others usually playing the Axis, since the Axis start with more toys, but not always.  I use the simple board as an opportunity to teach them about creating dead zones and identifying natural choke points.  The major change is in having to carefully shepherd your high-value pieces, since overextending here has far graver consequences in a much shorter time-span.

In our seven or so games over the past few months, I think that the easiest powers to play are Germany and the UK, while Russia and especially Japan have the sharpest learning curves.  I have seen a new player immediately grasp the use of transports and use infantry from Australia and India to deny the Japanese some of the “economy islands,” and the ensuing chaos led to a successful invasion of Japan.  I have seen the Russians (played by a new player) use the tempting target of a lightly defended Caucasus to isolate and destroy most of the German armored fist (also a new player, but they kept laughing about Stalingrad and Kursk, so I don’t think anyone was upset by the turn of events).  I have seen Hawaii invaded and a successful US bypass of the islands to kill the Japanese navy and follow it up with an island-hopping campaign that left Japan holed up on the home island unable to really get off.  Heck, we even had German ships in the Indian Ocean one game.

The people I play with are no strangers to brutal games or long play times.  We play Game of Thrones: The Board Game regularly (perhaps because we all secretly hate each other), Risk in various editions, Catan (easily and oddly enough the most hateful and competitive), and now Axis and Allies.  I used to only have a couple people to play with, and now this little game has really proven its worth.  Yes, it is very simplified, but that is its beauty.  I’m glad I picked it up, and I hope you see the success and fun that I have had with your own endeavors.

Good Luck.

Well, Africa was the site of several campaigns throughout the war, and those territories were important in the overall “clash of empires”-vibe that really defined the beginning of WWI.  From what I have read, only the Western Front bogged down into extensive trench warfare, and that area is where it shall be a matter of yards.  The Eastern Front and Africa will be more mobile, I would imagine.  Otherwise, as you stated, Shakespeare, that really would be utterly impractical unless Larry stays true to his tendency for really wildly skewed map projections.

There was mention of other nations entering into the war and being controlled by the various major powers.  Do you think that will work like the Pro-Axis, Pro-Allied, and True Neutral rules from G40?  Larry stated it would be less complicated than 1942, so what would be a truly less complicated way of depicting that?

All this talk of what is historical and what is not is giving me an itching desire to actually play in the least historical way permissible by the rules.  I’m sure the issues will be ironed out– the game isn’t even released yet, so we can all adopt a wait-and-see attitude.  I am really wondering how Larry has decided to handle the balance, and it will be instructive to see it and play it.  Anyways, I was hesitant to even post here because I felt someone would automatically assume I was trying to get in on this whole heated debate (which I am not).

That prevents someone from using Transports as cheap “blocking” units to delay heavier, more meaningful attacks.

oztea– your idea about pairing fighters and artillery in that manner seems inspired.  Hats off to you.

Tall Paul points out something very important.  Remember that the armies of the time were very infantry-centric.  This is reflected in their ability to bolster the effect of an attack by virtue of numbers and in how they absorb casualties.  As an abstract conceptualization of the historical reality, it works pretty well.  The long and short of it– there is almost always a need for infantry, and there is a major need to constantly ferry fresh infantry to the front to prevent the losses to expensive heavy hitters.

That is the size of it.

Well, those of you who have strong opinions on the matter can always use the forums at Harris Game Design to talk to Larry.  He really loves the games and really likes the community involvement in these games.  Offer to play-test, send him ideas, and see if you can lend a hand to the man whose ideas and games have brought us so many late nights of triumph or defeat.  I’m looking forward to this.

Thanks for posting this; it really helped me get my stuff together and check all the pieces.

I had similar questions, and I found my answer on this one thread from Variable titled “G40.2 inventory list” under the Global 1940 topic.
Sorry, can’t post the link yet.
Just go through the posts, and someone links an inventory for both E40 and P40 second editions.  Hope this helps! I will post on it to see if I can bump it up to the top for you.

Well, best of luck to you on that, and I look forward to seeing any progress you have time to make and post.

This inspires me.  I would love to see how they would look all together as a set.

I see moves like that as representing a sort of “fighting march” through enemy territory, with both locations opening up a temporary corridor for shifting troops.  A very clever move, and I’d say it really captures the idea of Blitzkrieg and motorized combat.  Thanks for pointing out a new dirty trick to use on my buddies.