Posts made by hewhoisnickel

Is the island of Newfoundland considered a part of Newfoundland and Labrador despite being in a different sea zone than the one adjacent to Labrador, or is it considered a part of of New Brunswick Nova Scotia, which it shares a sea zone with? If Newfoundland is indeed part of Newfoundland and Labrador, would a naval base on Labrador work for both z106 and 116? Finally, is Newfoundland considered an island for the purposes of scrambling? i.e. Should a airbase be placed on it or its shared mainland territory, can planes on it scramble?

@oztea:

Just like how the UK is a split economy, make ANZAC a split economy

It is now the British Commonweath Forces, it uses grey ANZAC pieces

Keep all income seperate for Canadian roundel territories and ANZAC roundel territories.
ANZAC 10 IPCs
Canada 7 IPCs

Due to the special nature of Canada, it may not take control of territories itself, it does so on behalf of the United Kindom, this money goes to London.

Modify the starting set up, just a tad, to give Canada a boost. +1 Fighter, +1 Artilery

Add two NOs for Canada.
+5 IPCs If the United States is at war with the Axis Powers and all Canadian territories are allied controled
+5 IPCs If Canada has units in Normandy/Borduex

This is perfect! In addition to the all factories NO (thank you calvinhobbesliker) we have ourselves a Canada to play! AND I don’t have to paint any pieces white. Perfect. Thanks guys!

Rolls: 2@2; Total Hits: 12@2: (2, 6)

Rolls: 2@2; Total Hits: 22@2: (1, 1)

@Stikato:

I got my copy of Europe 1940 yesterday (8/24) at a local game store, in Los Angeles. (Pasadena actually) Out of 10 or 11 shops that I called, only one store had it in stock.

That’s great news! It’s actually selling well everywhere other than Alberta it seems.

Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba, though two and three quarters of those provinces aren’t actually on the board… it’s just the edge of Manitoba.  :|

My local gaming group (who I have not yet contacted/joined, just seen something online, but soon, very soon) only has 4 and half hour sessions once or twice a week. From what I’ve heard, this is definitely not enough. For those of you who have played through entire games of global, how long did they take? Would I be able to finish a game in two sessions (9 hours)?

In addition, what were the ending results of said games?

@GrizzlyMan:

The Italians get their NO if any of the Axis control Southern Italy. So if Germany (or Japan, for some reason) controls Southern Italy, the Italians still get their NO, assuming they control the other necessary territories.

Ooh. You are right. So this IS a viable option, but I still don’t see Germany having extra IPCs to be spending in the Med, at least not until they’ve practically won anyways.

@Plasticdeathbydice:

and by the way…I sometimes send the two tanks from south germany to southern france instead of taking normandy in G1…nice little option that gives germany access to the med…

That takes 8 IPCs away from Italy and gives 3 to Germany. That’s a 5 IPC deficit. Also, Germany would not be able to have ships in the Med until G3 even if they did take Southern France (G1 capture, G2 put IC, G3 build ships), and wouldn’t be able to move them until G4. Giving it to Italy allows 3 IPCs in the Med for the Axis earlier and another 5 later.

Another thing, Germany desperately needs to spend its IPCs elsewhere, as it needs to fight for the Atlantic AND the Motherland. Leave the Med to Italy.

Most likely, the main reason is that they simply didn’t want to include all the complicated neutral rules of Europe in Pacific just for 4 Pro-Allied territories. Another thing may have just been aesthetics, though that was likely far less predominant.

However, I agree with you, they should have made the DEI and Mexico Pro-Allied and Siam Pro-Axis.

So far all the changes Larry has made would effect Global in the favour of the Allies. I saw one suggestion in the thread that wouldn’t have that large of an effect on Global, but would still balance the J1 attack. It was to move the SZ33 navy to SZ19, to prevent it from immediately joining the action. This, in addition to moving the UK transports back to safer waters and giving the ANZAC a naval base in NSW could balance Pacific and keep Global balanced too.

How would two extra infantry make a J3 India Crush much harder? It seems like it might just kill one more Japanese unit, that’s it.

What was the development method for techs in AA50? I never had it and I’ve never played it, so I honestly don’t know.

Very nice strategies. Not particularly useful for me, since I play J1 allowed, but US immediately gets the bonus IPCs. Just because of this, I might try a J2 game. Thanks!

Maritimes should be worth 0, BC should be worth 2, AB/SK/MN should be worth 2, Quebec should be worth 3 and Ontario should be worth 3.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@Tralis:

It stands on its own even less in global. There’s a bigger war, and its the same size, except one extra inf.

I’ve foolishly had the Australians take Siam from that infantry in Malaya, because of my terrible positioning

Why is that foolish? ANZAC gets its NO?

I think he means that he was Japan, and because of his positioning the Australians took Siam.

I’m thinking circular territories wouldn’t work too well with your current map. If there were more territories in Germany, Berlin could work, but then those territories are too small. London/Tokyo would take away much needed space for units. I think no territories for cities is best.

Also, Siberia definitely needs reworking; you shouldn’t be able to go from Manchuria to Moscow in 3 turns with an infantry. The Himalayas need to be bigger, for a blockade of sorts for protecting India when China is conquered or vice versa. Other than that, looks fantastic!

If this is paying no attention whatsoever to historical accuracy, I’d put a bigger force in Siam, FIC, Manchuria and Amur. I think it’d be cool to see both France and Russia make a bigger splash in the Pacific.

If this IS paying attention to historical accuracy, I’d add a few more land units (no infantry) to Amur and take away a few Russian infantry.

By the way, I think this looks kinda cool. Might mess with the balance a bit, but we won’t know that for a while now, will we?

I’m sorry to say, but I don’t think a Dutch independent power is feasible. It would be taking valuable IPCs away from the Pacific UK in Global (as I’m somewhat doubtful Japan will do a J1 in Global, but I could be wrong) and even if liberated, they wouldn’t have enough power to do much anything, and they wouldn’t be able to build anything in the DEI, as they are all islands.

Some fairly complex rules and a 1939 setup COULD allow for an independent power, but like the French, they would only be there to be run over, and perhaps put up a small resistance in the DEI if you gave them a starting navy there. I honestly think they’d be less fun to play as than either the French or the Chinese, and they’d be far less important too.

@Dylan:

@marechallannes:

5 Player:

Germany/Italy, Russia, USA/China, Japan, UK/France/ANZAC

6 Players:

Germany, Italy, Russia, USA/China, Japan, UK/France/ANZAC

7 Players:

Germany, Italy, Russia, USA, Japan, UK, China/France/ANZAC

Compare me with him.

3 Players
1. Germany and Italy
2. US, UK, USSR, France, China, and ANZAC
3. Japan

4 Players
1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK, France, USSR, China
4. US and ANZAC

5 Players
1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK, France, and China
4. USSR
5. US and ANZAC

6 Players
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK, France, and China
5. USSR
6. US and ANZAC

7 Players
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK, France, and China
5. USSR
6. US
7. ANZAC

5-7 Player China can be with the Russians

I’d do it a little differently, but for the most part, the same.

3 Player:

1. Germany, Italy and Japan
2. US, China and ANZAC
3. UK, France, USSR

4 Player:

1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK, France, USSR
4. US, China and ANZAC

5 Player:

1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK and France
4. USSR and China
5. US and ANZAC

6 Player:

1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK and France
5. USSR and China
6. US and ANZAC

7 Player:

1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK
5. USSR
6. US and France
7. ANZAC and China

As for the 8 player, I’d do it (with France/China) if I had a beginner who was willing to be a very minor player, and if everyone was roughly on the same level. However, I definitely wouldn’t do 9, as France is bound to fall.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Is it possible for the Brits to slow down Italay’s African conquests?

Have you had a game where Italy invaded Syria or Jordan to get the 3 Iraq inf and attack Egypt from the rear?

I’m interested in both these things, as it seems, from what I’ve seen and heard, that Italy is hugely overpowered. It seems that if they put their mind to it, British/French Africa will fall no matter what.