Posts made by kungfujew

I’m curious what people feel are their favorite changes to the new ‘40’ games once you combine them into the global version. 
My favourite power to play in Global is the UK (even though I’m just finaly getting a chance to play them) because with the entire map to play with.  I’m not entirely constrained to play with just the origional set-up and even the split income isn’t hampering me.  Almost as much as Germany or Japan (or more so, depending on your point of view) the UK can set the emphasis of the war by moving it’s large navy and airforce around as it sees fit.  In our Multi game now I’m shifting the bulk of the UK navy to the pacific to make life dificult for Japan, and bringing in a few planes from India to stress out Italy.  With the south african and Indian factories so close together I can buy some cheaper mech/transports for the middle east and some more expensive capital ships for the pacific as needed.  The flexibility of the UK really starts to shine when the two boards are combined into the Global game and you can’t get anything close to that with just one theater.

Personally, I’m not big on cookie cutter openings.  I’m also not a fan of attacking the italian navy turn one either.  This means that your navy is likely destroyed by german air turn two and you need to rebuild from scratch.  If you keep the uk navy safe, you can build on your starting forces and have more options to take the initiative and fight on your terms where you like.  But that’s just me.

The thing I like best about playing a game myself is that I can be sure that my opponent won’t quit until the game is over.  Solid game when you’re at a disadvantage is the most important skillset you can have as a wargammer.  Since most people concede before the game is actually over, not many people have solid play once the game gets to the point that one side is “winning” and the other side “losing”.  I have won many games simply because I can outplay many opponents while I’m losing and they’re winning.

We have one spot open in our multi G40 thread for either a Germany or Italy in a 3on3 game

If you get enough people for a game, I’d happily take a faction

1on1 or multi?

Come on, everyone likes extra peeps in a multigame.  :)

I’m looking to join a multiplayer game of G40.  I’ll take any nation on either side.  Will bring compitance and humour to even the suckiest, boring team.  :)

If a neutral territory is “pro” your side, can you land air units in it, the same turn you first move your land units in during the non com move phase?

I think this would be a very entertaining one shot deal in a face to face game.  Granted it would only work once, but I can definately see it working.  One of my gaming groups consist of 5 other compitant players, but they all tend to think inside the box and scoff at many of my “I wonder if this would work” strategies when we used to play revised.  So this would 100 percent work on them once and the victory dance would be epic

I don’t know how many of you play games out to the bitter end, but either on Triple A or in person, I tend to fight until the game actually ends.  I have a very good grasp of “make them pay for every inch of ground” and solid defensive strategy against all odds.  In AA50, I could almost promise my side victory if I was Germany/Japan and the allies tried to “Kill me first”  and payed no attention to the other theater and the other axis player played well.  In this game it seems to be even more the case.  If you have a solid defensive/losing game down then you can buy your team more than enough time to run rampant and show the allies the error of their ways.  In a huge game like this, you can definately focus on either Europe or the Pacifc, just like in the real war, but you definately need to actually put money and effort into containing the theater you’re choosing to ignore.  A balanced approach requires you to rely on skill instead of luck.  While fortune may favour the bold, chance and luck favour the prepared.

Since the “alpha” changes will be pretty close to Larry’s recommended changes to the Pac setup, you might as well play with them.  From our experiences using them they make for a much more entertaining game and you still have the freedom to make any attack.  Good luck with your game, and having played the Euro side, especially with these changes the Pacific game is possibly the much more entertaining one.

Cool, that’s the way we’ve been playing, but I figured it was about time to be certain.

As the allies, if I want to land in a dutch territory with air units, do I need to own it?  For example, if Japan has no planes in the area that can reach and I want to prevent them from taking the celebs to complete their NO, with only a transport containing 2 inf, can I as anzac land a bunch of fighters there without “taking” the territory first?

Here’s the situation. The US lauches a successful attack on sz6 and invades Korea.  The next turn Japan counter attacks sz6 and clears it of US boats, but Japan also loses all the attacking forces, so the transport survives.  Japan then places 2 destryers in sz6.  Can the transport load the troops from korea and move to Okinawa and launch an amphibious assualt there, or is the sz6 now considered hostile thus preventing the troops from being loaded?

So, if undefended transports start in the same sea zone as a sub, but don’t move then in addition to not being fired upon as they move, there is also no combat as the transports get to “ignore” the subs like other surface wessels?

The new setup flops everything on it’s head.  You NEED to have a gameplan when you make your turn 1 buy.  If you buy three transports there needs to be a reason, and not just you want to take everything.  I have a plan I want to try out that involves 2 turns of all transport buys for a J3 attack, but I haven’t tried it yet

I have a quick question.  The situation is this… There re 3 Japanese transports in sz6 and no other surface ships.  There is also a US sub there.  If Japan declares war on the US, can the transports A) load men in the combat move phase? (I think so, but I’m not sure) B)When they move out of the sz (or if they stay) does the sub get it’s free shot at them since they’re unescorted and loaded men in the combat move phase?

Hey everyone, just to let you all know, Larry posted his latest proposed setup change for testing somewhere around a week ago.  From what I’ve played, it’s a huge improvement over the original Pacific 1940.  Even if you didn’t find the game unbalanced you’ll enjoy this new setup, and if you though it WAS unbalanced well… try not to mess your pants/skirt as the case may be.

Please feel free to play with the following set-up to help better a game that well all love (or we wouldn’t be on a website devoted to it),  :) by playing a game or two (Pacific 1940/Global 1940) with this new set up and then post a brief exempt about the game/your opinions having tried it at http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2386&start=640 .   I can only imagine that the more responces after testing that Larry gets, the sooner an “official” change can be made.

***note:  the changes to the national objectives apply to the Pacific game only, use the global national objectives as is for the global game.

Quote as per LH:

Scenario Alpha

I think the following setup is where I’d like to end up. If this is moving a bit too fast for some of you I apologize.

Below is the Scenario Alpha’s setup

I recommend you test this setup and give me some feed back. Let me know how you like it. What you don’t like about it. Barring any great balance issues or other unforeseen goodies, this will be the core of the new Pacific '40 recommended setup.

I call this setup “Scenario Alpha”.
All the National Objectives and bonus incomes remain as they are in the present Pacific40 rule book, with the exception of the following two NOs:

Note: The UK will gain 5 IPCs for controlling Kwangtung and Malaya at the same time but only if at war.
Note: The United States will collect 5 IPCs per round for controlling the Philippines but only if at war.

China
Szechwan 5 Infantry and one fighter
Hunan 2 Infantry
Yunnan 4 Infantry
Kweichow 2 Infantry
Shensi 1 Infantry
Suiyuyan 2 Infantry

ANZAC
Malaya 1 Infantry
New South Wales - 1 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base.
New Zealand - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Queensland - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Sea Zone 62 -1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63 – 1 Cruiser

United Kingdom (India)
Sea Zone 37 - 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Kwangtung - 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Burma - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Malaya - 3 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
India - 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC

United States
Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Midway - 1 Airbase
Wake Island - 1 Airbase
Guam - 1 Airbase
Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr
Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport

Japan
Japan - 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Manchuria - 6 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber
Palau Island - 1 Infantry
Kiangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Formosa - 1 Fighter
Shantung - 2 Infantry
Kwangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Iwo Jima - 1 Infantry
Jehol - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Caroline Islands - 1 AA gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Infantry
Siam - 2 Infantry
Okinawa - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu - 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber.
Korea - 3 Infantry
Sea Zone 6 - 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Carriers each with 2 Tac & 2 Ftrs., 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 19 - 1 Sub, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 33 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier w/ 1 Tac & 1 Ftrs.
Sea Zone 20 - 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport

Attacking a territory from two sides and retreating to the farther one is a sound tactical move that makes a lot of sense.  Picture the army punching a corridor through the territory in question for the other army to move through instead of trying to simply subdue all opposition in said territory.