Posts made by SEP

Perhaps not being able to build a minor IC is a game balance issue?  I would think that perhaps the ability to build on an island that is a capital i.e. Hawaii or Philippines would be an option?  It would make those two islands the hub of a lot of action I would think as one side or the other tries to take/defend.  Perhaps that’s too much on Japan?

I’ve taken Japan before, after Germany has fallen by everyone getting into position and SBR them to the stone age and then using the bomber stacks to pummel the infantry along with the amphibious action.  Takes bit to get it all working though.

Some very excellent ideas here, thanks General for pointing me to this section!

Thank you  :-)

Does anyone use some other means of determining whether or not a special weapon (or other) has been developed?  Or does anyone start off with them in some fashion?  If so, how is it working for you?

@Strollmasta:

On this topic, you can build a minor complex on any territory you control at the start of your next turn as long as it is worth 2 or more IPC. However you cannot upgrade it to a major unless you controlled it from the start of the game and it is worth 3 or more IPC.

" The industrial complex to be upgraded must be located on an originally controlled (not captured) territory
that you have controlled since the beginning of your turn and that has an IPC value of 3 or higher."

If you take over normandy as america you can use that minor complex until paris is liberated, and then it belongs to France and you can’t use it as america anymore.

Thank you for this post, it clarified a question I had  :-)

I’ve been wanting to ask this as well.  Are there any plans of this nature?  I’d love to get it on my Ipad.  Thank you  :-)

@Wolfshanze:

I played SFB extensively back in the 1980s… I was very big into it… but, like A&A it’s been 30 years since I last played… not sure if its up in my attic with my other 30 year old games, and I don’t know who I’d play with… is SFB still in print 30 years later?

Yes it is still in print and has been expanded on greatly.  It’s heyday is over as far as total numbers of people playing though.  But they’ve expanded into the Omega sector and a couple of other galaxies (one canon and one playtest).  Still a great game though.  If you haven’t played since the 80’s you’ve still got the Commander’s edition.  It is now the Captain’s or Doomsday edition.  A lot is the same with the errata now incorporated but some stuff has changed.  Andros were revamped as an example.  X ships were revamped from supplement #2 and so forth.  There are a lot more races/empires than back in the 80’s.

YG,

Been away from the game for a while so I’ve been brushing back up on the rules with your YT videos.  Just wanted to say thank you for taking the time and effort.  Much appreciated  :-)

Thank you sir, that clears that up  :-)

So far the game is going smoothly wit SEAC in place.  This may become a standard HR for us.

We have a G40 game kicking off at noon today.  We’re going to implement option #4 above (U.K Pacific and ANZAC combine into one power, India is the major IC and we’ll use ANZAC grey (because it is very close to A&A Classic German grey so I have a plethora of pieces).

I’ll report back how it went for us.

BTW, why does G.B. Pacific start at 17IPC?  I only count 16 IPC worth of territory.  What am I missing?

@Frederick:

Hey YG, what would someone use for France pieces (besides the UK 1914 pieces which I know you use)? also do you restrict France from buying a carrier when it’s liberated because the UK 1914 pieces don’t have a carrier?

I had that question as well, in regards to the blue pieces.  What about France?  Why not go with the ANZAC grey pieces?

BTW I like the SEAC idea.  Makes more sense for the combined forces we’re talking about.

I see this mentioned in the splitting UK thread.  As I understand it, using G.B. as an example, if London fails (aka Sea Lion) then they get to use a new territory as their seat of power.  So this brings up questions about the HR.

• Does the new territory need to have a victory city?

• Does G.B. still lose their money-in-hand to Germany on the turn London is lost?

@CWO:

Great anecdote SEP – and it’s nice to hear that Canadian whisky was raising the morale of Allied fighting men as far away as the other side of the planet!  I can’t help wondering, however, about the part stating that a German U-boat was sunk off the coast of Japan, which sounds beyond the capabilities of even its long-range boat types.  German subs did operate as far as the Indian Ocean, but I’m not aware of their going all the way to Japan (though some Japanese very long range subs did travel all the way to Germany).

I’m trying to find my copy of SV to recheck that story.  I’m going off memory from about 5 years ago.  Very good read and there were a lot of fascinating parts that really struck home.

Disclaimer:  I’m not an expert on the 1940 Global game.  I’m in the middle of my first G40 game and thoroughly enjoying it (despite my son about to go Sea lion on me).  :-)

Having said that, I voted for option#4.  I quite like the idea of G.B. Pacific and ANZAC merging into one entity and using the Union Jack roundels (which I just purchased last night as a matter of fact (along with other items from HBG).  I see this as a completely viable HR.  The OOB stays the same, simply convert everything to ANZAC grey.  I additionally like this since I can also use the German grey pieces from classic to fill in the gaps.

Balance won’t be upset from the perspective of starting OOB.  It will be a bit different from the perspective of ANZAC being able to move as a coordinated force rather than separate entitles.  It will make a difference, perhaps not a major one.  It will give Japan more reason to be concerned though and may alter some of their opening strategies.  For example, they’ll be facing one navy (that moves as one) rather than two separate navies that move separately.  And ANZAC would be able to really concentrate on specifics with almost three times the starting income (whether it be building a navy or fortifying India and pushing eastward.  And I could see a lot more contention for the south Pacific islands between Japan and ANZAC.

It may be necessary to either modify Japan up a bit or ANZAC down a bit in terms of OOB to compensate.  Perhaps part of Japan’s fleet starts in closer proximity to some of the ANZAC fleet for an early strike?  Just thinking out loud.  The ‘new’ ANZAC would start out with 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers and 2 transports.  Not equal to Japan by a long shot, but if Japan ignores them on J1 then ANZAC could easily add a carrier or a combination of cruisers, destroyers and subs such that it would be expensive on Japan in later turns to whack them and thereby opening them up to the U.S. who should be in the process of a build up of their own.

It would be interesting to try this out to see if it works.

Totally off topic, but since we’re on WWII historical dialogue and such…

Read Silent Victory which was an outstanding account of U.S. subs in the Pacific.  Admiral Christy was the U.S. Admiral in charge of the Southern Pacific and was based in Australia.  He made a habit of greeting his boat commanders at the dock when they came in from a particularly successful patrol.  He would greet the boat skipper and give him a small gift like a bottle of scotch or some such token.

He was at the dock on morning for a particularly special reason.  He was awaiting the arrival of a Dutch Submarine under the command of a British Captain (don’t recall his name).  This sub was tasked with tracking down a German U-boat trying to break through to Japan with a new code for their communications.  And they had been successful in sinking the U-boat off the coast of Japan.

As he stood there waiting for the sub to dock it suddenly struck him how truly global this war had become…

He was an American Admiral…

based in Australia…

waiting for a Dutch submarine…

commanded by a British captain…

tasked with sinking a German U-boat…

that was carrying Japanese codes…

and sunk it off the coast of Japan…

and here he stood waiting to gift a bottle of Canadian whiskey!   :lol:

@ShadowHAwk:

@SEP:

@The:

…who needs 10 British carriers? :-) )

Who needs 1 Russian carrier?  :-D

It would make an interesting bid for the baltic fleet :P

It really would when you think about it.  How often does Russia really get a chance to have/use a navy?  A Russian battleship and/or carrier is about as rare as hen’s teeth.

Thinking about this a bit more, it should be fairly easy to more-or-less equalize each nation by nixing China and opening up all the neutral countries.  It may be necessary to put an IPC amount of some territories that don’t currently have one.  Then it would be a matter of coming up with a starting OOB for each.  The fairest would be to start off with equal amounts of units/income for each and then let it progress from there.

Imagine France, Italy, Germany and maybe Russia teaming up.  Or imagine if one of them suddenly breaks the alliance!  A game like this would have a lot of naval battles which would be fun as well.  What would be neat is that strategies would/could be entirely different for every FFA game depending on who your allied partners are…or who you ‘think’ they are.

Thank you sir.  Really looking forward to it.  Looks like I will be on the Allies side.  I prefer Germany and/or Japan but my son has taken an interest in Germany so I’m fine with the Allies.  Looking forward to seeing what I can do with them.

Looks pretty bleak for France though… :-o

@The:

Hi Wittmann,

the 2nd US carrier would be a nice idea (to counterbalance the 21 Japanese fighters).
I think I’ll give it a try in our next game…

And that is really where the rubber meets the road.  Playtest it and see how it works.  May be totally OP or it could become a standard HR.  Be sure to let us know!

By-the-by, that’s what I’m really enjoying about this board, folks aren’t afraid to suggest/try different things and/or institute different HR’s.  Seems like games such as this draw creative folks.  I like that  :-)

@The:

…who needs 10 British carriers? :-) )

Who needs 1 Russian carrier?  :-D