Posts made by Seven_Patch

@molinar13:

@Seven_Patch:

We’re going to need a bigger map.

Good luck ever finishing that game.

Finishing is over rated.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Shouldn’t the Union Jack be used for Britain proper since it IS their flag?

I thought it would be that way also.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Seven_Patch:

Just thinking out loud here.

If Russia did attack Japan on R1 then what would happen next?

Historically Russia didn’t want two fronts.

So if Russia attacks first, would Japan then focus on Russia/China?  Would Japan be able to push into Russia before being at war with the rest of the allies?
Yes, they can focus on both, but they’ll all go to war on turn 3

If Russia is busy fighting a war against Japan, does that make them more vulnerable to a German early attack on G2 or G3?
Not really. And Russian moves against Japan will be mainly with the 18 inf, which won’t reach Europe for 7 turns. At best, maybe a few units will defend China

So the short answer is no, it doesn’t hurt the Russians to have two fronts.  I know in 1942 and revised it did if you were to play with the same political situation as 1940, so what went wrong for Global 1940?

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Seven_Patch:

You would think Italy would be the only one that could threaten this, it would take them two turns to clear the Suez canal.  Then 3 turns to get to Sumatra.  By turn 5 everyone should be at war anyway.

Am I wrong in this line of thought?

They could try to get suriname

Potential airbase?  Plus they could easily take British or French Guiana.

You would think Italy would be the only one that could threaten this, it would take them two turns to clear the Suez canal.  Then 3 turns to get to Sumatra.  By turn 5 everyone should be at war anyway.

Am I wrong in this line of thought?

Just thinking out loud here.

If Russia did attack Japan on R1 then what would happen next?

Historically Russia didn’t want two fronts.

So if Russia attacks first, would Japan then focus on Russia/China?  Would Japan be able to push into Russia before being at war with the rest of the allies?

If Russia is busy fighting a war against Japan, does that make them more vulnerable to a German early attack on G2 or G3?

We’re going to need a bigger map.

I’m not really saying the additional units are needed.  I’m just saying it might make it more fun and interesting.

I’ll likely play a game or two with the designed set up and make a judgment then.  As miamibeach has said, the game appears to have been play tested well.

This is just a desire of mine to see French and a simple and small Russian fleet in the Pacific.  Add more color to the Pacific theater.

@calvinhobbesliker:

If you put 1 inf in FIC, then the Japanese will have to use more than just the 2 Siam inf to have a good chance of taking it. This divers either troops from yunnan or planes from other areas

In Global I think Japan is unlikely to try a J1 attack since that would bring America into the war against Germany.  If that is the case then Japan has more than enough airpower to attack FIC.

@miamibeach:

It appears to me that this game has been play tested fairly well.  The strengths and weaknesses are there for game balance/playability and fun.  Some historical accuracy is there, but not all, so I think we really cant complain too much.

If you add units somewhere…like USSR naval units in the Pacfic, then you also must counter that with some sort of additional force for Japan, and now you have potentially thrown off the balance that was tested by the game designers.  So, its not worth it.

Every unit has a value and worth.  If you start adding Fighters, Cruisers and Battleships then I totally agree with you.  But adding two more Infantry in Africa (worth 6 dollars) in Europe, one Russian Destroyer and Sub in Pacific (14 total dollars) and one French infantry in FIC (3 dollars) shouldn’t upset game play much.  I guess you could give Italy one more infantry in Rome and give Japan one more Destroyer somewhere to balance it.

I think it’s worth it to add options to game play and make it even more interesting.

You could take it further and give UK two more Destroyers near England to represent the many destroyers obtained through the lend-lease program and give the Germans another fighter.

Personally I don’t like that G1 it’s pretty automatic to destroy a lot of the BRN.  I don’t recall that being part of history.

@ksmckay:

@Seven_Patch:

Thank you Djensen for providing this excellent preview.

Good point from Funcioneta that there is not much incentive for Russia to not declare war on Japan other than it’s less to worry about.

I really don’t like one of the United Kingdom rules.

“Units purcahsed with the Europe IPCs may only be deployed on the Europe map. Units purchased with the Pacific IPCs may only be deployed on the Pacific map.”

Talk about acme walls.  So basically any new units can’t move between Eur and Pac but can initial setup units?  Plus this rule also means that even if the Allies beat down Germany and Italy, but Japan has been successful in the Pacific then this rule means that the UK can’t send aid to the Pacific side.  How silly is that.  Split income is one thing but blocking units from crossing maps is stupid.

They can cross the map you just have to deploy them on the correct side.  After they are deployed they can do whatever you want.

That’s good, I re-read the rule and realized my mistake.  Thanks.

Anyway, my thinking is that if UK manages to survive any sealion attempts, it could (if financialy able) buy a minor factory on the Europe side of India and buy Infantry to move to Pacific.  Or just ferry units from South Africa if the Japanese fleet is not a threat.

Thank you Djensen for providing this excellent preview.

Good point from Funcioneta that there is not much incentive for Russia to not declare war on Japan other than it’s less to worry about.

I really don’t like one of the United Kingdom rules.

“Units purcahsed with the Europe IPCs may only be deployed on the Europe map. Units purchased with the Pacific IPCs may only be deployed on the Pacific map.”

Talk about acme walls.  So basically any new units can’t move between Eur and Pac but can initial setup units?  Plus this rule also means that even if the Allies beat down Germany and Italy, but Japan has been successful in the Pacific then this rule means that the UK can’t send aid to the Pacific side.  How silly is that.  Split income is one thing but blocking units from crossing maps is stupid.

EDIT: wait I read it wrong, deployed, means you can only place new units on said side of the world.  Nothing is stoping units from moving from Europe to Pacific or vise versa.

Hi everyone,

Been reading these forums for the last 8 months and have enjoyed everyones input.  Big thanks to djensen and everyone who have provided previews and screenshots for Europe 1940.  I can barely wait another 2 weeks for this game to come out.

Regarding the global peice setup I would have loved it if they added more than just 18 Russian infantry on the pac side and 1 ANZAC inf on the eur side.  I think it is really fun when other nations are represented on both sides of the world.  Of course as Bruda mentions, gameplay has to be a big consideration.

My house rules might add a Russion Destroyer and Sub.  A cruiser might disturb things in the Pacific too much.  I’ll probably also add 1 french infantry in FIC.

I also think that the Italians might be too over powered in Africa, maybe another ANZAC infantry and another UK INF in Alexandria or Egypt might even it out a little.  Obviously I may have a different opinion when I play the game.