Posts made by The Fire Knight

70-80$ is about what everyone is paying.

Maybe. But I’m also pissed b/c I bet $5 with a friend of mine that the U.S. would get over 100 ipcs when at war with all of their territories and no NOs. I thought it was a sure gain of 5 bucks.  :x

From what i understand, income from west India can’t be used in India. Europe income on the europe side and pacific on the pacific side. Blunt, inaccurate, and probably took about 10 seconds of time to create but that’s how it’s going to be (at least until I house-rule it.)

@FearlessLeader:

Yes I figured it out… now.  I wish i knew this b4 I bought AA1940 version.  I’ll be buying pacific today.  I see now that Europe is not out yet that’s where I got confused.   Man this is awesome.

It is. But don’t read about it online. You’ll get your hopes way up with all of the new features that they are adding, and then you’ll see all of the bad reviews, complaining about how they f’d up on making the game with pieces, rulebook, and board errors, and then about how (some people think) the game is slanted. Definitely buy it. But don’t go crazy.

@almashir:

Now, for my own house rules, I plan to have Britain, ANZAC, and Free French forces be combined in a single turn.  They can operate together for combat purposes, but have to keep their incomes separate.  ANZAC income can only be spent in ANZAC factories.  Commonwealth income can only be spent in Commonwealth factories (Britain, Canada, India, South Africa, and any new factories built in Commonwealth controlled territory).

Bingo! I had the same idea! With all the commonwealth building separately but being able (and also not able) to attack together. I think that i will be using it after i play one game of normal global (although Canadian troops would kind of help). I’m still working out exactly how I will make the U.K. rules, but one thing is for sure, they won’t be blunt and half-assed like the simple split board line that this game is using. I will try to make them as realistic as possible.

The war was complicated, and there were many ways that it could have turned out. This should be represented in the victory cities listed on the map. Besides the fact that no one counts the victory anyways and just play till surrender, and the fact that 3 more should be no trouble at all, no one plays this game who isn’t an avid strategy board game fan. We like complexity  :-o and that’s why we play this and not RISK. Hurray for more victory cities! Hurray for more powers! Hurray for more rules!

Yea, Vladavostak (or however you spell it) would be a good vc. I think it should be 22 vcs. Johannesburg and Dallas should be added as well. America is so beast that it should have that represented in the form of another sc in central U.S.  8-)

Well. Even since the time I asked the question, Canada has gone up in percentage. Being the staunch supporter of having Canada as a separate power, I think that it’s time now that it’s been discussed, for a revote so that we can get an updated opinion. Canada supporters, Rally!  :-D

I haven’t kept a graph of the Canadian votes. But is it just me, or is Canada starting to increase noticeably? And I can’t seem to be able to revote (not that I would want to). Are people able to revote?

I will never give up. They can not be excluded next time.

@Brain:

I still want blockhouses.

Those might be nice. But i would rather it be like airbases and naval bases where you pay like 15-20 ipcs and then put like a “fortification token” on a territory that ups all infantry defense by like one. It would be great to have in like France and England and such. But expensive enough so that it is an investment. And it also is different enough from infantry to make sense to use (instead of buying lots of blockhouse pieces). Now for my wishlist…

1.Canada must have the same status as ANZAC in the global game.
2. special A-Bomb research rules.
3. plenty of pieces/markers/chips/everything (no scimping)
4. A well written rulebook.
5. No board errors.
6. A game that is realistic as possible while still being as equal as possible.

@WILD:

Quote from Larry’s site:

Manila was left off the list. There are 19 Victory Cities.

---

• Krieghund, Official Rules Answer Guy

Debate over  :-D

cool. Thanks. Although I kind of wish something in south africa was listed, but oh well.

@purplebaron:

The poll didn’t have an option for “Me”  ;-)

Seconded.  :lol:

@finnman:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@idk_iam_swiss:

Axis only need 14/19 to win? some are going to be SUPER easy. Like the one in Poland, France, phillipeens, some are going to be TOUGH like Calcutta, and Ottawa.

How is Calcutta tough if Japan can apparently capture it on the 3rd turn.

with other British income India might be harder to take. either way it’s a lot harder to take india then it is France.

Luckily they managed to mess that up as well. From what I’ve heard, India can only use the pacific side ipcs. so no help there.

Where do you see that? It’s still not in the list

I already posted my thoughts on the FAQ. Just curious to hear others. But come one. Don’t be too harsh. A success doesn’t follow a failure. Pacific foreshadowed it.

@democratic:

Post here how many VCs there will be, how many you need to win (Global and Europe) and which ones they will be?

Definite (7)

Berlin
Moscow
Washington
London
Rome
Paris
Cairo (LH said so)

Probable (3)

I think all these will be in the game.

Stalingrad
Leningrad
Warsaw

Possible (3)
Tripoli (or something else in North Africa)
Something in Canada
Kyiv (or something mid-way between Russia and Germany)

Unlikely (5)

Something in Scandinavia
Something on the Atlantic cost of France
Something in SA
Something in the Middle East
Something in South America

13-15 would be a better division of voting. otherwise someone with 12 could pick either. (Which happens to be what I think).

@valthonis:

Is that +30 for the Eastern side or in replacement for the +40 that Pacific has?

I’m curious as I would be a little annoyed if the printed 10/50 on the Western half of my map ends up being some other number during the global game.  What are we supposed to do, tape over it?

Glue works too. That’s a fixable thing as well. We can (and someone will) make an online printable map. They won’t get paid, and They’ll spend more time than they should (they should spend 0). It’s ok though. All games have this problem. I mean, haven’t you guys been to the forum where the RISK players fix the map errors and order the missing pieces and have errata rules?

@TitusAndronicus:

There will be UK support from the “London Armies” in Europe from South Africa and Egypt.  Not mention an 80 IPC/turn USA still makes more money than the USA in AAP40.

If anything, Japan’s life will be a great deal tougher in the global game, the India push is not going to be nearly as easy.

Your smart dude. Not. The U.S. doesn’t have 80+ to spend just in the pacific. They have to whole world now. The U.S Spent the grand majority of its income in europe fighting Germany. Even if Pacific 1940 is balance, the U.S should at least have over a 100 ipc economy, if not more with Brazil, Cent and East U.S. and panama. Probable more like 150. Japan will be a hell of a lot harder to beat. It’s ok though. We can make up our own game were the allies get like 100 ipc bid. We just have to pay 200$ for the right and pieces to do so. It’s an almost balanced game. they tried, and that’s what counts. I mean after all, how good can it be when they play a test game like only every month? (with testers who can’t seem to see a kill india strategy that dominates). And by the way we’ll get most of the pieces the first time. The rest will come after you spend 24+ hours complaining on this forum.

@Brain:

I think US/China makes more sense than the others because of the Flying Tigers.

Plus, weren’t the nationalists technically in power, not the communists at the time of WW2? And it also makes more sense b/c Russia wouldn’t have collaborated with china against Japan. but the U.S. would have b/c they had a shared goal.