Posts made by UN Spacy

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

Well do the math: I was born on August 15, 1769.

So you’re almost 241

Awww, you didn’t get the reference :(

I looked it up and found out what you were talking about

…And? What’s the reference?

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

Well do the math: I was born on August 15, 1769.

So you’re almost 241

Awww, you didn’t get the reference :(

Well do the math: I was born on August 15, 1769.

@calvinhobbesliker:

I’d really like to know how Java was held after turn 3

Maybe because not everyone does a J1 attack.  :roll:

@Imperious:

Thats picture has nothing to do with AAE40.

It’s a speculative map for the board. How is that non-related?

Well we know that French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa comrise of three territories, but that map still seems to depict a resemblance to the final product…at least, I think so.

Actually, believe it or not, ANZAC. I’ve always liked playing as the underdog, and more than once my Japanese opponent has claimed that I turned the ANZAC faction from “thorn in the side of Japan” to a “razor sharp knife in the side”.

@Corbeau:

@oztea:

id actualy like to see them use the japanese mold
and alot of japanese equipment. It looks more 1930’s-esqe, like much of the french army of 1940

Oztea, the French tanks at the start of the war were more modern and superior to thoses of the germans, both in numbers and individual strenght. The french tank divisions fought hard in the Dardennes but the German had significant air superiority, almost if not 3 to 1. It’s the massive Bf-109/Stuka attacks on tanks and artillery positions that spelled doom for France on top of the fact they got totally surprised by a clever manoeuvre. Air superiority would later spell the same doom for Rommels division and even the Japanese Imperial Navy. The point here: There is no valid reason to use ‘‘1930’s esque equipment’’ for France and it’s certainly not why they got beaten.

Which is why I’m hoping the starting setup for France will have at least two tanks. And here’s to hoping they’ll have at least the British tank model.

@allboxcars:

@UN:

@Napoleon:

When someone like us explain the game….its ok…we resume and we explain well…but when youre new and you read the rulebook…it can be very hard to understand…specialy when you dont speak english  :lol:

Il est utile d’avoir une mère américaine et d’un père français  :-D

providing you have a mother that will help you and your friends with the rulebook!  :lol:

#613

My dad actually enjoys this game. Every Friday night, which is game night at the hobby shop I go to, he always vouches to play Axis and Allies (either Spring 1942 or Pacific 1940). I can’t wait 'till Europe 1940, then I can beat his French behind as the Krauts  :mrgreen:

I should actually start making YouTube videos of strategies for Pacific 1940 (and maybe Spring 1942). There seems to be a lot of YouTubers that would look forward to that and I would be happy to get criticism of my strategies from them.

@Napoleon:

When someone like us explain the game….its ok…we resume and we explain well…but when youre new and you read the rulebook…it can be very hard to understand…specialy when you dont speak english  :lol:

Il est utile d’avoir une mère américaine et d’un père français  :-D

@oztea:

Both collaboration with the axis and resistance on the part of the French…id say that qualifies as changing sides.

Talk about the Poles and the Warsaw Rebellion, the Poles resisted through and through. No barganing at the treaty table. That can’t be said of France.

When you understand the immense difference between the political situations of both France and Poland both before and during the occupation, you will find every reason why their governments acted differently.

For starters, Poland never got a chance to get to the “treaty table”, Hitler never had any plan to bring them to the “treaty table”. His plans for Poland were much, much more horrific than anything he had in mind for France.

Anyway, this is getting way off-topic. If you want to continue this then PM me.

I think WOTC will use the italians infantry for french units.

WOTC said they’d use dedicated French infantry models…

@oztea:

Dont change sides?
Does Vichy France ring a bell?

Does Free France ring a bell?

Also Vichy France never actually joined the Axis, and actually did resist the Germans in more than covert ways.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Well, Larry said he tried an all out attack on Russia with Japan and failed. But I didn’t hear anything about Mongolia. We’ll have to see

I don’t think he specifie when he attacked them. It could have been right from game start, or it could have been mid-game or even late game. I would think attacking the Soviets early would be stupid, period, and that mid-game is the way to go if the Japanese REALLY want to mess with them.

I’m thinking they should have a few tanks and maybe a fighter in Amur, along with anything above five infantry. That should at least give the most aggressive Japanese player second thoughts of attacking through there and finding some other way (IE Mongolia).

@calvinhobbesliker:

Do you want British forces to be on the board and Britain itself a off-board area, or would you prefer Britain to be on the map and also be divided?

You pose a good question. If the UK were to not be on the board, then the action can be more focused on the Continent. However, on the other side, it would also be interesting if a Sealion mission could happen if the players wanted the game to go longer.

Perhaps do a “Early War” game: all of the map is of Europe (and Europe only, no Africa or Atlantic or Middle East).  The players can do three scenarios: German invasion of Poland in 1939, the Norwegian Campaign in 1940, and the Invasion of Western Europe in May 1940.

Understand these are all broad concepts, of course. I can defiantely see this being fleshed out somehow.

The German invasion of Western Europe in 1940. Benelux, Britain, France, and Germany will be the main powers, and as a special rule, German units, representing Italy, can attack late in the game if the appropiate conditions come up.

@LHoffman:

Sorry UN, this isn’t exactly the topic but… I feel that the lack of Soviet presence is what caused Pacific 40 to be a failure (as a game) in many people’s minds. I know that IL doesn’t agree entirely that the outcome will change in Global; Japan will still run over everyone in the Pacific. However I feel that a strong Soviet deterrent will not allow Japan to expand so uncontrollably. They still may be able to foucus attention oon India and take it. However, China will not be so easy to take. If the USSR is able (physically and financially) to build an IC somewhere in Asia… it will be interesting.

As for if it would be wise; I believe Japan could take Eastern Russian forces out, but they’d have to do it as quick as possible. Perhaps even devoting most of their Asian forces for 2 turns. Would I do this in my first game? Likely no.

That’s perfectly on topic.  :-D

I do agree that a Soviet force in Amur would definately force Japan to keep some guys up there, including at least part of their air force. It sucks since Amur can’t build factories, but if it could, that would also be a big plus for the Russkies against a aggressive Japanese player.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Add to that the fact that Russia will probably start with 1 sub, destroyer, and transport at most, and will never buy a cruiser, carrier, or battleship

Exactly! It’s not like the Soviet player will be relying on his navy alot, whereas the French player’s primary contribuation to the Allies will probably be its navy (and, of course, what French units remain in Africa).

I think it’s stupid that the Soviet battleship and cruiser are dedicated, whereas the French will be using all British/American naval sculpts. France had the 4th biggest navy in the world, and whereas the French Army wasn’t top notch, the Navy was in 1940. The Soviet navy was bottled up for the majority of the war, so why do the Soviets get dedicated ships and the French don’t?

I’m wondering if Japan attacking the Soviet Union will still be an A&A staple strategy in Global. The pros are that the Soviets won’t be able to divert their Pacific infantry to help on the Eastern Front, and there’s a NO for the Soviets that if they capture a German territory and all of their territory is still theirs, a Japanese attack might disrupt that.

The cons is that we have no idea how the 18 infantry are distributed throughout the Soviet Pacific territories: 2 in each territory, or like 8 in Amur or so on, so if the Japs try anything funny, they suddenly have to divert much of their air power and Manchurian forces to containing the inevitable counterattack.

I know Larry said he designed to where it would be in Japan and the Soviets’ best interest in not attacking each other, but he forgets that the masses will be nitpicking everything about his game that neither he nor his playtesters expected.

So, I ask this: do you think the USSR and Japan are best off not annoying each other, or will Japan be able to manage opening up a third front?

LOL, since Calvin has asked this like 9 trillion times:

iMTO means In My Truthful Opinion, at least I’m pretty sure it does. If it doesn’t then…shrug

While I can see the logic in Pacific, that seems ahistorical and mildly ridiculous for the Global game, doesn’t it?

I’m pretty sure it won’t be in AA1940…