Posts made by UN Spacy

pretty much for anything except for fleets (and even for them if it gets too crowded).

I think the French fleet will be smaller to show the effects of scuttling it without actually having a scuttling rule.

I don’t understand this. If we’re ignoring the Vichy rule, why can’t we ignore the French naval scuttling either? I understand your concept, but because France’s ground lifespan isn’t going to be very long, at least give them a seizable fleet to work with.

I think the French fleet should be:

1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 2 subs, 2 transports

Now it can be argued that we can’t ignore the scuttling for gameplay reasons. Well, if we assume Germany takes over France and bases parts of the Luftwaffe there, we can assume that the French Navy will not be very safe in the Med from the Italian Navy and the Axis air power that will undoubtedly be swooping over the Med. We can assume that the Axis will pretty much be able to strike out at a lot of nearby Allied naval units (like the Japanese can in Pacific) and wipe them out if their dice is lucky.

So, have it similar to oztea’s suggestion: the French Med fleet is moderately powerful, but it needs to stay in a single group to survive or risk getting destroyed by the Axis air force.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Brain:

The first thing that I will do when I get Europe 1940 is open it up and look at it, then I will look for all of the WOTC typos that are sure to be included.

The typo lost for P40:
2 artillry in Japan
Paulau
Honolulu on Hawai’i island(does this count as a typo? If so:
Calcutta is too far inland)

Anything else?

Probable list for E40
London touching the coast or way inland
Washington in Chesepeke bay or North Carolina
Ottawa in the middle of Quebec
Brittany will be spelled Britty, analogous to the artillery typo
France will have 1 infantary in Vichy

2 artillery in Japan? Is there only supposed to be 1?

@LHoffman:

Well… I have been through all this before. I am to the resigned point now and I have left my crusade behind. “It is what it is and I cannot change it.” I cannot say that I “don’t give a damn”, because I do I guess… but I realize my “damn” doesn’t matter all that much. I’ll let you know my opinion, and support those who agree with me, but I won’t keep pounding this issue. So yeah, I am done for now.

UN and Army of N. VA … you guys can duke it out. UN, you are probably tired of this though, first having to deal with me and now Army of Northern VA … I give you credit.

Eh. I just can’t wait for the game. Even if the box art was generic and crappy and wasn’t up to A&A quality I would still get it for the contents inside.  :-D

@Army:

Italy was one of the aggressors, and a poor one at that.

That doesn’t mean they were all-around horrible. They knew how to fight when cornered, and inflicted enough casualties on the Allies in the Sicily landings to dispel a lot of the British wartime propaganda on them. Yes, it suffered a great deal from its sub-standard equipment, and its commanders were amateurish. But they fought relatively well under Rommel on the offensive, and fought viciously on the defensive. And they weren’t out of the war in 1943–-they just changed sides and began fighting for the Allies.

Because America has a very very bad habit of sidelining other countries contributions in that war, and this feels like more of the same. Anyone who didn’t know their history and looked at that box would think that Britain wasn’t even involved but that the US was. Let me just illustrate what I mean: This game is called “Axis and Allies Europe 1940”, right? America was not even involved in the war in Europe in 1940! And not even in 1941! But what do we get on the box? Front and centre – Marshall. Why? And we also get Patton. Really? Europe 1940 – Patton? Again – Why?

**I’m pretty sure that if someone was actively looking to get Axis and Allies Europe 1940, they would have at least played it before, or heard about it from someone, and therefore knows about the British as a major power in the game. If someone who didn’t know their history gets the game (and Pacific) and realizes just how well represented the British faction is, well, there you go, instant remedy. If they don’t get the game and are really stupid enough to believe that Britain wasn’t even involved but the US was, well, I guess he isn’t cut out to play A&A is he? Good, that’s one less idiot other A&A players have to deal with.

Additionally, there are several illustrations on the box that depicts British military units. I’ll leave you to figure out where they are.**

Complaining is often conveniently written-off as “whining” when someone disagrees with the complaint being made, but that doesn’t actually invalidate the complaint. Plus, that was a very disingenuous depiction of what’s happening. Axis and Allies is a historical war game based on events that actually happened. I wonder how a US vet might feel if they were shown a box for P1940 in which the Brits were front and center and the US flag didn’t appear? I’m sure they’d love it.

**No, they’d probably, like me, not give a damn.

I’m not going to re-iterate my point here. It’s a freakin box cover; I don’t care what flag is there and what isn’t and I don’t plan to care. Yes, I agree that its absence is a little odd, and maybe we’ll see it somewhere in there, but I’ll reserve final judgements when I get the game.**

@LHoffman:

@UN:

Here’s the thing I want to know: when you’re only playing a game of Europe 1940, what will happen to the Soviet Pacific IPCs? Will a Soviet territory in Europe compensate for their absence, or will they simply be added in to the Soviet national income in Europe 1940?

Interesting question… I guess Russia is the only country this would pertain to because, although Britain and the US have territories on both maps, they would not necessarily need more money, if you follow me. Russia should probably get their full income, because they don’t play like a Britain or US and use half on one side of the globe and one half on the other side.

What about France? They have, what, French Indo-China in Pacific right? Would they get the income for that?

Well, we know the UK has a seperate income from its Pacific territories, including India. As for the United States and France…I’m really not sure.

I wonder if Krieg could enlighten us, but he’d probably get mauled by like 50 men in black, so…

As Calvin said:

1)Making Canada in independant power would make the UK poorer.

2)Just put Canadian tokens (that come with the game) next to all British units made in Canada, and shazaam! Canadian units.

This reminds me of a question: did Larry say how much ANZAC forces will be in Egypt?

@LHoffman:

The USSR can attack Germany/Italy before R4 if they are attacked first though, right?

What Calvin said.

Here’s the thing I want to know: when you’re only playing a game of Europe 1940, what will happen to the Soviet Pacific IPCs? Will a Soviet territory in Europe compensate for their absence, or will they simply be added in to the Soviet national income in Europe 1940?

@Brain:

It is just a shame that Canada doesn’t get to be their own power in the game, instead they just get to be a logo.

You know Larry said that it’s easy to have Canada houseruled as a full power.

I personally wouldn’t want Canada as a full power. We have enough Allied powers, and we don’t need to slow the game down more than it will be in Global 1940.

If you want to though, just put a Canadian national token next to each unit produced in Canada (Canada does come with its own national tokens).

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Although Japan may take one russian territry to destroy the NO that Russia gains 6 ipcs for every original german territory it has if Russia has all of its original territories.

The best way to de-incentivise Japan invading Russia is to make the territories 0 ipcs, or make the income only collectible by Russia

That’s a NO for the Russkies, hmmm? Didn’t know that. Still, although I don’t know what the initial set-up is, I think the Soviets and Japanese are better off ignoring each other. 18 infantry in their Pacific territory alone could be enough to make the Japanese player think twice before attacking any Soviet territory, even the Soviet Far East!

Perhaps, but if Russia has any original German territory, the Allies are probably winning, and I’d contend that that’s only possible if many of those 18 inf were moved to the Western(for Russia) front, leaving Eastern Russia exposed.

I’d think the Soviet player would be very hard pressed on the Eastern Front to actually send a good chunk of those Pacific infantry west. I know I wouldn’t; if I wanted a bunch of infantry I could simply buy them in European Russia.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Although Japan may take one russian territry to destroy the NO that Russia gains 6 ipcs for every original german territory it has if Russia has all of its original territories.

The best way to de-incentivise Japan invading Russia is to make the territories 0 ipcs, or make the income only collectible by Russia

That’s a NO for the Russkies, hmmm? Didn’t know that. Still, although I don’t know what the initial set-up is, I think the Soviets and Japanese are better off ignoring each other. 18 infantry in their Pacific territory alone could be enough to make the Japanese player think twice before attacking any Soviet territory, even the Soviet Far East!

@Dylan:

Like is it like declaration of war, or you can, but just wait.

For the Soviets? I don’t think they can declare war on any Axis power, period, until the 3rd-4th turn (not sure which, perhaps calvin knows…?).

Yeah so what’s going to happen with the Soviet’s and Japan can they fight does something need to happen?

Like calvin said, the two powers are best off ignoring each other for most of the game. If the fight goes badly for the Soviets, the Japanese would probably invade them. If the scales tip in favor of the Allies, the Soviets are more likely than not going to attack Japan.

As I said, the USSR can’t attack any Axis power for a few turns, which means if Japan foolishly attacks them, they’re going to regret it (unless they divert a huge chunk of their air force to assist, in which case that’s good–-less Japanese air power against the Chinese and Commonwealth forces.

@McMan:

I’m guessing with the Russian threat to Manchuria plus several occupied Chinese territories, the game won’t need to be balanced. Japan will have to stay honest in guarding its territories and won’t be able to swing all its troops against India.

That’s what I’m saying. The Soviets can’t resist taking Manchuria if it’s only guarded by a token force. Sure, the Japanese might push them back out, but a Soviet invasion of China would leave Japan in mortal danger in mainland Asia.

@Dylan:

@UN:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

G1: Crush France. If they’ve still survived by G2 you better prepare your forces to crush them for good on G2.

G2: Position as much as you can on the Soviet-German border.

G3: I think attacking the Soviets now would be the best, though without knowing what the start-up is for the countries I can’t be sure. Since Larry said the Soviets will have a much more impressive starting army this time around, I’d imagine it would be a interesting start to Operation Barboarossa.

Didn’t Larry say how much infantry the Soviets start off with?

He said there are 18 inf in the Pacific territories of Russia

That’s good. I don’t think the Japanese would be very smart in launching an early or mid-game attack on the USSR. That also means that if the Manchurian army moves down south, the Soviets probably won’t sit idle with an empty Manchuria.

I’m glad that a “Japanese distracting the Soviets by attacking their flank” is no longer a short-term strategy. The Soviets have enough to deal with against the Germans and Italians.

Okay so what’s the deal between Russia and Japan I’m confused, like in Pacific 40 they couldn’t fight, but now like!!! (111)

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. Do you mean what’s the deal between the USSR and Japan in Global or…?

@robbie358:

So I thought I’d share the game we played last night with you fine folks.

My friend Rick and I tag-teamed as Japan against 3 allied players and before we started we agreed on a few house rules.

1. We gave India a fully-loaded carrier off Malaya to protect it’s battleship and transports, ferry US/ANZAC fighters over from Queensland, and generally dissuade the J1.
2. We said that as soon as Japan declares war, the US gets it’s 40 IPC bonus to spend that turn.
3. We put one extra infantry in every Chinese territory to make them stronger.

It was actually a really good game… India was still going down by the time we had to go, but it wasn’t near as easy for Japan to grab it.  The US fleet was actually in a really good position in the Carolines to defend against any attack and threaten virtually every important territory.

SO do you think we went too far, or not far enough, or what?  Please do tell.

Very interesting setup. I think I’ll use your rules the next time I can play Pacific 1940 with my buddies. One of them is a very aggressive Japanese player (yes, he is Japanese and yes, he loves playing as Japan), so maybe this will dissuade him.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

G1: Crush France. If they’ve still survived by G2 you better prepare your forces to crush them for good on G2.

G2: Position as much as you can on the Soviet-German border.

G3: I think attacking the Soviets now would be the best, though without knowing what the start-up is for the countries I can’t be sure. Since Larry said the Soviets will have a much more impressive starting army this time around, I’d imagine it would be a interesting start to Operation Barboarossa.

Didn’t Larry say how much infantry the Soviets start off with?

He said there are 18 inf in the Pacific territories of Russia

That’s good. I don’t think the Japanese would be very smart in launching an early or mid-game attack on the USSR. That also means that if the Manchurian army moves down south, the Soviets probably won’t sit idle with an empty Manchuria.

I’m glad that a “Japanese distracting the Soviets by attacking their flank” is no longer a short-term strategy. The Soviets have enough to deal with against the Germans and Italians.

G1: Crush France. If they’ve still survived by G2 you better prepare your forces to crush them for good on G2.

G2: Position as much as you can on the Soviet-German border.

G3: I think attacking the Soviets now would be the best, though without knowing what the start-up is for the countries I can’t be sure. Since Larry said the Soviets will have a much more impressive starting army this time around, I’d imagine it would be a interesting start to Operation Barboarossa.

Didn’t Larry say how much infantry the Soviets start off with?

@GrizzlyMan:

I don’t think the Allies would automatically win if France wasn’t eliminated on the first round. Russia will probably start out pretty weak and won’t threaten Germany for a few turns. Plus there shouldn’t be many units in the UK to cause Germany any problems.

I don’t want France to be a complete walkover for the entire game. I’d like it of they at least took a part in some African battles, as they did in the actual war, and I want them to have a respectable navy. I think the best rule would be one similar to China’s: were, even if they loose their capital, they can still collect IPCs and build infantry and artillery in their African colonies

Also, I think Larry said the Soviets cannot attack any Axis power for a few turns, though I’m not sure as to the exact number. The Soviets WILL be well-represented, but just not in a position to defend themselves or attack.

I also agree that they should build infantry and artillery in the colonies, at least that means their power won’t steadily dwindle instead of getting increasingly more powerful, as they did in real life.

Well, most Frenchmen, and Poles, and members of other occupied countries who got the change to fight on conventionally did so because another country continued fighting without being occupied. Who was that country? It’s on the tip of my tongue… ah… nope, it’s gone. Airbrushed away.

Duh, it was Liechtenstein.