Hey was on board game geek yesterday and the new set-up is posted (6.1),  still no units in South America    

Looks like they added to the tech system (haven't played w/tech yet) There are also some new rules included too, but the complete new rules booklet isn't due out sometime in October from what I've heard.

As others have said this is an awesome game, but it does take some time to get familiar with it. It isn't a short game either, and it takes a while to get through the first couple turns (probably more so then G40 the first time). The Germans basically take two turns on G1, because they get that blitzkrieg on both land and sea (see the rules). As the Germans your going to want to think that out to maximize your advantage, plus they also get minor axis powers to control.

The Japanese get a sneak attack to use before turn 8. They can choose three battles that basically makes anyone they aren't yet a war with defenseless the first round of  battle (USA is at even more of a disadvantage). As Japan you get to make that sneak attack (get a big bonus for doing it), then you get to non combat those units after the battle to get out of harms way, or set-up an attack for the next turn. As Japan your also going to want to take advantage, but it isn't as easy to pull of as you think if the US is getting close to being able to declare war.

The US & Russia roll dice to determine when they can enter the war which is a very cool system (nothing like G40) so it is different each game. All the neutral countries are in play (not like G40 at all). Some of them become active after certain events, so you need to be well aware regardless what side your playing. Your going to need to read through the rules for these things, post questions, and read again, and then it is still trial & error. We ended up playing 4-5 rounds the first game, then started over once we got a feel for it.

If you built a sub pen (like off the coast of France) would you be able to build subs from it w/o an IC, or would it just be someplace to keep them safe??

Yep, the power of Google LOL

Koba, I agree that Russia was buying time, with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (10 year non-aggression pact, with the division of Eastern Europe), so was Germany. It gave the Russians both the time, and buffer states they wanted (although both parties knew it wouldn't last that long). The first secrete protocol divided Poland, and assigned eastern Poland, parts of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, to the Soviet sphere of influence. Most of Lithuania was originally in the German sphere (next to Prussia), but was placed under the Soviets influence in the second secrete protocol the following month from what I've recently read. The Germans steam rolled Poland, and the Russians came crashing through a couple weeks later to claim their part (East Poland in game terms). The countries of the Baltic States were forced into treaties of mutual assistance with Russia so they could establish military bases and a military presence.

From the maps I've seen of the intent of "the spheres of influence", and what Russia actually gained afterwords in Eastern Europe, it looks like the Soviets got more then they bargained for. The Germans didn't go to war with Russia for claiming more territory then agreed upon at the time, although they were probably PO about it. They were planning an invasion of France, and couldn't sustain a two front war. The Russians wouldn't have DOW either if Germany would have moved into the Soviet zones, because they were in a wait and see how far the Germans would go vs Western allies. Both parties had an agenda, and neither wanted to go to war with each other at that time.

All I was saying is that the game allows for the Russians to go to full production, and declare war (very drastic) if the Germans conquer East Poland G1 (a blatant breach of the secrete protocol). I'm not too sure that the Russians were willing to do that (and it doesn't sound like you do either), and there is nothing stopping the Germans from claiming the Baltic states G1 which was also in the Soviet sphere of influence (move up the war production slightly, but defiantly not DOW because of it). I was simply looking at ratcheting up the Russians war production if either of these territories were taken G1 (East Poland being more valuable on that scale), rather then an all out war if the Germans take East Poland.

Strange to say that I agree w/IL. I can't see Larry opening himself up to yet another set-up change for G40 for a personal laundry list. I would rather see him look into a 39, 41, or 42 version. I have bought the 1939 map from HBG, and played through a couple of games with their set-up and rule set, it's a blast.

BTW I have given Russia a bomber in a couple games of G40 (seems like a good fit). One game it ended up on England so the Russians could use the sub and bomber to kill off the German blocker ship (dd) off the coast of France that was delaying the US invasion of Norway via Gibraltar. It was a good move, but hardly seemed historical with that giant maroon plane sitting on London LOL

Quick suggestion about the Russian war production.

The secret protocol of the Ribbentrop and Molotov pact put both East Poland, and Baltic States in the Russian sphere of influence. The rules allow for the Russian to go to full production and declare war if the Germans capture E Poland G1, but does nothing about Baltic States (which Germany could easily take G1). Just thought that a breach of this deal just struck would have flared tensions.

Maybe +10 (or +15) to Russian production if the Germans capture Baltic States G1?  

I was actually thinking that Russia probably wouldn't be ready to declare war right away if Hitler broke the deal by taking E Poland, but would have been on high alert and kicked up to war time production.

Maybe +30 to Russian production if the Germans capture East Poland G1
Maybe +15 to Russian production if the Germans capture Baltic States G1

or something in between?

It would allow Russia more income if the Germans break the pact, but they would still have to rely on the production dice to go to war which would show how unprepared they were (delay at least 1 turn). Maybe even allow them to fight in Poland/Baltic States like they do in Finland w/o an official DOW if Germany breaks the pact by capturing either one G1?

1) Are both Chinese powers allowed to occupy the same territory?

2) Red China and Russia are allowed to take over Nat Chinese territories if they are left empty, or they capture them from axis (income goes to Red China). If Szechuan (Nat Chinese capital) is left empty, but still owned by the Nat Chinese and the Red Chinese move in to claim it for the 1 IPC, do they also get the Nat Chinese bankroll? Is the income transferred to Pingliang (Red Chinese capital)? If not would it be returned to the bank because they lost their capital. Could it actually be an allied strat so Japan doesn't end up with it?

2nd question
Japan can only sneak attack someone they are not at war with right. So if they attack the Philippines in one turn, they can't do a sneak attack on the US later.

Under the Japanese sneak attack, it says "IF NOT AT WAR WITH JAPAN, MAY NOT RETURN FIRE etc..." in the middle of the sentence. The US rules also says the first time attacked I believe (don't have the rules in front of me). In our game the Japanese declared war on both the US & UK (and Anz by default I guess) took Hong Kong, Singapore, and Manila w/o a sneak attack, so I don't believe they can use their sneak attack now, because they are at war with everyone, but I'm not sure?

Yeah G40II should have its own title (thread) on the boards so you don't have to wade through stuff that doesn't pertain to the new game. At the very least have its own sticky in the active Global 1940 thread. They did it with "Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition", so why not with Axis & Allies Global 1940 2nd Edition. Should probably do the same w/individual games too (P40II, and E40II). Some ppl may play the individual games now that there are rules (and I would imagine NOs) for them.

Come-on IL, lets get on this before you have to move like 100 posts over to the new thread LOL

Cool, I have seen the pictures you have posted, and game reports. The detailed paint job you have done with your units must give your games more depth. It looks like a lot of fun to add more units to your collection, and rules to go with them.

I hope I was of some help to you and that my assumptions are correct. Man, I can't wait until the revised rules come out. Again, I'd like to see more marker rules and a revised set-up.

Koba, you have been a great help. It is good to know that others have had similar questions and came up with the same results in their own sidebars. Much of the stuff I have brought up we had questioned or debated, then played through already doing what we thought was right at the time. Sounds like your group does this too, it's kinda just make it up as you go in some cases, then check to see if you were right LOL.

I comment about those things here just to make sure our assumptions were right, or at least get a consequences from other players like you. I know they are revising the rules, and set ups as we speak. They are also checking this site often, so I feel it is up to us to let them know if we find something that needs clarification, or maybe even minor suggestions. It will make it easier as more people start to play this awesome game. I am also looking forward to these revisions, hopefully soon. I was thinking that maybe they might do any changes in red so they are easier to pick out.

Got some more?

Target aircraft:
I know that naval ftrs can target at 1, and torpedo bmrs can target at 4 (or less). It says you choose targets before you roll dice, not sure what this means. Does each plane target different ships (can send up to two planes at capital 2-hit ships). Or are you allowed to send 3-4 of these air units at say 1 battle ship (could over kill it, and maybe all your hits won't count?). Say you send 4 torpedo bmrs at one battleship, and two of them rolled 3's (can choose target so b-ship is dead), but the other two rolled 5's (hits but can't choose). Do you loose the the two hits at 5's (because you chose to send them all at the B-ship), or do you count their hits in the normal battle for the enemy to choose more causalities.

We have been rolling the dice, and if you roll low enough to target then you choose (but this is obviously wrong).

Both target planes say surface ships can be targeted (torp bmr can also target detected subs). So I guess transports can be targeted, but would get to fire at the planes (transports fire at 1 vs air units)?

If targeted ship is sunk (say torpedo brm hit 4 or less), does that ship return fire, or is it removed immediately. If the target was a battleship, and it takes one hit does it now return fire as a damaged battleship at 3 or less.


kamikaze clarification:
1) I take it that Japanese kamikaze don't target ships, the defender would choose?
2) It isn't a kill shot, and if other units are used in the attack the ship that takes the hit (if kami hit) would return fire.
3) The kami is removed from the board after it rolls, so can't be taken as a casualty.

Carriers that take a hit:
I see that a damaged carrier can retrieve planes, but can't launch air units. I know you wouldn't be able to launch an attack, just wanted to make sure that "can't launch air units" also includes defense. So if a damaged carrier retrieves planes they would be considered cargo, and can't defend in the air if the carrier is attacked before it is repaired right.  

It looks like the territory of Korea is included in the Soviet/Japanese Non Aggression Pact - rules now.

I like that, it makes sense

That's a bummer

I wouldn't mind points given for both VC & goals (NOs), and yea i believe certain VC (capitals?) and hard to achieve NOs should carry more weight in that point system. I also think there are way too many NO's in the game though (as many do), and wouldn't mind seeing a reduction. Would like it more if capturing territories was the the main engine, and if you capture a VC you get a set income bonus, and point(s) towards victory conditions. Let the NO's work as a supplement to income, instead of generating like 1/3 of it or replacing lost territories. Reduce both the number of NOs, and the amount of income NOs generate, but allow them to work towards victory conditions (works for me).

I'm not sure what that table would look like, but it would make the game more dimensional IMO.