Would it be too much trouble to spell my name correctly? 

I'll do it later.

Oops sorry  Thanks in advance.


Also thanks for your effort D_Runyon, it is helpful.

I know my group is going to try to get 8 players in by creating a "Franco-Chinese" player

Why does someone in your group have a curfew (LOL), both those powers could be out of the game by the 3rd turn.

Just kidding, could be fun just to try to keep the underdog in the game.

It all depends on how many players you have. If there are 7 then the Anz player will get rather board. So yea I would give him other minor powers (France/China) to keep him interested in the game. If you have 6 players, and you split 2 axis, and 4 allies, then the person that ends up w/Anz should also get more, same as above. I don't think there will be a set match up though, it will be up to the people playing the game.

If you have 3 people playing allies, I would try to make sure that all 3 people are involved from the get go. The UK will be at war, so no problem there (would keep UK E & P together). The Anz could really go to the UK or US in my book, they will be a minor ally to both (most will keep them w/UK).  Russia and US may be out of the action for a while. I would pair China to Russia because I think Russia will come to China's aid in the Global game and they will most likely have to work together vs ���. That leaves France going to US, so that player will have something to do the first few rounds as well. Any surviving French units (land or sea) will most likely just back up US (or UK) positions. The US & French turn order is back to back, so it would be easier for them to work together, as Italy goes between UK and France.

Sounds like my vote for the ally side w/3players would be:
Russia + China
UK (E & P) + Anz
USA + France

I also think for a change of pace people may split into more of a theater type game (like Napoleon has suggested) every now and again. The UK would be obvious, but some might take it further and may even split the US between two people working in different theaters. It would be fun to negotiate the US income, and how to play it.

The best part is that there are so many como's for the allies. So each time you play you can change things up.

djensen, would it be to much trouble to put together a chart showing all the neutrals (Europe, Mid East, Africa, and S America etc). I can see some of them, but can't make out others. I have looked through the many pictures you have posted on set-up, and during the game you are playing (very cool).  I understand if not able to do so, because you are playing the game, or attending to other requests.

If possible list their starting alliance (pro axis, pro ally, or strict). The standing armies, and the value of the territory.


Some thing like:
Finland -pro axis-4 inf/worth 2 ipc
Yugo    -pro ally-5 inf/worth 2 ipc
Sweden-strict   -6 inf/worth 3 ipc

dj thanks for the update on the rules (especially neutrals). Have a question though.
If you attack a neutral friendly to the other side (combat phase), you fight the standing army (printed on the map). Say the battle goes bad (or you retreat?), leaving 1 neutral inf. Your enemy still has to non combat in to take ownership right?. In the mean time what power represents the surviving inf (multiple powers could come in). Do you just use the inf that you think will end up with the territory?

part 2-Does the friendly power coming in after your debacle only get the units left after your battle (could be none), or does he get the full standing army it once had. I would think only what remains, but had to ask.

PS: I like the domino effect that comes w/strict neutrals. I understand there had to be some kind of risk/reward for game play. I think that many people will not like this link however, sighting historical reasons, or simply that what happens in Turkey, shouldn't affect what happens in Spain or Mongolia etc...  This is a rather over simplistic way to handle it, and I can see a ton of house rules looking for Larry's endorsement coming up in the future.

Edit: In a global game (if rules stay the same) it does seem kinda funny that if Italy/Germany decide to invade Turkey, that Russia basically gets 6 free inf (Mongolia) for their Siberian front. Or even better the US makes its way over there to claim the Mongolians to get boots into China. I would say that if your side plans on taking one strict neutral you may think about setting up multiple targets to take them on as neutrals (weak), rather then giving extra inf to you enemies.

Here's the link, Larry jumps in on the 4th page.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2386

By the way Calvin, Larry has been very active on your thread on his site titled "Balancing Pacific 1940" thought you should know. Check it out, he is ranking suggestions for possible changes to Pac40.

(Sorry to side track this thread)

They can attack the Italian's sz 95 w/cruiser and ftr from Egypt (NB) & dd, Tac from Gib (NB). Then the carrier could meet up with the French in sz 93 to pick up surviving air (could bring carrier in but I wouldn't, or could send carrier to England if air is killed). I'm not sure it would be good strat (risky), but the bulk of the Italian navy could be at the bottom, and if you get lucky (3 hits) they may only get off 2 shots. If it goes two rounds both sides should take heavy losses (carrier heads to England w/no surviving air units). It may cost you in Egypt, but taking out the big guns for Italy (+ a trp) could be worth it.

Just looking at the set-up dj posted, I was wondering if the UK should try to save the French Med fleet in sz 93 (cruiser/dd). They could get the carrier, dd and tac (Gibr sz 91), and the cruiser from Egypt as well, and fly out a ftr. Seems like the more ships the allies can save the better. If Italy does attack (with bb, 2 crusers, dd and 2 ftrs) it should be costly to them. Plus if they attack the combined fleet (more French losses) they are not using bombardment and may be exposing their tpts if they also want to go to Africa.

It also looks like the UK could attack the Italian BB, Cruiser, and transport in sz 95 on UK1, before the Italians merge their fleet, or buy an AB on Sicily or Sardinia for scramble protection.

That's just a quick look at the Med, what do you guy's think?

Larry has followed through with his info gathering. He is ranking ideas, and asking us to do the same.

I just called WOTC 3 days ago (# is on back cover of your rulebook). I talked to Andrew. He was aware of the unit shortage (tacs) and wrong charts that came w/Pac. I told him that when Euro comes out in a few weeks that I would need more mech inf. I asked for 6 tac's, 6 mech for ���. I also asked for the correct battle board, and the correct production chart for the game. He was very pleasant and put through my request w/o hesitation. He said my order should be here in about week or so. I will post here when I get my package. I don't know, I'm kinda old school and prefer to talk to people in person. Not sure if that had anything to do with it or not.

In global UK will have options they don't have in Pac40. There will be UK reinforcements in the area (as well as Russian), so they may be able to bulk up and stand pat. UK will have more navy in the region as well.  Another option (not so great) would be to side step you (move to W India) and give you (E) India (trade it). Then come back to liberate, and destroy your ��� ground troops next turn (you will have no air cover, unless Italy jumps in). If you are attempting a J3 India crush, chances are the UK (Pac) won't have that much $, so it would only be handing over a few bucks. I know this isn't the greatest way to go, but it might delay ��� a round or two for other things to develop. An India crush w/J3 attack could be worth it if you catch the UK player in a coma, right after he gets the $ islands.

Most people seem to think the J1 attack will not happen in the global game (not wanting US involved in Europe early). How do you think it will go Jim (taken in account that we don't know set-up yet).

Its funny only one person picked Japan so far (and they didn't plug in any comments), are we tired of P40? Someone is going to have to play ��� in global. I think ��� will be more fun to play in the global game. Many of the tactics used in Pac will be obsolete in global for the most part. The allies will have many more options. You will have to basically forget most things you did in P40, and reinvent the wheel.

I like UK, they're in it from the beginning. Multiple IC/fronts, and some tough decisions. If they do well the allies do well. That being said our first global game will most likely be random.

I agree w/Proud American. Its an average 3 star (I expected less problems). The rule set errors, orig set-up changes, not enough units, the wrong charts, and now the overwhelming opinion that it has balance issues makes it sub par as a stand alone game IMO. I do have to say though, that w/errata (Kreighund), and help from WOTC (new units/charts), that it might move up 1/2 a star in my book. I think the game mechanics are in good shape, and they are trying to make amends. Honestly though given the option of which game to play (once Euro is out), I would definitely choose global as #1, followed by Euro-40, then rank Pac-40 as the red headed stepchild. I don't see us playing Pac once Euro is out. Pac is really a 2-3 player game, we usually play with 4. As of late we are playing AA50 more, but that will change in a little over 3 weeks.