The Soviets would have to give up Kiev early on.  The payback is that if they weather the storm it gives them something important to grab back before Germany is beaten.  There’s certainly a stronger case for a starting factory here than, say, Stalingrad.

The problem with Vladivostok is that the map places it in Korea.  Similarly Cape Town would be in the anomalous “South West Africa”, hence (I assume) the suggestion of JoBurg.

Addis Ababa is another possible for making Africa more valuable, and giving Italy something else to defend.

I also like Peking (a Soviet target in Japanese territory); Novosibirsk VC would be Chelyabinsk (the reverse).

It’s sensible to treat the Bosporus as a canal since the gap is so narrow.

But if they could get Turkey right then why stick with the silly placement of Suez between two tts when it should run through Egypt?

EDIT: They didn’t get Turkey right, as it should have a border with Bulgaria.

In AAP40, placing a Naval Base at Alaska would effect 2 seazones.

I think the way it is will work fine for AAE40/AAG40.

Exactly- if you look at the hi-res pic of the board- it looks like the desert runs along the border between West and Central.  While the border itself it bright blue (not covered by the white of the desert as it is along the SW border of Algeria) the desert looks like it covers the entire border on the FWA side- making a crossing impossible.  But it Does need to be clarified.

I solved this problem on my map by making the Congo an impassable jungle zone; the coastal strip is given to Angola.

There are so many problems with the roundels used (USSR is a fantasy, Italy is the Allied design, Canada maple leaf appeared post war, DEI should be orange triangle etc. etc. etc.) that griping about Congo is spitting in the face of a hurricane.

I also think there should be more islands in the north Atlantic, south Atlantic and Indian Oceans as landing strips for aircraft, particularly if you’re going to include the likes of Malta and Cyprus so close to land.

@WILD:

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)

I know. It started with 1-2 pages. A few weeks later, 15 pages

I’ve said it many times, by why not do it again! :-D

2 Player Game
1. Germany, Japan and Italy
2. USSR, UK, ANZAC, US, China, and France

3 Player Game
1. Germany, Japan, and Italy
2. USSR, UK, and France
3. ANZAC, China, and US

4 Player Game
1. Germany and Italy
2. USSR, UK, and France
3. ANZAC, China, and US
4. Japan

5 Player Game
1. Germany and Italy
2. USSR
3. UK, France, and China
4. Japan
5. US and ANZAC

6 Player Game
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. USSR
4. US and ANZAC
5. Japan
6. UK, France, and China

Yeah

Also in 5 and 6 China can be with the Russians.

Global National Objectives please.

Global and Europe (when you have time)

The attack is way over 90 % but you will likely loose all of you inf and polly a bunch of mec infs and arts aswell (and if you are very unlucky a tank). And you wont take normandy in turn one. If it sinks you another battleship I would say its worth it.

@maverick_76:

Why did I just waste my time reading these posts?

Because you did.

As some players have said, the problem is not with the land territories, but with naval units.

Anyway AA is a working project and that is what fascinates me the most. Fauls tend to be corrected in future versions.

In a future map perhaps that aligment could be fixed and maybe Pacific and Atlantic could be wider.

It’s rather funny because I’ve been thinking the same exact thing as you. Before I knew the official setup, I though Germany would have close to 20 aircrafts… I managed to work on the setup too and, based on the strength of the airforces in Europe (remember that Germany has only 8 aircrafts), I removed even more aircrafts from the Pacific map than you did. Now Japan “only” has 12 aircrafts (this is enough IMO), US 4, India 1, China 1 and ANZAC 1.  In order to balance things IPC-wise, I had to remove 8 infantries in Russia along with a few other ones on the allied side. (Look on wikipedia: 5 infantries in Malaya is way too much when compared to the armies in Europe.) I’m gonna try this as soon as possible and see if it’s balanced (and fun…).

Thank you,

After consulting the rules I see that you are right. I only thought they lost the IPC on hand but where still able to collect income. Loosing the IPC on hand seems like a harsh enough punishment imo. It is also a good representation of the chaos that a country will go thro after the loss of its capital. Not being able to collect income when not in control of your capital takes away a few interesting aspects of the game as the Britts fighting on from Canada and SA, the Russians continuing to fight on after the fall of Moscow and my really cool free French empire in South America  :wink:.

Well at least its not Geographically challenged cerebrum like Africa

The Allies had hard battles to take over Vichy territories like Madagascar and Syria. If we’re going to have complicated rules on small neutrals, then the disposition of large colonies held by player nations is critical.

Turn 2:  Italy:  4 INF(plus one more that invads Transjordan)=5 INF, 2 MECH, 1 ARTY, 1 ARM(plus one that invades Transjordan)=2 ARM, 2 FTR’s from Italy.  Thats, IT=1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,3 vs UK=2,2,2,2,3,4(assuming the FTR stays there).  Thats a win for Italy.  Italy can get 1 TRS to SZ98.

The French INF on Italy’s heel are stopped by the two INF in Libya.  There is no TRS in S. Africa, unless you think buying one there would be a good idea…in which case UK is not building 9 INF in UK for Sea Lion.  Germany should at the very least threaten Sea Lion by BOTH destroying the RAF and with its initial builds to force UK to both try to stop it with its fleet AND prepare for Sea Lion by building 9 INF in UK.

If the UK player does the right thing by using the CV/TAC and DD to try to avert Sea Lion, then Italy can get another INF and ARM, plus shore bombardment.

Man I cannot wait to try these gambits out! Too bad I’m gonna be knee deep in homework and studying by the time I get the game (school starts 8/19 for me).

Miamibeach, true if you can counter the SZ112 fleet of Germany you don’t go after the Italians I guess.

However if you can’t or Germany does not go Sea Lion this is very good attack and I am not quite sure this attack was foreseen during playtest.

p.s. you talk about 9 inf defending UK, but what about the Canadian troops coming in?

there’s always seems to be an exception to the rule

so i think this may be the case