Hi ANZAC. For the HBG 1939 map, think of a 4x8 sheet of plywood. Its is HUGE and awesome. You need a big room for that size table plus room to walk around on all 4 sides. I only played the 1939 game one time and I can say it is definitely superior in a hundred different ways, but playing it is an order of magnitude more complex than global 1940. Global 1940 seems like the kiddie game next to it, which is nuts because global 1940 is not an easy game by any means. I’d say your best bet is to get the global 1940 if only for the pieces, and then blow the extra money for the 1939 map and elite pieces if and when you and your crew outgrow it. Another option is to play 1940 on this site with triplea.
How about giving US improved shipyards when at war to help balance game
-
We’ve played a couple of rounds this new Alpha and Alpha+ and Alpha +1 are balancing it out quite nice. If you equal opponents, one of two things happens…
1- Axis wins quick by taking London or Japan taking India in the 3rd or 4th turn. The US can’t get in the game in time to be of use.
2- The Allies win because London and Russia hold on for dear life and the US totally overwhelms everyone with shear numbers.
If you get into the later turns, it’s only a matter of time before the US has WAY more than everyone else. WORLD DOMINATION!!! LOL
It seems that, in your experience, the axis are having a race against time.
-
There is no need to “balance” anything.
Certainly not at this stage, it’s pretty close.
The American player has to spend on both fronts, and have to know what they are doing. The victory cities make it EASIER for the allies to focus.
Knowing that all you have to do to prevent Japan from winning, is owning NSW, HAW, and WUS. Focus on that. Send everything else to Europe or Africa.
If you are playing the allies, as long as you are making more money every turn, there is no reason to surrender.
-
It’s hard for the US to defend Sydney and focus on Europe.
-
@SalothSar:
Okay never mind I did not see that added when I played last. Changes are coming fast but this is a really cool thing. I will have to play with that to make a decision now. Improved shipyards on top of that is probably too much.
Larry is considering removing 1 or 2 of those extra planes.
did he tell you that personally or is it more of the CHL rumour mill?
He told that to someone else. If you go to his website, you can see it for yourself.
-
@SalothSar:
It’s hard for the US to defend Sydney and focus on Europe.
enough little boy, time for beddyby
How nice. Instead of responding to my argument, you make an ad hominem attack.
-
SalothSar has PMed me this:
You just get it do you…you lack the foresight to ever be any good at this game. Your viewpoint will be forever a one dimensional one. Just like your skills…the only thing you contribute here is SPAM!
I think it speaks for itself.
-
I’ll also let the previous post speak for itself.
-
Sorry, I don’t need a teacher since I know how to form a grammatically correct sentence.
Going back to the topic of the thread(sort of), I think the United States setup is okay as it is. It prevents Japan from getting an easy victory but does not make it too easy for the US to put everything in Europe.
-
I’m cool with the split. US gets 40+IPC to spend in each theater once at war. FDR can choose to put it all in either coast on any one turn so that’s a little advantage to him over the UK/India type set up.
If the Axis go hell bound after either coast the US has to pay attention to destroyer screens. That’s fine.
-
I would abuse improved shipyards right off the bat. I would make sure that the USA had the only floating major navy in both oceans. No point of having an edge if you don’t abuse it. And Japan can’t get its cites if they have no fleet.
Suggested Topics
