So if new changes are Final.. when will Larry update his site?

@JPatrickRemiger

Welcome!

mainah covered most of the points, and I mostly agree.

TripleA is really good. I estimated it decreased the amount of time it takes for me to play a solo game (by myself, I do that a lot) by 50-90%. Playing by the board is fun though if you have the time.

Definitely play online against real humans. mainah’s right, I learned a lot more from those than solo games. Let me know if you want to play.

AI’s not great, they’re only useful after you’ve become moderately good for quirky projects.

For IPCs, I use the National Production Chart. It’s definitely prone to errors, hence why I like TripleA (computer does it for you).

Personally I started with one theater first to get a feel for the basic mechanics (I progressed from 1941, which I played a ton of), but progressed to Global quickly (possibly one or two games too quickly). If this is your first Axis and Allies game ever, if you want to take things slowly start with one theater.

Once I started Global 1940 I’ve never looked back (only a few times to test single theater strategies).

@aequitas-et-veritas said in New to G40...will not playing w/NOs break the game?:

@taamvan said in New to G40...will not playing w/NOs break the game?:

we are omitting that shutting off US NOs means they are at minimum income all game. A different game for sure…but probably not an Allied advantage

I agree on that.
The US needs any IPC they can get!
I played a few games with minimum income for the Allies. You will unlikely win. The Allies depend on the NO’s, so does the Axis powers.
You may experiment with diffrent NO’s or change them, but shutting them off is not a good idea Imo.

We play with NOs off except USA +30 when at war. It works great for us. Give it a try.

Ahhh, fair enough. Sorry did not see…

-e

@WARRIOR888:

Did any other scuplts change in the Pacific 1940 Second Edition besides the ones mentioned already?Â

I finished inspecting the new Global sculpts last weekend and here are the main differences I was able to spot between old and new versions of sculpts which are supposed to represent the same model of equipment.  I took a few pictures (see below) to go with these notes.  (I haven’t noted cases in which some of the details on the sculpts are simply defined a little better in one version than in another, without being different in actual shape.)  Most of the differences involve sculpts which were introduced in 1942 (2nd ed) game, and which were then replaced by revised sculpts in the Global 1940 (2nd ed) game.

Artillery: 105mm LeFH 18 howitzer (German)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which the breech and the undercarriage are connected.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, there is a gap between them.

Antiaircraft Gun: 3.7in QFAA (British)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed). In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, there is an additional structure underneath the thick lower part of the barrel assembly, at the point where it connects to the mounting.

Antiaircraft Gun: M1939 85mm (Russian)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which the gun ends with a flared muzzle brake.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, the barrel is more slender and ends with grooves running around the barrel tip.

Antiaircraft Gun: 88mm FLAK 41 (German)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which a spur extends backward from the base of the breech, the horizontal element projecting forward from the front of the mounting is cylindrical, and two of the mounting’s legs are thicker than the other two.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, the breech is shorter, the horizontal element projecting forward from the front of the mounting is oval, and the mounting’s four legs are the same thickness.

Antiaircraft Gun: 75mm Type 88 (Japanese)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which the mounting’s four legs are thicker than in the 1940 (2nd ed) version.

Cruiser: Kent class (British)

Introduced in Anniversary.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, the third funnel is short instead of being the same height at the other two.

Sculpt Differences 1.jpg
Sculpt Differences 2.jpg

@Maddog77:

What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile. Do some of you need a time out? Or do I have to get the belt out?  :-D

As far as the “rule” goes, I like the current 3-3-2-6. Only for the defense factor. But when I play the original, it’s 3-2-2-5. So I don’t rely on tanks for defense as much as I do a stack of Infantry.

Amazing! when tanks defend at three I use them for defense
when tanks defend at two I use infantry for defense

If you read the last couple of posts, you might conclude that it was finished.

And as was explained the entire discussion is about a unit that does not exist, a 2-2-2-4 mech that can blitz alone. To play online with this new idea would require some programming?

I ask because i never play online.

I think he means an i-phone app.

maybe you could have multiple people play a country, with each controlling a portion of the countries’ forces to have teamwork included in it.