Posts made by Franklin_Cain

While tanks are more expensive, regular infantry is just too slow. For 12 IPCs, Japan has the choice between 2 tanks or 4 infantry or 3 mechanized infantry (for the sake of this argument, I am ignoring the requirement for additional factories, at the moment). For me, it just makes more sense to use mechanized infantry instead of just regular infantry as Japan’s cannon fodder on the mainland.

Franklin

@hengst

Using black for the “tread” doesn’t quite work, as you can see, because of the bracket piece(s) that connect to them.

Also, I was deliberately using a monochromatic color scheme, as a “hat tip” to the game.

Thanks!
Franklin

I came up with a cute little model in LEGO, for a tiny tank. Here are some tanks in the various colors for 1940 Global, for your amusement.

Franklin

I need to get some extra counters for my 1940 Global game. I need about ten to twelve of each of the following, please:

• Germany control marker
• Minor industrial facility

I want for these to either be actual game pieces (from a spare game set) or else virtually identical to official game tokens.

Please let me know your product availability and prices, please.

Thank you,
Franklin

I’ve uploaded the list of house rules I’ve come up with here:
https://fcain.tripod.com/axis_allies/house_rules.txt
I’d appreciate your thoughts on these.

I’m currently running a (test) game using these house rules (using my “Turn Order, Version 2”), taking several days to think about each team’s decisions. So far, it’s just England (and what little remains of France’s fleet) against the Nazis and the Fascists in the European theater, with only China fighting against Japan in Asia, with America and the Soviets still on the sidelines. I’m currently writing up Turn 3 for the Allies. I’m keeping detailed reports of each team’s turn. When I get to a stopping point (i.e. when I think my scenario has played out to a good background for an alternate timeline setting for one of my RPG campaigns), I’d be happy to share these write-ups, if any of you are interested.

Thanks,
Franklin

Huzzah! ^_^
What was wrong, if I may ask?

Thanks,
Franklin

Clicking on that icon (the column of three dots) shows me these options:

Bookmark
Share this Post
x Facebook
x Twitter

If the post in question is one of my own, I also see options for edit and delete.

Thanks,
Franklin

Do the forums have some means of reporting spam posts, to flag those posts for action by the forum admins?

Thanks,
Franklin

Well, first of all, I’d love to have had a stash of the “Union Jack” roundels, for the British Raj (i.e. UK’s eastern economy).

For my own use (and my own house rules), I’d also find it useful to have certain two-sided roundels:

• UK, with Canada on reverse
• Union Jack, with ANZAC on reverse

On a related note, even though they aren’t round (and hence not “roundels”), I’d have liked for the factory markers to also be two-sided, with the minor factory symbol on one side, and the major factory symbol on the reverse.

Having a reverse side on the air base markers – to indicate which air bases have scrambled this turn – would have been useful.

I hope these ideas prove useful to you. I look forward to hearing what options you can provide for these ideas of mine.

Thanks,
Franklin

Because so many of the ship types are too similar (to my admittedly weak eyesight, at least), I have decided to use some poker chips of various colors as bases for these ships. These poker chips are the same exact size and type as the white/grey, red, and green ones already included in the game.

Since we need to be able to tip the capital ships (battleships and aircraft carriers) onto their sides (to indicate when they are damaged), I don’t need to uses poker chip bases for them. That leaves the other four classes (cruisers; destroyers; subs; transports). Since I did not want for these chips to use any color that is already used by the game pieces (wither as chips or as units), that left me with purple, orange, yellow, and pink as my options.

So, I’ll be using purple for cruisers, orange for destroyers, yellow for submarines, and pink for transports.

Here is an image of the work in progress: my cruisers on purple poker-chip bases.

Thanks for tolerating my bragging about my project. ^_^

Franklin

Because everyone can use more oil, I am considering adding the following “house rule.” I’d be grateful for your thoughts and feedback, please.

Thanks,
Franklin

Every Power at war (except China; see below) – even if they are at war against only one enemy Power – receives the following additional National Objective and Bonus Income. (Per the rules-as-written, this was only for Germany and Italy.)

When at War:
(*) 2 IPCs per territory for controlling Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia. Theme: Access to strategic oil reserves.

Since China fights strictly defensively, China will never be able to control any of these territories. Therefore, this N.O./B.I. does not apply to China.

Given this nation’s tumultuous past all throughout human history, up to and including recent years, I believe that Afghanistan should NEVER become a friendly neutral, regardless of circumstances. I believe it would be more authentic for Afghanistan to never become Pro-Allies or Pro-Axis.

Thoughts?
Thanks,
Franklin

It is my opinion that the control marker for Holland/Belgium should actually be the Dutch control marker, instead of Germany’s. Germany still starts the game controlling this territory. But I do not believe it is proper for Germany to be able to build a MAJOR industrial complex there. Also, I believe this territory should be treated as a formerly-neutral territory (so that it is never “liberated” to Germany).

Has this been covered in an errata? If so, I did not find this. IF it was covered in a previous errata, could someone please post a link to that source?

In any case, I’d appreciate your thoughts on this idea.

Thank you.
Franklin

In the rules-as-written, Germany and Italy share a National Objective and Bonus Income of 2 IPCs per territory for controlling Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia, under the “theme” of “access to strategic oil reserves.” I’ve got two questions about this…

Q1) First of all, shouldn’t this bonus be for any Power that is at war (even Japan, if it can get that far west), not just Germany and Italy?

Q2) Secondly, what about Saudi Arabia? Why isn’t that territory included in this list? (Yes, I know, they are strictly neutral. But still…) Are the Saudi oil fields not sufficiently developed in the 1940s to be strategically desirable?

I’d appreciate your thoughts on these, especially from any history buffs who can give relevant insights on Saudi Arabia’s value in 1940 (per Q2, above).

Thanks! ;-)
Franklin

Being a fan of LEGO toys, I came up with a design for types of Industrial Complexes. Hope it’s all right to share here. ;-)

Thanks,
Franklin

Before I purchase some of these “Union Jack” roundels from HBG (“https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Britain-Union-Jack-1801-P-Flag-10Set_p_1405.html”), I wanted to get feedback from the community, specifically with regards to how they compare in size to the official markers included in the game.

Are they the same size? If not, how close are they?

Thanks! ;-)
Franklin

@panther (re: “Contact” link)
Already did.

Thanks,
Franklin

Trying to register on your parent website (“https://fieldmarshalgames.com/login”), to place an order, but it isn’t working for me.

Please advise.

Thanks,
Franklin

So, tl;dr: the Canada markers mean nothing, but are a neat tease at what could have been.

Well, fooey. Sorry, Canada. Maybe in “House Rules” territory, you’ll be promoted to a separate power (ala France or ANZAC).

(snip interesting trivia on Canadian history)

Thanks for the history lesson(s). ;-)
Franklin

If I’ve checked correctly, here is the complete list of Victory Cities:

Berlin (Europe) (Axis Capital)
Cairo (Europe)
Calcutta (Pacific)
Hong Kong (Pacific)
Honolulu (Pacific)
Leningrad (Europe)
London (Europe) (Allied Capital)
Manila (Pacific)
Moscow (Europe) (Allied Capital)
Ottowa (Europe)
Paris (Europe) (Allied Capital)
Rome (Europe) (Axis Capital)
San Francisco (Pacific)
Shanghai (Pacific)
Stalingrad (Europe)
Sydney (Pacific)
Tokyo (Pacific) (Axis Capital)
Warsaw (Europe)
Washington (Europe) (Allied Capital)

There are a total of 19 Victory Cities – 11 on the “Europe” map, plus another 8 on the “Pacific” map.

The “official” Axis victory condition requires having either any 8 Victory Cities in Europe or any 6 Victory Cities in the Pacific. This would require either a crushing victory in Europe or else a crushing victory in the Pacific.

But what about achieving modest victories in both theaters? (That is, having any 6 Victory Cities in Europe plus any 5 Victory Cities in the Pacific.) Shouldn’t that also be a “legal” victory condition?

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Franklin