In this new turn order, do the US and USSR still start out the game neutral?
Do they have to wait until turn 3 and turn 4 respectively before declaring war on the Axis (unless attacked first of course)?
Does Japan still get the NO of 10 IPCs for not invading French Indo-China, not being at war with the United States and not making an unprovoked declaration of war against the UK/ANZAC?
Posts made by knp7765
-
RE: [Global 1940] New turn order
-
RE: [Global 1940] New turn order
Interesting idea. For one thing, I think this would allow Italy to rule the Med. There would be no Taranto raid, rather I could see Italy destroying all Allied ships and gaining the Med NO right away. They would probably get Egypt on their second turn. It would be cool to see Italy have more of a chance.
-
RE: PRO ITALIAN STRATEGY
I’ve seen Italy get very successful, but unfortunately it all depends on what the UK does. One thing I’ve noticed is even if UK does a Taranto and wipes out the Tobruk force, if Germany performs a successful Sealion and Britain is without income for a few rounds, Italy can really spread throughout Africa and the Middle East. It will take awhile because Italy makes so little money but once the UK units in the Med are killed, there is nothing to replace them.
One thing I have noticed is that it is a mistake for the UK not to take out the Italian fleet at Taranto. If they leave Italy with their battleship and 2 transports, Italy will be able to do too much in the Med and do it much quicker than normal. Especially if Sealion is successful.
One strategy is for the UK to forgo Taranto and rush the Med fleet back to England to try and prevent Sealion. If I’m playing Axis, I love to see this because you basically give Italy a free hand in the Med. Once that fleet leaves the Med, Italy can take Gibraltar and close the Med off.
Some like to take UK Pacific resources from Calcutta to the Med to keep Italy in check, which works but also leaves Calcutta pretty weak for Japan. -
RE: Rules question
Also, both the US and Russia have to be at war with Japan. If one or the other is neutral on the Pacific board, troops and equipment from one can not enter territories of the other.
-
RE: Paris Failure
I don’t think it’s game over for the Axis if Germany fails to take Paris on round 1, but it will definitely make for a harder game for them. Also, let’s not forget that Germany could succeed in taking Paris but due to dice lose most of their units in the process. I’ve seen Germany take Paris with only 1 or 2 tanks left. That can be nearly as devastating as not taking Paris.
As far as Sealion goes, I think it is off the table if you don’t take Paris round 1. Instead of buying all those transports, you will have to replace all those land units that you lost in the first battle, plus you won’t have the 70 IPCs to do it with.
We had a game where Germany failed to take Paris round 1 and round 2 and Italy failed on it’s first try, but got it on the second round. This was a total suck fest for the Axis because they were also trying the “Operation Cloverfield”, where you fake a Sealion, jump down to Gibraltar after Italy captures it and try invading the Eastern US. Without the Paris money, Germany didn’t have enough transports/land units and failed to take Washington.
So, Berlin was raped by the Red horde, UK went down and took Rome, which lasted longer than Berlin, and the US was able to go hog wild in the Pacific. Once they successfully defended their capital, I don’t think there was a single US piece on the Europe board. Poor Japan was just trounced. -
RE: "Magellans"
Actually it took nearly 3 full days. We played it on a holiday weekend.
-
RE: "Magellans"
I once had a game where ANZAC forces managed to take Greece and Yugoslavia from the Germans. That was a weird game. The US Navy had sunk all the Japanese Navy and had Japan cornered on their island. However, Japan was still really strong on the mainland. Calcutta was in Japanese hands as was all of China. However, all the islands were in Allied hands.
UK and France, which had been liberated and had a fairly strong army, were putting pressure on Germany, Italy was out of the game but had a couple of planes and a few men in Berlin, while the Germans were pressuring Russia. Moscow had held out but barely since most of their territory outside of Moscow was in Axis hands.
If I remember right, the Allies finally won when the US put together an invasion force and took Denmark, allowing a UK invasion force to slip in and take Germany. France attacked the strong German force in West Germany and while they didn’t win, they weakened it enough that it couldn’t retake Berlin.
All those tanks in Russia couldn’t get back to Germany in time and Moscow got a break. After that, the Allies finished off the Germans and went around Asia mopping up the Japanese forces. Between convoy raids and SBRs, Japan wasn’t making nearly as much as they should have been with all that Asian territory so they couldn’t keep up with the steadily increasing Allied wall that marched across the board. -
RE: HBG - Axis & Allies Parts/Accessories and Custom Piece Sets Store!
I love it
Well, sure, but its only up for pre-order now, yeah?
Guess I was more interested in asking what did all ya think about having calvary, partisans, mountaineers and the like?
And also the nation colored factories.This is the first set that I don’t have a lot of interest in. The only pieces I am really looking forward to are the major and minor factories. I do like the idea of having them in national colors. I think I’m going to pass on the pre-order this time and wait until the factories are offered in sets of 5.
I am really looking forward to the French set. I might do the pre-order on that one. -
RE: The Soviet Axis
I tried something similar to this a long time ago with A&A Classic. Germany and Russia were together while US, UK and Japan made up the other team.
Germany/Russia basically took over all of Europe, Asia and Africa while the Allied team ruled the seas. Whenever the Allies tried to land any force on the continents, German/Russian tanks would show up with air power to blitz them. Any time Germany or Russia tried to put ships in the water, Allied planes would swoop down and sink them. So, it was kind of a stalemate although Germany/Russia was making more money with all that territory.We also tried something with Global 1940 by having France be an Axis power. It was kind of cool seeing France last past round 1 and be able to buy stuff.
-
RE: G1 DOW Sealion
Is it not necessarily the case the sacking and holding London for three turns virtually guarantees victory for the Axis? Or reasonably possible for the allies to recover?
My point being that I like that sea lion is hard and rare because if you spend 2 hours setting up a board and a turn 2 gambit works and the game is over….
We played a game where Germany took London but the Allies won when the US and Russia squeezed out Germany and Italy. Berlin and Rome were captured with London still in German hands.
However, if I remember right, Japan did make a real stupid mistake that allowed the US to capture Tokyo early and basically took Japan out of the game. The smaller Allies were able to mop up the rest of Japan’s forces and the US was able to concentrate on Europe. -
RE: HBG Themed WW2 & WW1 Dice
Herr Kaleunt, I like this idea.
-
RE: HBG - Axis & Allies Parts/Accessories and Custom Piece Sets Store!
I don’t know if this helps, but when you get some of the 3D printed pieces, they don’t award points for those because their profit margin is very small on those.
I’ve gotten reward points on their pieces from the combat unit sets and some of the acrylic markers and battle labels. Just not on the 3D printed pieces or old A&A pieces. -
RE: Scramble into Sea Zone with two different countries' ships
The combined arms rule (actually called “Commander In Chief”) was in the first edition of Classic but was removed from the second edition of Classic. Apparently they thought back then that this rule was to easily taken advantage of by Allied players.
The way it worked was:
The US moves “X” units to United Kingdom. The UK already has a number of units already there. The US moves a number of transports that can carry all the current US and UK units on United Kingdom to the sea zone adjacent to the territory.
During the Collect Income phase of the US turn, the US and UK players agree to make the US Commander In Chief. The US player takes a stack of 3 US control markers and places them in United Kingdom.
Then on the UK player’s turn, the UK player does not move any of the units intended for the combined force. If the UK moves any of it’s units stationed on United Kingdom, they CAN NOT be included in the combined force.
Then on the US player’s next turn, the US player is now free to move any or all units stationed on United Kingdom as long as they DID NOT move during the UK player’s turn.
By the way, this includes UK aircraft if they didn’t move on the UK’s turn.So, basically, any country’s units that are going to be included in the combined force but are not from the country of the Commander In Chief have to be in the launching territory before the Commanding player is chosen. It might be a little more complex, but I think this rule could be applied to Global 1940.
For example: Say England wants to attack a Japanese force in Burma from India. They want to use a combined force of UK, US, Soviet and ANZAC units. So on UK Pacific’s turn, UK can move units into India. On the UK’s Collect Income phase, they get chosen as Commander In Chief. The Soviet, US and ANZAC forces have to be already in India at this time and those are the ONLY non UK forces that the UK can move next turn. Even if one of the other countries move more units into India, those new units could NOT be used in the UK’s next turn.
Assuming the UK attacks Burma with the combined force and defeats the Japanese, UK India will get possession of that territory. Also, I believe the last casualty HAS to belong to the Commander In Chief’s country (in this case, UK). -
RE: US industry on FIC
Yes, you are correct. Once France is liberated, FIC would revert to French control. In that case, the US would be providing a minor IC for France in FIC which France could use to deploy new units, although by that time I imagine the game would be almost over.
-
RE: Advise for concept definition and name "Interception Threshold Gap"
Also, I might point out that the dice can still screw you.
I once had a game where 5 German bombers were running an SBR on Moscow’s IC. Russia had 5 fighters so we figured that was pretty good odds. The Junkers weren’t even scratched while 4 Yaks went down in flames.
I know this isn’t typical, but just pointing out that you can’t always rely on some type of system. -
RE: HBG Themed WW2 & WW1 Dice
I dont know if this would be a good option or not to do, but…
I would totally buy custom WW2 12 sided dice to use with the maps/games sold at HBG.Other than that, idk.
Idk what else HBG can do that is dice related to A&A and be unique,
Considering that IWNGU sells them FMG dice and that the new WWI dice is coming out soon.I guess I would buy Neutral specific dice, but regular white dice does good enough.
Back when Field Marshal Games was starting with the combat dice, they were asked about 12 sided nation specific dice but they said that the sides on 12 sided dice were too small.
However, since HBG made those great 12 sided dice for Amerika, they might have access to a better manufacturer and may be able to produce nation specific 12 sided combat dice. -
RE: Using Alaska to reinforce Russia
That might be an interesting idea if you could get a large enough force there. They could march down and take Korea from Japan and establish an early US presence there in Asia. If the 18 Russian infantry are still there, they could even back up the US forces to keep Japan from retaking Korea easily.
The US could build a factory and maybe even an airbase there and really give the Japanese a hard time. They could even send troops down and help out the Chinese.
Another idea for this strategy is causing Japan to use a lot of resources trying to get Korea back which could leave it weak trying to take the DEI or Calcutta.
I think to do this, the US would have to be in the war and Russia would have to declare war on Japan (if Japan hadn’t already declared war on Russia) so that the US and Russia could act like Allies in the Pacific theater. If Japan and Russia have not declared war yet, Russia would still be neutral on the Pacific board and US troops could not land on Russian territory. -
RE: Aggressive Russian Strategy
Yeah, the only reason to buy surface navy for Germany is if you are trying a Sealion. Otherwise it’s just a waste of money. With the help of the Luftwaffe, you can keep the Royal Navy down, but you will never be able to compete with the US Navy.
As Germany, I do try and buy subs though. They can sink UK ships and do some convoy raiding to keep the UK income down while you are dealing with Russia. If you have enough subs, they can even be a distraction for the US when they show up in force.
We once had a game where our Russia player tried buying ships. The idea was to sneak an amphibious assault directly on Germany going behind the main German force marching into Russia. Unfortunately, the German player never left Germany weak on defense so the invasion never really happened. All those ships just ended up rusting in port and all those lost rubles allowed Moscow to fall much easier than it should have.
-
RE: New player to global, turning US and USSR axis
Back when we just had Classic, I made up a number of scenarios where countries were in different alliances. One of those was Germany/Russia vs USA/UK/Japan. Germany/Russia was a real power house in that one. While the other three ruled the seas for a while, G/R controlled all of Europe, Asia and Africa and eventually bought enough aircraft to take on the British, American and Japanese navies and start building ships themselves.