@Flashman said in 1914 Map grievances:

Correct the Bulgaria-Greece border (Greece did not have a border with Turkey in 1914).

Have more tts in Hungry e.g. add Banat & Transylvania so Budapest does not border Russia.

East Prussia should border Livonia; Poland should not have a coastline.

Move SZ18 border south to intersect Albania-Greece.

Extend Rome east to have an Adriatic coastline.

Place a production city in Munich.

Albania should be neutral.

Give Lorraine-Marseille a border and move Paris to the “Burgundy” tt.

Rename tts so that only those containing an actual city are so named; otherwise give them tt names. The map is too obviously based on Diplomacy.

I have created two new and better versions.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/uxthbc2z97q3w5x/Modified World War I Game.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/view/v4v0way8nr77re0/1914_global_map_whole.jpg/file

I modified Lion in Trenches’ original map to include Mongolian territories and to add territories for Spain to make Spain more playable, a la Global 1939 on HBG.

Original version of Global 1914.

I removed the impassable thing from the Amazon rainforest and I decided to rename the territory “Amazonas” because it’s the largest Brazilian province west of Rio de Janeiro and many antique maps called the territory “Amazonas.” (Selvas das Amazonas in Nat Geo maps). I just thought that it was rather silly to have an impassable Amazon jungle. HBG just makes refuses to fully implement and market this game as a second edition board game, like their Global War 1939 game.

Why can’t they just finish it? I have finished it and I am praying that Historical Board Gaming will finish it by Christmas or something.

God, I feel so impatient! Sorry, guys! I renamed “Brest” to its correct name of Brittany because Brittany is the actual name of the French province where “Brest” lies in the game. It’s like calling the whole of Pennsylvania as Philadelphia, which I think is rather silly.

I gave a name to the province where Paris is centered in the game and that’s called “Ile de France” like it is in real life.

I made Franz Josef Land a Russian territory, since Russia seized the territory in the 1914 to prevent the Central Powers from having a base to attack Russia from the north.

I renamed “Crimea” to Taurida because Taurida was the name given to it by Russia at that time.

Axis & Allies
Pacific 1940
First Edition

Anyone here annoyed with the typos and other errors found in A&A Pacific 1940 1st Edition on the setup boxes and in the manual? I have a version from 2009 that is one of the first copies that has these errors, warts and all, that I bought from Gateway Games in Erie, PA for Christmas in 2009, exactly 10 years ago. I dislike this version and I would like to please get an updated version of 1st Ed. with all the corrections. Thank you. Where do I find the corrected edition of A&A Pacific 1940? I heard about it 9 years ago, but can’t find it. Anyone know of any copies?

@Black_Elk said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

For a long time now I’ve been hoping to see an official digital platform for A&A (one with at least some kind of connection to the designers and publishers) that could be used for alpha testing a new game before its actually released in print. I mean like a tandem release, where the new physical game follows the online drop.

Analog playtesting the way A&A has been handled in the past is pretty laborious and time intensive, as a cursory look back at the larry boards will reveal. Even with an open alpha and tons of feedback on forums and such for each proposal, its still a challenge to aggregate everything and to rely on anecdotal after action reports. I get the impression that there is never really enough time to hold the kind of informal FtF tournaments that would be required, or to get enough people all going gangbusters at the same time to actually get enough data beforehand to determine whether its fully cooked before running it to the printers in china and pushing it out on the shelves.

With a digital alpha you could speed up the whole process considerably and have gamesaves to use as evidence, to help parse the overall play-pattern and player experience in each iteration.

I think A&A online could provide a real opportunity, if ever we got a shot on a re-issue of 1942. Even a re-release using the same base map could be fun. I admit new maps get me more excited than the existing ones (there were a couple changes from Spring to 2nd Ed so least there’s a precedent), but even using the same map as 2nd ed, with set up changes or a rules change or two there are a lot of ways to get at a new take on things.

I guess what I’m hoping for is that A&Aonline goes beyond just offering a way to play 1942.2 or any of the existing A&A games digitally, and might eventually serve as a hub for developing the next A&A games. A place where the players could actually be more involved with that process, and provide feedback on things when it might still make a difference, e.g. before its shrink wrapped and sent off to stores.

I know there are some core table toppers who would probably never really play A&A on a computer, but who might reconsider doing so, if hopping online also meant possible glimpses at the next upcoming board. Or having other ways to get involved, provide feedback while it might still influence the basic set up/balance design, or otherwise engage with something that they eventually get to put on an actual table. I think we could see a pretty strong 3rd edition going at it that way.

Anyhow, just a few thoughts. To me the real longer term promise of an online A&A project would be something like that. And why I get exicted about things like possible toolsets or map/scenario editors.

How about a 3rd edition with more historically-accurate pieces for France? I was basically thinking “No more Soviet pieces painted blue for France!” I think that France should have its own molds. I think that it is rather silly for France to have Soviet Union molds repainted blue for France. France didn’t exactly like the Soviets, either. Dewoitine D. 520 for a fighter, Breguet 690 for a tactical bomber, Char B1 bis for the tank piece, Farman F. 220 for the strategic bomber piece, Schneider AMC P16 for a mechanized infantry piece., Canon de 75 modèle 1913-17 Schneider for France’s AAA piece, The French 75 for an artillery piece, Dunkerque class for a battleship, Béarn class for an aircraft carrier, La Galissonière Class for a cruiser piece, Redoutable class for a submarine, Le Fantasque for a destroyer, and so on.

If anyone has anything different, I’m all ears.

In AAG40, Iraq is depicted as a “pro-Axis” neutral, when in fact there were British forces stationed in Iraq and its government and the country itself, were effectively under British control, like Egypt. Like Egypt, Iraq had Axis collaborators, but the British kept them from being effective and when the pro-Axis revolt did take place, the British crushed it. Iraq was afraid of being overtly pro-Axis because many were still loyal to the British and the govt. of Rashid Ali was thrown and British control of Iraq was retained and restored.
Further info here.

The British perspective was that relations with Rashid Ali’s “National Defence Government” had become increasingly unsatisfactory. By treaty, Iraq was pledged to provide assistance to the United Kingdom (Thus making its “pro-Axis” status highly erroneous) in war and to permit the passage of British troops through its territory.

The RIrAF had 116 aircraft in seven squadrons and a training school; 50 to 60 of the aircraft were serviceable.[19][11] Most Iraqi fighter and bomber aircraft were at “Rashid Airfield” in Baghdad (formerly RAF Hinaidi) or in Mosul. Four squadrons and the Flying Training School were based in Baghdad.

Why is Iraq pro-Axis again? Iraq was pro-Allies and anything but neutral, as it was under effective British control, but was “independent” like over in Egypt.

Anyone else see this?

More here.
“*Britain concluded the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930. The treaty included permission to establish military bases for British use and provide the facilities for the unrestricted movement of British forces through the country, upon request to the Iraqi government.[26][27] The conditions of the treaty were imposed by the British to ensure control of Iraqi petroleum. Many Iraqis resented these conditions because Iraq was still under the control of the British Government.[*28]”

@Midnight_Reaper said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@Patchman123 said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

How about we have the Empire ships serve as the United Kingdom player’s transport ship class?

How making a seperate British transport ship piece?

There is a separate British transport. You get 12 in every copy of A&A 1941. Mind you, only 4 are in British tan, the rest are 4 in US OD green and 4 in Soviet Maroon.

The allied transport ship in A&A 1941 is based off of Canada’s “Fort Ships”, which were a class of 198 ships made in Canadian shipyards during the war. They were essentially the Canadian answer to the US’s Liberty ships. All of the Forts were for use by the United Kingdom, those built for Canadian use were named the Park ships.

All that said, WotC has provided separate, Commonwealth-origin, British transports. They just put them in a different game.

-Midnight_Reaper

Well, why aren’t they in Global 1940, then? I think that would be nice!

How about we have the Empire ships serve as the United Kingdom player’s transport ship class?

How making a seperate British transport ship piece?

@Black_Elk said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

That would be cool. I’d buy in for sure. It would be a pretty legit offering if it gave the US those warhawks in the Europe set, and the lightnings in the Pacific set. That way we’d get a bunch of warhawks and when you combine the boards you’d have a nice substitution at the ready for the Flying tiger in G40. I’d probably get more excited about seeing some of the 1941 scultps in a 3rd edition than France, but it would be nice for completion. Especially if the manual provided some extra options to expand the game, and perhaps put a new spin on it maybe with marines or vichy stuff. I think a second set up for the Global Board with an alternative start date would be cool and well received. Like they did for AA50

What would also be nice some map corrections for the roundels on Western Canada and Sierra Leon, if doing a new reprint.

How about map corrections on the roundels for all of Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Nova Scotia-New Brunswick, and Yukon Territory with this roundell?

And might I suggest changing the Netherlands’ roundel from the current one in the game to this one? The orange triangle was the one used for all Dutch forces, in Europe and Pacific, all over the world, in 1940.

The one used in the game was abolished as the Dutch roundel in October of 1939, hence why its inclusion in a game that is “supposed” to take place in June 1940, is an obvious and rather glaring anachronism.

How about changing Italy’s roundel to this one?

Could you please ask HBG (Historical Board Gaming) to not use Pétain’s personal insignia as the “Vichy France” roundel? This is like using the United States (US) presidential seal as the United States player’s symbol, instead of the more proper and correct star with the red circle in the center. Vichy France used the exact same roundel that France uses in Europe and Global 1940 as its insignia on all its airplanes.

@CWO-Marc said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@Patchman123 said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

How about making separate blue molds for France, instead of say, using Soviet Union (Russian) pieces painted blue? The regular color for A&A G40 for France? I think that it’s rather silly that ANZAC has its own molds and everyone else has updated sculpts, but not France. France gets knocked out, but later on, after liberation, she becomes a pain in the neck to Germany and Italy.

When the 2nd edition of Europe 1940 / Pacific 1940 came out, I was happy about the various new sculpts they included (including the full distinct ANZAC sculpt set) and disappointed that France’s non-infantry units continued to be blue versions of the Soviet set…but I guess that the single positive aspect of France being short-changed in both the 1st and 2nd editions is that it creates room for a nice sculpt upgrade in a hypothetical future 3rd edition: a full distinct French sculpt set. France is the last player nation left in Global 1940 which has such a large deficit of nationally-distinct OOB sculpts, and it would be nice for that gap to be filled. Global 1940 2nd edition has three minor gaps involving other nations, and it would be nice for them to be filled too in a future 3rd edition, but for the moment the 1941 game provides the means to do so: it has a distinct British naval transport, a distinct Soviet aircraft carrier, and it has an American P-40 Warhawk fighter which can serve as China’s Flying Tiger unit. An interesting question would be what kind of significant sculpt upgrade in a hypothetical Pacific 1940 3rd edition could be provided to balance the significant sculpt upgrade which a full French set would be in a hypothetical Europe 1940 3rd edition? I can’t think of any obvious single major upgrade, but perhaps several small ones would do just as well – for example, filling the minor gaps I’ve already mentioned, plus giving China a distinct artillery piece, plus perhaps reviving the concepts from the original Pacific game to give the US a distinctly-coloured Marine unit.

What about maybe replacing the anachronistic Panzer V Panther with the Panzer IV tank? As everyone well knows, the Panzer IV was the standard German tank in 1940 and I don’t know what Wizards of the Coast was thinking having a Panther in 1940, when it didn’t come out until 1943? The reason for the Panther’s existence (i.e. the invasion of the Soviet Union) was because of the Soviet T-34 tank and the Germans’ experiences encountering said Soviet tank in the Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks.

Of course, for 1940, the gun with the longer barrel will not be necessary for the Panzer IV because that innovation did not come out until well after the invasion of the Soviet Union and the Germans’ encounters with the T-34 battle tank.

What about a Panzer IV sculpt for Germany’s armor piece? I think that a Panzer IV for Germany’s nation-specific armor piece in Global 1940 would make more sense than the current and anachronistic Panzer V Panther and including the Panzer IV would more than do the game justice and I’d like to play it.

How about a heavy tanks upgrade for all players, except, of course, China? These will cost more than the standard medium tanks and Germany will get a Panzer VI Tiger, Panzer V Panther, and Panzer VII King Tiger for heavy tanks, the United States, the M-26 Pershing (or a M4E8 Sherman mega tank) for the United States, A34 Comet for the United Kingdom, KV-1 tank for the Soviet Union, ANZAC will get the AC1 Sentinel as its heavy tank piece, France will get the Char B1, Japan will get the O-I heavy tank for its heavy tank piece, Italy will get the P26/P40 heavy tank. This P40 is, of course, not to be confused with the American fighter plane of the same designation.

@CEDDIN-DEDEN said in 1914 Map grievances:

@Patchman123 Your map allows the russians in black sea to launch easy naval invasions on ottomans unless they want to try an naval attack into a minefield, so i think thats one thing the OOB version does better. Besides that, amazing.

So, what would you like to see done? I am willing to accept any criticisms for the purpose of improving my work.

How about making separate blue molds for France, instead of say, using Soviet Union (Russian) pieces painted blue? The regular color for A&A G40 for France? I think that it’s rather silly that ANZAC has its own molds and everyone else has updated sculpts, but not France. France gets knocked out, but later on, after liberation, she becomes a pain in the neck to Germany and Italy.

https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/France_c_209-2.html
Like these?

Axis & Allies
Pacific 1940
First Edition

Anyone here annoyed with the typos and other errors found in A&A Pacific 1940 1st Edition on the setup boxes and in the manual? I have a version from 2009 that is one of the first copies that has these errors, warts and all, that I bought from Gateway Games in Erie, PA for Christmas in 2009, exactly 10 years ago. I dislike this version and I would like to please get an updated version of 1st Ed. with all the corrections. Thank you. Where do I find the corrected edition of A&A Pacific 1940? I heard about it 9 years ago, but can’t find it. Anyone know of any copies?

Would it be possible in Global 1940 to add a separate box for the facilities and AA guns? I mean the AA guns from First Ed. I mean, the new edition of Anniversary Edition from 2017 has a separate box for industrial complexes and AA guns and the like.

Is it me or did the developers mess up by not adding a separate box for the facilities?

@djensen said in Army count for 2nd edition:

@Patchman123 Oh, I fixed the table in the sense that it previously didn’t look like a table, just a lot of ||||| characters between things. It didn’t look pretty like it does now.

Is it available for download? You can PM me, if you want.