If you are going to add cities, please put them in a more, "geographically correct" position. Finally Honolulu is located on Oahu. But now, Tokyo is now in Sandai? I see what looks like Tokyo Bay, but no Tokyo. Calcutta looks odd too. St Pete is off too.
Why not just have the IC symbol on the map instead of a chit?
Do not like the Greenland / Iceland perspective being betrayed. Realize a fish eye perspective is being used in Europe to help out with crowding, but Iceland north of UK looks odd.
The borders are not easily distinguished. Russia and Germany are good example of, "it" not working with all colors. It is very distracting from the nice map. Please test just using a solid black line, and record your results with others.
Not really sold on the integrated production chart on the game board. Why not just have the map run off the board? Does it need the Arctic? The people who sit on that side of the board will always knock off the counters. Annoying.
Nice job for eliminating the UK to Ireland land bridge from the map.
Always like the new units; The artillery this round are a very nice treat. Especially like the UK 25 pounders as well as the 88's with shield armor.
The new AA guns are nice, though a bit too large for my taste, they should not take up any more space than a chip or in similar scale to the original aa gun. Would like more the size or scale of the regular artillery.
The new units help, but my overall impression for $65 is, "just a bit warmer than luke."
I was thinking about reasons for why Iceland was slid over. Maybe they wanted some protection for the allied fleet up there. Iceland gives carrier planes some place to land if the the Germans attack it in sz3 and the allies don't have Norway or Finland?
The rules and other things will be addresses in the official faq, but the territory borders you mentioned would be my own personal gripe. Being able to distinguish borders affects playing, and W Russia (among others) fades out causing some problems, especially with many units on the board.
Oops, for whatever reason I misuse borders/boarders all the time (made some corrections).
The map looks weird in places, true, and I also find Iceland's position somehow irritating, couldn't they just have bulged the sea zone just a bit further west and put in there?
Pretty depressing about the VC information and mismatching of the IPC totals for the nations. I really wish that the quality control were a bit better - I still have my wrongly coloured cruisers from Guadalcanal...
BTW, guys: 'boarders' are people who leap onto ships with cutlasses held between their teeth (as in "Prepare to repel boarders!") - whereas 'borders' are the edges of countries and stuff ("The enemy is massing on our borders")...
So, if your country that was also a ship was about to be invaded, then you could say, "The boarders are massing on our borders"!Caractacus wrote:BTW, guys: 'boarders' are people who leap onto ships with cutlasses held between their teeth (as in "Prepare to repel boarders!") - whereas 'borders' are the edges of countries and stuff ("The enemy is massing on our borders")...
The map: it's different and I like it. The Iceland issue, not sure until I play but at a glance I thin it might actually come into play now. I love he break up of the Japanese territories on the Chinese coast. It will change things for sure. Europe is certainly distorted but I feel it is in a good way. Ukraine especially sees a ton of action and needs more room. This has been addresses perfectly. UK is way too small, sure it doesn't see a lot of action a la Sea Lion, but it should be large enough to hold its initial units. I like the china break up. I don't like the Sahara. Clearly this is a misprint as all the other neutral and impassable terrain is of a certain hue but Sahara is the same as UK color.
Units: The new pieces are beautifully detailed but I think with the 41 game out at the same time it would have been cool to have the awesome Japanese transports from 41 in this game as well as the Tiger and the HE-111 for the bomber for Germany. I'm glad the IS-2 as not ported to this game as I love the T-34. The AAA units are amazing and I'm very happy with the new artillary that many of the nations received. I like the new chips but am upset that they are not compatible with the old ones. They do look a lot better and if they are included with the reprints of the 1940 games I will have enough and will use them in all games. I use chips with infantry only for set up and have discovered that there is not enough tanks for Germany. There is enough for set up but none left for purchase if you don't use chips for tanks. Admittedly this is a personal issue as I like the intimidation factor of having a swarm of tanks with no chips under them and not a real issue.
Set up: looks really good, the only question I have other than the previously adressed problem of income discrepancies, I wonder about the US cruiser west of the panama canal. In all other games there is a destroyer there and a cruiser at Washington with the transports.
So 2 questions for Krieghund. Is the cruiser and destroyer in SZ's 19 and 11 respectively correct set up? And as I really wanted to ask this question with a photo on Twitter, I wonder, Mr. Chapman, do you or would you consider answering FAQ's on Twitter?
Yes.Most Holy wrote:Is the cruiser and destroyer in SZ's 19 and 11 respectively correct set up?
Probably not. The Internet keeps me busy enough already. You do know that you can embed images in your posts here, right?Most Holy wrote:And as I really wanted to ask this question with a photo on Twitter, I wonder, Mr. Chapman, do you or would you consider answering FAQ's on Twitter?
"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests