I hate to start rumors and speculation but it seems to me that you are planning to create "Global 1940" as one game in 1 gamebox- suggestive by your recent comments. Could this be true???
You could tell that WOTC put more "quality" into Europe 40 than Pacific 40. Example- roundrels/cardboard/box quility was higher, expanded battleboard/IPC chart, color scheme on the map was a little more vibrant (could actually see the convoy markers).
This Global 1940 game should be put into one box and given a higher quality treatment- bring back the IPC paper money, tokens, damage and air travel markers, bring in the AAgun pieces, IC pieces (major/minor), airbase, navalbase pieces.
It really should be given the time, effort and high quality production that went into AA50- yeah it cost a $100 but people ate it up!!! This game should go into "deluxe mode". Probably would cost $120-$150, but AA fans of all types would eat this up!!!
Like you said, if your gonna do this game- take the time and do it right!!! AA50 was done right- everybody knows that. Global 1940 deserves the same treatment. Quality is rare these days and sorely missed in any walk of life. Leave your mark with a quality product celebrating the greatest generation.
Well that's my sales pitch anyway.
Seperate Victory Conditions for Russia, and perhaps China! (Lol I know right?)
Russian Victory Conditions make the game ALOT of fun, sometimes I've allowed Mongolia to be pro-comintern, makes it interesting, and I've made it an NO for the Russians to hold all of it. (Because technically the Japanese can take parts of it, without being at war with the Russians). Set the Bar at a Victory City, or Economic level for a Russian victory. And make Russia - NEVER a Liberator.
Now if the Axis is stomping the Allies, obviously the Russians go 100% against the Axis, but when the game starts to wane, or go bad for the Axis early that's when things get interesting, because of the competing interests. It always seems to balance out, because it's the players and not the pieces that hold the balance. Deals can be made, and victory is achievable for anyone.
Also, get South America into an Axis and Allies game for the first time! Argentina Pro-Axis! And perhaps allow invasions of south american neutrals without upsetting the true neutral rules... ?
Had to put my 2 cents in, let me know what you think Larry.
It would be more condusive if it read:
10. The United States may declare war on the Axis if London and/or any territory in North America is "attacked" by an Axis power.
It makes the germans think twice about invading london, and it also gives the U.S. the option to reinforce London, should an initial attack fail.
Also, if say Quebec was attacked, but the attack failed, the U.S. should be allowed to join the fight.
The feeling I get from the rule is that it ought to be like poking a FAT bee's nest with a short stick...
IPCs worth of damage.
because of the +1 to strateic bombers. A roll of 2 or higher deactivates a port or airbase automaticly.
Im not sure if the SBR changes are at the optimum configuration now, it seems like its just gotten too easy.
While that does help to balance the navy, one of the main issues with cruisers is their imbalance against air. In fact, navies as a whole can be targets for a good air force. The idea of some kind of ship AA or lowered cruiser cost was to help balance navy amongst itself and the navy against air.Infrastructure wrote:Larry, the balancing thing for cruisers, might be simple. Don't make them 11, but make destroyers 9. The more I think about this the more I think it is the better option.
Each cruiser you have, in essance, negates the "combined arms" rule for 1 tac and 1 fighter.
That might make them more usefull
Some brilliant ideas here from Turner IMO. This means a bit of board change for realism of situation without changing power balance much (an obvious side affect of most changes). It also would set the table for more JAP bombing, and not being able to defend just the "one" factory in India. I personally think the new SBR changes and costs are great.1. Less starting Russian units in the East with maybe a minor IC somewhere on
the Pacific map so they can invest more in the region if they want to. (Say the minor IC represents the Trans-Siberian Railroad that so many want represented)
But start Russia with only 10-12 infantry in the east. The minor IC would be in the westernmost russian area on the Pacific map. (Don't have a map with me or I would name the area)
2. Japan could have a minor IC in Korea, since they had it occupied for more than 20 years at that time.
3. This is the one that will bother people, instead of the UK having a major in India, let them have a minor in West India, a minor in India and a minor in Kwangtung. This shows more how their power was spread out and would make it a harder decision for Japan to wait until turn three to attack. How would you like 10 infantry in Kwangtung when you decide to attack.
4. I would also put a minor back in New Zealand.
Agree with Gargantua here, but would add by a "land/landing" attack, to clarify that you are not simply implying SBR. C210. The United States may declare war on the Axis if London and/or any territory in North America is "attacked" by an Axis power.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests