Hello everyone. I’ve been playing Axis and Allies for a while, but I just picked up the Europe and Pacific 1940 versions when Europe came out. I never played either game separate because I bought them to play the giant Global version. I’ve been following this site for a while and I have been checking the alternate setup posts a lot so I can keep up to date. I’ve played two games of global so far. The first was with the setup in the box plus the Pacific faq/errata, and the second was with the alternate setup that took away 14 planes and moved some units around. In the first game the Axis was winning a hard fought game when it was called. In the second game I found it less competitive, and the Allies won pretty easily. I’m going to start a new game this weekend with the newest proposed setup changes, but I am getting a little frustrated that the game is different every time I set it up. Does anybody know if these changes are being designed with Global in mind? Or are they really only for Pacific with Global game play an afterthought? I thought these games were designed to be played together, so why would you make changes to the Pacific side but not the Europe side? And finally, are the NO’s mentioned in the newest setup (+5 for UK if control Malaya and Kwangtung while at war and +5 US if controls Philippines while at war) for use in Global or solely in Pacific?
The NOs in general havent been changed wih the newest setup. The two mentioned have just been rephrased, and they are only for the pacific game.
Hello everyone. I’ve been playing Axis and Allies for a while, but I just picked up the Europe and Pacific 1940 versions when Europe came out. I never played either game separate because I bought them to play the giant Global version. I’ve been following this site for a while and I have been checking the alternate setup posts a lot so I can keep up to date. I’ve played two games of global so far. The first was with the setup in the box plus the Pacific faq/errata, and the second was with the alternate setup that took away 14 planes and moved some units around. In the first game the Axis was winning a hard fought game when it was called. In the second game I found it less competitive, and the Allies won pretty easily. I’m going to start a new game this weekend with the newest proposed setup changes, but I am getting a little frustrated that the game is different every time I set it up. Does anybody know if these changes are being designed with Global in mind? Or are they really only for Pacific with Global game play an afterthought? I thought these games were designed to be played together, so why would you make changes to the Pacific side but not the Europe side? And finally, are the NO’s mentioned in the newest setup (+5 for UK if control Malaya and Kwangtung while at war and +5 US if controls Philippines while at war) for use in Global or solely in Pacific?
Welcome Dadler… glad you joined the party.
Was AAP40 broken with the out of box setup? I’ve been wondering about that, as the Philippines without air and naval bases and NZ with a factory should have an impact on Japan’s and Anzac’s mobility mid and end game. A Jap fleet on the Philippines would not reach as much of Australia and would permit the U.S. to sail from Hawaii to stage at Queensland naval base on USA1.
I know its broken with the errata, but I am curious if J3IC still won without errata set up.
I’m going to start a new game this weekend with the newest proposed setup changes, but I am getting a little frustrated that the game is different every time I set it up. Does anybody know if these changes are being designed with Global in mind? Or are they really only for Pacific with Global game play an afterthought?
The setup changes are designed to be used with both games. However, we’re still working the bugs out. This effort is being made with community involvement in order get as many playtesters as possible involved. This will hopefully get it done more quickly and cleanly. My suggestion for the casual player is to not use the new setup until it’s finalized, unless you really want to. If you’re happy with the setup you’re using now, keep on using it for the time being. We won’t finalize the new setup until we’re sure that it works for both the Pacific and global games.
And finally, are the NO’s mentioned in the newest setup (+5 for UK if control Malaya and Kwangtung while at war and +5 US if controls Philippines while at war) for use in Global or solely in Pacific?
Those apply only to the Pacific game.
@skinny1:
I understand that but it is the principal of the matter. A set of games that are as pricey as these are should not have these many issues.
Exactly the problem I have with Microsoft… :-o
I’m interested in reading through this setup thread, gonna dive into it, but so far, I’ve not had any problems with E40 like I’ve had with P40, and when together, I’m not seeing these issues as glaringly either…yet at least. I have some concern that as everyone’s had almost a year to ripe into issues with P40 that now the community is going to over-react on the fixes… alas, should at least give the benefit of the doubt at this point… :|
Thanks for the quick response and welcome guys. I will continue to faithfully play test each set-up, and hopefully there will be something official and final soon.
Maybe the problem is reading the forums. If I would just play the games as they are right out of the box without knowing about the errors then there wouldn’t be any issues with buying AAE40.
Yeah, that ignorance is bliss thing is not always so bad…
And on the other hand, had some of these problems been seen earlier they wouldn’t have needed to send us extra tac bombers for Japan only to take them away now… (unless that was Krieg’s plan to get us extra pieces all along)
Here’s Larry’s latest take on the alt setup, Scenario Alpha (from earlier mentioned thread)
_I call this setup “Scenario Alpha”.
All the National Objectives and bonus incomes remain as they are in the present Pacific40 rule book, with the exception of the following two NOs:
Note: The UK will gain 5 IPCs for controlling Kwangtung and Malaya at the same time but only if at war.
Note: The United States will collect 5 IPCs per round for controlling the Philippines but only if at war.
China
Szechwan 5 Infantry and one fighter
Hunan 2 Infantry
Yunnan 4 Infantry
Kweichow 2 Infantry
Shensi 1 Infantry
Suiyuyan 2 Infantry
ANZAC
Malaya 1 Infantry
New South Wales - 1 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base.
New Zealand - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Queensland - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Sea Zone 62 -1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63 – 1 Cruiser
United Kingdom (India)
Sea Zone 37 - 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Kwangtung - 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Burma - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Malaya - 3 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
India - 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
United States
Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Midway - 1 Airbase
Wake Island - 1 Airbase
Guam - 1 Airbase
Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr
Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport
Japan
Japan - 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Manchuria - 6 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber
Palau Island - 1 Infantry
Kiangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Formosa - 1 Fighter
Shantung - 2 Infantry
Kwangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Iwo Jima - 1 Infantry
Jehol - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Caroline Islands - 1 AA gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Infantry
Siam - 2 Infantry
Okinawa - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu - 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber.
Korea - 3 Infantry
Sea Zone 6 - 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Carriers each with 2 Tac & 2 Ftrs., 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 19 - 1 Sub, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 33 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier w/ 1 Tac & 1 Ftrs.
Sea Zone 20 - 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport_
Yeah, that ignorance is bliss thing is not always so bad…
And on the other hand, had some of these problems been seen earlier they wouldn’t have needed to send us extra tac bombers for Japan only to take them away now… (unless that was Krieg’s plan to get us extra pieces all along)
Here’s Larry’s latest take on the alt setup, Scenario Alpha (from earlier mentioned thread)
_I call this setup “Scenario Alpha”.
All the National Objectives and bonus incomes remain as they are in the present Pacific40 rule book, with the exception of the following two NOs:Note: The UK will gain 5 IPCs for controlling Kwangtung and Malaya at the same time but only if at war.
Note: The United States will collect 5 IPCs per round for controlling the Philippines but only if at war.China
Szechwan 5 Infantry and one fighter
Hunan 2 Infantry
Yunnan 4 Infantry
Kweichow 2 Infantry
Shensi 1 Infantry
Suiyuyan 2 InfantryANZAC
Malaya 1 Infantry
New South Wales - 1 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base.
New Zealand - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Queensland - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Sea Zone 62 -1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63 – 1 CruiserUnited Kingdom (India)
Sea Zone 37 - 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Kwangtung - 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Burma - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Malaya - 3 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
India - 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major ICUnited States
Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Midway - 1 Airbase
Wake Island - 1 Airbase
Guam - 1 Airbase
Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr
Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 TransportJapan
Japan - 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Manchuria - 6 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber
Palau Island - 1 Infantry
Kiangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Formosa - 1 Fighter
Shantung - 2 Infantry
Kwangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Iwo Jima - 1 Infantry
Jehol - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Caroline Islands - 1 AA gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Infantry
Siam - 2 Infantry
Okinawa - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu - 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber.
Korea - 3 Infantry
Sea Zone 6 - 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Carriers each with 2 Tac & 2 Ftrs., 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 19 - 1 Sub, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 33 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier w/ 1 Tac & 1 Ftrs.
Sea Zone 20 - 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport_
Is this the final official set up? If so will WotC provide some stickers for the set up boxes with the correct setup on them?
Nothing is anywhere near official yet.
I totally agree with a lot of people here, thorough playtesting should have been done a long time ago. The setup changes every week!!! I really want to continue to play Global, but every time I sit down to play it the setup changes!!!
Now I’m afraid Europe is going to have to go through a setup change because of the whole Sealion theory. People knew about the India Crush months before the setup went through changes. The same will happen with Europe. Eventually Larry will get it right, but it will take months before we get a much more corrected and balanced “Global” setup. :-(
@skinny1:
I am uncertain if I am going to buy AAE40 or not now. I have AAP40 and was looking forward to getting AAE40 for the big combined game but after reading about set up changes I am thinking of not spending the $90 + tax to get it. I was disappointed with AAP40 after the first set up and only played 1 round. AAP40 has not seen a table since the first week it was released. Seriously thinking about selling AAP40 now and just playing AA42 which has no errors in set up and only 2 rule clarifications according to the FAQ.
Dude, it’s not that hard to make a few setup changes. They’re well worth it to play an epic game where China is 18 territories instead of 3, Russia is 30 territories instead of 10, and Africa is 20 territories instead of 10
except i have pages of errata, can’t use the setup on the top of the boxes as issued…if you meant epic as in epic fail, yes, you are correct.
@skinny1:
I am uncertain if I am going to buy AAE40 or not now. I have AAP40 and was looking forward to getting AAE40 for the big combined game but after reading about set up changes I am thinking of not spending the $90 + tax to get it. I was disappointed with AAP40 after the first set up and only played 1 round. AAP40 has not seen a table since the first week it was released. Seriously thinking about selling AAP40 now and just playing AA42 which has no errors in set up and only 2 rule clarifications according to the FAQ.
Dude, it’s not that hard to make a few setup changes. They’re well worth it to play an epic game where China is 18 territories instead of 3, Russia is 30 territories instead of 10, and Africa is 20 territories instead of 10
except i have pages of errata, can’t use the setup on the top of the boxes as issued…if you meant epic as in epic fail, yes, you are correct.
So what? After a few games, you memorize the setup anyway. Then the setup charts don’t matter.
For the more hardcore fan these things are not as big of an issue. For a more casual fan, that finds the broken things, they can turn them off to the entire franchise.
I put in a vote for the ‘more playtesting’ camp, preferably with an electronic version. Granted that will never happen so oh wells.
Personally, I would love if the axis games came with additional set ups or scenarios as Anniversary edition did.
Regardless of history, you could label them by year or Month, or just cal them scenario 1 or 2, etc. Heck, you could call them battle plans or war games.
With regards to the game designer trying to address issues with Pacific. I applaud the fact that they are willing to “fix” the game for those that enjoy playing it.
I agree its preferable if playtesters can test everything possible, but that is unlikely in any game. I imagine they didn’t look at too many Kill America first scenarios in either Europe or global. But I imagine players will try many things that playtesters won’t. (In Global KAF would work best if Germany takes UK first and Japan stages its full air force in Alaska the turn before the UK German survivors hit Quebec.)
The setup changes every week!!! I really want to continue to play Global, but every time I sit down to play it the setup changes!!!
That’s why it’s called play_testing_. It’s going to change and evolve until it’s right. That takes time and experimentation. That’s what playtesting is.
The new setup is not intended for use by the public at this point. If you’re not interested in testing it and providing useful feedback, don’t use it. Wait until it’s finalized.
Now I’m afraid Europe is going to have to go through a setup change because of the whole Sealion theory. People knew about the India Crush months before the setup went through changes. The same will happen with Europe. Eventually Larry will get it right, but it will take months before we get a much more corrected and balanced “Global” setup. :-(
Sure, people knew about the India Crush, but it had to be proven that there was no way to stop it before the game could be considered “broken”. That takes lots of people spending time studying it and playing out different scenarios. It has not yet been proven that this Sealion attack breaks the game. If it turns out that it does, steps will need to be taken.
As a game designer, you don’t want to go through something like this unless it’s absolutely necessary. It causes a lot of upheaval, bad feelings, and negative publicity. Most designers in Larry’s position would just try to sweep it under the rug.
For the more hardcore fan these things are not as big of an issue. For a more casual fan, that finds the broken things, they can turn them off to the entire franchise.
My guess is that the more casual fans will play for years before uncovering these issues, unless they find them on the Internet.
I put in a vote for the ‘more playtesting’ camp, preferably with an electronic version. Granted that will never happen so oh wells.
That is impractical, for a number of reasons.
With regards to the game designer trying to address issues with Pacific. I applaud the fact that they are willing to “fix” the game for those that enjoy playing it.
Yes, that is nice, isn’t it. Nobody’s paying Larry to do this. He’s doing it for you guys, because he cares. Not only is he doing it, but he’s allowing public participation to make sure it’s absolutely right this time. He’s really putting himself out there for you guys. It’s something to think about, isn’t it?
Larry is the greatest because he cares, many designers would not care a jot if their game was deemed ‘broken’.
by definition playtesting SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE WOTC GOT MY $180.
I PAID TO BE IN A BETA? AWESOME.
by definition playtesting SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE WOTC GOT MY $180.
I PAID TO BE IN A BETA? AWESOME.
They made a mistake. They got flak for it and they are now trying to fix it. That’s the best they can do at this point, and it’s very generous of Larry
