@krieghund Thank you very much Krieghund. This makes sense…
Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived
-
1. Hopefully the -1 UK inf in Egypt is a mistake. If it is then Larry should correct soon via his site and also add a bomber to Russia and/or a UK sub to the Med for balance.
2. I’m interested to see if there are any more changes from A3 to this 2nd Edition as far as rules and National Objectives.
-
I will be getting my copies this coming weekend. :-)
-
I’m kinda irked that several nations are getting mech artillery pieces to use as mech infantry. � Mech artillery was really all that was missing from G40 and HBG had us covered by adding them. � So adding OOB mech artillery that are mech infantry will mess that up a bit.
I also really don’t get why they chose the priest for the UK. � It is still an American vehicle, so it is no more British then the halftrack was, and does not really look the part. � I think Italy is getting a mech art as mech inf as well (despite having an APC), maybe more. �
Plus, it’s a bit odd for new players. � “This artillery is an artillery, and this mech artillery is a mech infantry, even though it looks like a mech artillery. � Your artillery can raise your mech artillery, which is actually an infantry, from a one to a two on attack. � Your mech artillery can’t raise anything, because despite its appearance, it’s an infantry.” � Really, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it should probably be a duck. I was so happy when when the German 88 AA was finally removed from the game as artillery (one guy in our group always confused them with AA) as it was the last ‘poor fit’ after the stuka as a fighter, and now we have artillery being used as infantry. � Oh well, there is always HBG to supply proper halftracks. :)
-
I also really don’t get why they chose the priest for the UK. It is still an American vehicle, so it is no more British then halftrack was, and does not really look the part.
The ANZAC sculpts are odd choices too, in the sense that most of the equipment pieces are neither of Australian or New Zealand origin – though this was probably done of necessity, since to my knowledge neither country produced domestic equipment in many of these categories. Based on a quick check, here’s where the ANZAC equipment appears to come from:
Artillery: BL 5.5 inch
A British medium gun.Antiaircraft Artillery: L/70 40mm
The Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft cannon. Manufactured in Sweden, but used by many Allied countries.Mechanized Infantry: Ram-Kangaroo
The Kangaroo was a Canadian conversion of a tank chassis into an armoured personnel carrier. Later used by the British. The Ram Kangaroo was a variant.Tank: AC1 Sentinel
This one actually is Australian. It was a Cruiser-type tank.Fighter: CA-12
This one is Australian too: the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation’s Boomerang fighter, produced under several numbers including the CA-12.Tactical Bomber: TB.Mk.1
I can’t pin down this one at all. The only “TB Mk I” which I could find is a variant of the Handley Page HP.52 Hampden, and it doesn’t look like the sculpt picture which VanGal supplied a few weeks ago; notably, the tail of the sculpt has no vertical stabilizers. Does anyone know what aircraft this sculpt is supposed to represent?Strategic Bomber: PV-1
The PV-1 was a version of the Lockheed Ventura. It served with many air forces, but was American in manufacture. It’s a bizarre choice as a strategic bomber because it was neither a heavy nor a medium bomber; it was conceived as a light bomber (a role in which it performed poorly), and was later used much more successfully as a maritime patrol/bombing aircraft.Battleship: Warspite
Warspite was a British WWI-vintage Queen Elizabeth-class battleship, modernized in the interwar period. She saw lots of service in WWII, but all of it was with the Royal Navy. The closest she appears to have ever come to Australia was during her year of service with the RN’s Eastern Fleet, when she operated out of Ceylon.Aircraft Carrier: Majestic
The Majestic class comprised the last six units of the British sixteen-ship Colossus class of light fleet carriers, built to a modified design. None was completed during the war. Five were completed post-war, with two of them being sold to Australia (who operated them under different names); one of these was Majestic, redesignated Melbourne.Cruiser: Same as UK (same as first edition)
A British Kent-class heavy cruiser.Destroyer: Tribal
The large Tribal-class destroyers were built by Britain, mostly for the Royal Navy, but a few were built for the Royal Canadian Navy and for the Royal Australian Navy.Submarine: S
These were British submarines, and they seem to have been used exclusively by the Royal Navy.Naval Transport: Monowai
If this sculpt is intended to represent HMNZS Monowai, it has the advantage of being an actual Royal New Zealand Navy ship but the disadvantage of being an armed merchant cruiser rather than a transport vessel. (The rulebooks started referring to the German transport ship as a Hilfskreuzer – auxiliary cruiser – a few games ago, which is the same kind of mistake.) Monowai did later operate as a troop transport, but as a Royal Navy ship (HMS Monowai) rather than a Royal New Zealand Navy ship.If someone can definitively identify the tactical bomber sculpt, I’d be very interested in finding out what it is.
-
@CWO:
Tactical Bomber: TB.Mk.1
I can’t pin down this one at all. The only “TB Mk I” which I could find is a variant of the Handley Page HP.52 Hampden, and it doesn’t look like the sculpt picture which VanGal supplied a few weeks ago; notably, the tail of the sculpt has no vertical stabilizers. Does anyone know what aircraft this sculpt is supposed to represent?Strategic Bomber: PV-1
The PV-1 was a version of the Lockheed Ventura. It served with many air forces, but was American in manufacture. It’s a bizarre choice as a strategic bomber because it was neither a heavy nor a medium bomber; it was conceived as a light bomber (a role in which it performed poorly), and was later used much more successfully as a maritime patrol/bombing aircraft.Tac is the Bristol Beaufort.
As for the strat - well, it’s a new mold and Australia DID use them, but yeah, it was a lightweight. It probably should have been a lancaster, but again, it’s a new mold.
-
Tac is the Bristol Beaufort.
As for the strat - well, it’s a new mold and Australia DID use them, but yeah, it was a lightweight. It probably should have been a lancaster, but again, it’s a new mold.Great, thanks for the tac bomber identification! And as far as the Ventura goes, I agree that’s it’s nice for ANZAC to get a new sculpt for this unit even if it doesn’t fit the unit profile as well as it should. We’ve seen other cases of this sort of thing (like the recent use of the battlecruiser Hood as a battleship in AA1941), so the Ventura is in good company.
-
Great work Marc.
-
@Special Forces: thanks for giving it some thought.
Will not be a problem in Europe, as Anzac is not there and UK is partially compensated with 1 Inf.
Just seems silly those 2 Inf are stuck with defending(unless you are nutty Noll) as they cannot board a UK Troopship and be dropped in Southern Europe. -
These are all listed on the article on the website here. I guess the discussion is just about clarifying what some of the designations mean?
-
These are all listed on the article on the website here. I guess the discussion is just about clarifying what some of the designations mean?
Yes. Aircraft in particular often have several name components – the manufacturer’s name, the model number, and the name by which it’s commonly known, for instance the Lockheed P-38 Lightning – and I was trying to fill in some of the blanks. I have several aircraft reference books at home, but I found I was having trouble figuring out of the new sculpts were in it or not because the names given in the rulebook (like “TB Mk.1”) were so skimpy. I was also, just for personal interest, looking at which ANZAC equipment pieces actually originated in Australia or New Zealand and which were in fact foreign designs.
-
Since today is the day, some questions…
1. Is the -1 Brit inf from Global a mistake???
2. What are the Global NOs and the Euro/Pac NOs??? In detail from the box of those who have it.
3. More details on the changes between Alpha+3 and 2nd Edition???
-
I didn’t even think of listing out the NOs. Sorry about that.
-
Can you scan the 3 or so pages at the back of the europe book, that detail the difference between the stand alone games and global?
-
Since today is the day, some questions…
1. Is the -1 Brit inf from Global a mistake???
2. What are the Global NOs and the Euro/Pac NOs??? In detail from the box of those who have it.
3. More details on the changes between Alpha+3 and 2nd Edition???
2.1 What are the politics in Global (apart from including Korea in the Mongolian rules)?
-
Since today is the day, some questions…
1. Is the -1 Brit inf from Global a mistake???
2. What are the Global NOs and the Euro/Pac NOs??? � In detail from the box of those who have it.
3. More details on the changes between Alpha+3 and 2nd Edition???
1. No, it’s not a mistake. It’s in the rules:
“Set up units as shown on the setup charts found in Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940. Additionally, place the following units:
Amur: 6 Soviet Infantry
Sakha: 6 Soviet Infantry and 2 Soviet AAA
Buryatia: 6 Soviet Infantry
Egypt: 2 ANZAC Infantry (also, remove 1 United Kingdom infantry)”Don’t ask me why “infantry” is capitalized everywhere except when referring to the UK guy, but there you have it.
2. See my thread for the NOs
3. Canada is no longer 2 spaces on the Pacific map. BC and Yukon have merged into “Western Canada”. Also, if the USSR attacks Korea, Mongolia will never activate for them. I’ll look for more changes this evening.
-
Are the tech tokens still lost if no breakthrough was achieved?
-
1. Hopefully the -1 UK inf in Egypt is a mistake.
…I asked on Larry’s site if the -1 UK inf was intended.
More than 100 views - still no answer. -
I am sure it was intended.
What would have been best though, would have been to make Egypt 3 uk Inf and then if playing Global say: replace 2 of the UK Inf with Anzac ones.
Less confusing and means in Europe only, Allies are not disadvantaged. -
@P@nther:
1. Hopefully the -1 UK inf in Egypt is a mistake.
…I asked on Larry’s site if the -1 UK inf was intended.
More than 100 views - still no answer.Krieghund confirmed on Larry’s site, that this was intended.
The -1 UK Inf in Egypt is no mistake!
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9450
-
So is it safe to confirm that the -1 UK infantry in Egypt is the only difference between 2nd edition Global, and the latest Alpha+3?
Suggested Topics
