@Grandmaster-Bert
nice like the artwork :) Seems as if the unit names are a tad too dark but it all looks good
Europe 40 or Pacific 40?
-
I bought 41 a few weeks ago, I soon will purchase one of these games. I’ll have both in time. But I’m training two sons in the game. Your thoughts?
-
If I were stranded on an island and could only take one, I would take Europe.
-
I like Pacific, but I LOVE Europe.
-
I’ll go against the grain and say Pacific. I just love the naval theater more
-
@ABWorsham:
I bought 41 a few weeks ago, I soon will purchase one of these games. I’ll have both in time. But I’m training two sons in the game. Your thoughts?
It’s hard to answer because it depends on what requirements are behind your question. You mention training your sons in the game, which suggests that perhaps (depending on their age) you’re trying to decide which game is easier to teach. On that basis, Pacific 1940 might be easier, if only because it involves fewer powers than Europe 1940. On the other hand, it does feature the decidedly odd China rules, which are a complicating factor absent from Europe 1940.
-
My argument is for Europe. It has all the elements of the global game but in half the space. It is what I use to ease new players into the global game. It has all the elements of the global game: land battles, naval battles, strict/pro neutrals, neutrality rules/DOW’s, convoy zones, etc and it helps teach the importance of turn order (and offers can opener opportunities for both axis and allied players).
It does miss out on the mongolian rule, kamakazi rule, and china’s non industrialized nation rules, but imo those are complicated and good “next step” after Europe. I believe both are good to try stand alone before global unless you and your players are seasoned in the world of A&A.
Hope this helps!
-
Europe . There is more action and more players can play.
-
pacific beaucause was the fist on the market
-
@CWO:
@ABWorsham:
I bought 41 a few weeks ago, I soon will purchase one of these games. I’ll have both in time. But I’m training two sons in the game. Your thoughts?
It’s hard to answer because it depends on what requirements are behind your question. You mention training your sons in the game, which suggests that perhaps (depending on their age) you’re trying to decide which game is easier to teach. On that basis, Pacific 1940 might be easier, if only because it involves fewer powers than Europe 1940. On the other hand, it does feature the decidedly odd China rules, which are a complicating factor absent from Europe 1940.
I’ll keep that in mind.
-
Pacific, every power is fun to use, and it allows a 5 player game. Japan is a monster, and has to be taken down by all 4 allies working together without simply one or two doing the hard work alone while another is simply there to exist, like the basic games had.
-
Another angle from which to approach the question is that, to some extent, it’s similar to a question that’s been asked a few times on this forum by folks who’ve never played, which is: “which of the current A&A games should I buy first?” There are many possible answers, which all have good arguments in their favour depending on what priorities and preferences need to be considered, but one of the options I happen to like is to ignore WWI 1914 initially (or completely) because it’s a nonstandard outlier and, instead, to gradually work your way up through the following sequence: 1941 (the simplest global game), Spring 1942 (the intermediate global game), Pacific 1940 (the smaller of the two theatre games), Europe 1940 (the larger of the two theatre games), and finally Global 1940 (the most complex global game). So if training is one of your primary considerations, the best answer to your E1940/P1940 question might perhaps actually be 1942. It would allow your kids to learn to use some unit types that aren’t in 1941, rather than jumping straight to the even larger range of unit types in 1940 (regardless of which 1940 game you buy), and it would also allow them to get used to the non-infantry sculpt shapes that are used in 1942 and the two 1940 games, but which differ from the ones in 1941.
-
No one has unlimited resources or time, but the moment you put your newly purchased 1940’ board down on your biggest dining room table you will marvel at its awsomenaminity and wonder why it would look so much better and grander with its fraternal twin right next to it…covered in tiny army men…
and you’ll likely order the other board on amazon while you marvel at the first
-
No one has unlimited resources or time, but the moment you put your newly purchased 1940’ board down on your biggest dining room table you will marvel at its awsomenaminity and wonder why it would look so much better and grander with its fraternal twin right next to it…covered in tiny army men…
and you’ll likely order the other board on amazon while you marvel at the first
Played a few weeks ago, and loved it. I have no doubt that will happen.
-
(Please note I am biased; I only own Europe but I play more than once a week with a friend’s Pacific for Global)
In short, Europe is a bigger, more action, more land-based game compared to Pacific. It takes longer to play(for me). It allows for more players (4) compared to Pacific’s 3. I heard someone say that Pacific allows five players…Really? China is nothing. Players get bored playing China ANZAC and France. Anyway in my games Pacific seems slanted toward the Axis quite a bit. Europe is slanted toward the Allies a little bit. Global game is slanted toward the Axis a little bit. Pacific is simpler. Many new comers will graft to Naval warefare quicker. There is also only one new Naval unit compared to three new land units (in 1941).
Although it appears you have already purchased, I reccommend Pacific first to most players. If you do not plan on buying both eventually get Europe. -
@Charles:
(Please note I am biased; I only own Europe but I play more than once a week with a friend’s Pacific for Global)
In short, Europe is a bigger, more action, more land-based game compared to Pacific. It takes longer to play(for me). It allows for more players (4) compared to Pacific’s 3. I heard someone say that Pacific allows five players…Really? China is nothing. Players get bored playing China ANZAC and France. Anyway in my games Pacific seems slanted toward the Axis quite a bit. Europe is slanted toward the Allies a little bit. Global game is slanted toward the Axis a little bit. Pacific is simpler. Many new comers will graft to Naval warefare quicker. There is also only one new Naval unit compared to three new land units (in 1941).
Although it appears you have already purchased, I reccommend Pacific first to most players. If you do not plan on buying both eventually get Europe.I have not purchased yet. Went to buy locally, to support neighborhood small businesses, but they only had 1941, which I bought and my sons are enjoying.
-
1940 in local stores is rare.
-
I’m finding that out.
-
If it’s within your budget, I would just buy both games together. Sounds like you will eventually end up with both so better to have matching 40.2 E and P.
In your poll I voted Europe but that is because I find that theater more interesting. I suggest you go with whichever theater your kids find more interesting historically. Pacific is actually the more compact and straightforward game, so I would recommend that one for you if your kids don’t have a preference (and you are getting just one).
-
Pacific puts naval pieces to better use than Europe; the gameplay is more diverse in that sense.
-
You need both to play Global.
Europe is a fairly even 1-1 game (with a probable slight edge to Allies, but easily overcome if Axis has better skills).
Pacific may be a bit more dynamic as a map, but it’s heavily slanted towards Axis which means Allies need a large bid or special rules to be competitive.
Suggested Topics
