Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived

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.

@djensen:

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???

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?

@questioneer:

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)?

@questioneer:

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?

@questioneer:

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:

@questioneer:

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?

@moralecheck:

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. :)

To clarify, I think that what was intended by the sculpt is not the original SP Artillery vehicle but the version of it that was converted into a APC (and was sometimes called the “Kangaroo” version.)  You’ll note that there is not trace of the artillery piece sticking out of the hull, as there is in HBG’s Priest.  You see, the Brits LOVED the Priest when they tried them out, and ordered as many as they could get… but found that having a different type of ammo for their SP artillery than their standard field piece (the 25-pounder) was a hassle.  The problem was solved by their Canadian allies, who installed 25-pounders on M3 (Lee/Grant), Ram (indigenous design derived from M3 components), and M4 Sherman hulls.  This was such a perfect solution that the Canadian armor industry almost specialized in production of them, as US-production Shermans eventually became so ubiquitous that Canadian Ram & Grizzly tank designs (derived from US designs anyway) weren’t needed after all, and the factories set up to make them switched to the new vehicle, designated the Sexton.

Once enough Sextons were available to convert all existing units from Priests to Sextons, the Priests were converted into APC’s, a practice that the Canadians had also pioneered by converting Ram tanks into APC’s (a vehicle called the “Ram Kangaroo,” which incidentally has been used in the latest AAP40 2nd ed for the ANZAC mech for some reason.)  The Priests that were converted were also sometimes called “Kangaroos”; somewhat confusing perhaps, but the two vehicles (Ram Kangaroos and Priest Kangaroos) were very similar in concept and execution.  The Priest Kangaroos were also sometimes referred to as “defrocked Priests.”

So, to sum up, the piece in question actually IS a mech infantry vehicle, though its designation in the rulebook doesn’t make this clear.  It is still a somewhat odd choice though, being an ad hoc conversion.  Perhaps it was chosen because in sheer #'s it was the most used British APC, though I don’t know if this was the case or not.  If anyone out there knows the actual #'s perhaps they could clear up the mystery as to why an ad hoc conversion was their choice.  I’d have likely gone with the Ram Kangaroo, as it was definitely produced in numbers in factories in Canada specifically for this purpose after success with the conversion prototypes, alongside the Sexton, making it more of a “finished product” whereas the “defrocked priest” was more of a field conversion.

That’s great news that it is a gun free version!  :-D

You made my day!!!

I just saw the pics of all the new mech inf units, they are all gun free.  I feel bad for even doubting… :-(