Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived

Does anyone play that Anzac units(thinking of the 2 Inf in Egypt, but is the one on Malaya too) can be transported on a UK TT?
I only ask because of the history of it and the complications of defending Egypt as not all the units are under UK control and go separately, admittedly before Italy.

I wonder why larry harris would nerf the allies when the axis win most of the time.

It is silly considering how easy it is for the axis to gain an advantage and how doomed an attempt at trying to take a capital is for the allies. Does Larry Harris not understand the serious logistical issue the allies have compared to the axis? He already forces UK1 to be a standard all inf on london or watch your capital go up in flames. There is so little versatility for the allies. Set moves and still destined to be screwed. You get so little room to try something creative.

@wittmann:

Does anyone play that Anzac units(thinking of the 2 Inf in Egypt, but is the one on Malaya too) can be transported on a UK TT?
I only ask because of the history of it and the complications of defending Egypt as not all the units are under UK control and go separately, admittedly before Italy.

You mean in the UK turn?

Am I the only one that prefers the axis, but sees what a disadvantage the allies have? I mean it is really is not fun to roll over the allies like this.

I guess adding 3 more ipc to the bid means more options for the allies, could make for more enjoyable games… but oob is feeling dumb.

I don’t like -1 arty for germany… losing the fight for france round 1 is hilarious but I guess it is easy enough to restart from there. Hopefully that arty is poofed if egypt loses an inf (cos it would mean a higher likelyhood of germany losing mech in france).

@Cow:

…
I don’t like -1 arty for germany
…

There is no -1 Artillery for Germany.

Egypt is the one and only Setup difference compared to the latest Alpha.

(As long as no one finds something else.)

Hi Special Forces,  suppose it should be legally done in the Anzac go, but why not the Uk one as they were part of Mongomery’s 8th Army.
Just seems they get to sit and defend Egypt while the stronger and more numerous UK do the attacking.
As an aside, England  has always got others to fight their wars, so is ironic that in Global they do their own dirty work!
I suppose it is just one of many discrepancies.

In my current tournament game the Anzac in Egypt killed Italians in Jordan

@Noll:

In my current tournament game the Anzac in Egypt killed Italians in Jordan

Grr!
Are you the dirty convicts Noll? How unfortunate if so.
Which tournament and was it 2 Inf against 1 It unit?  Good luck.

I’m playing the Allies :P

I have every faith in you. Does it hurt to sink our beautiful fleet or are you like a medieval mercenary and take it in your stride? Haven’t played against my beloved Italy yet.

Well in reality when I play as the allies, USA is a puppet state of Italy, fighting Germany for an Italian euro dominance

Thank God for the gift of imagination and fantasy!
Better not to dwell too much in this world in my opinion.
Saluti. Devo andare a vedere la Fiorentina dai miei.

@wittmann:

Hi Special Forces,  suppose it should be legally done in the Anzac go, but why not the Uk one as they were part of Mongomery’s 8th Army.
Just seems they get to sit and defend Egypt while the stronger and more numerous UK do the attacking.
As an aside, England  has always got others to fight their wars, so is ironic that in Global they do their own dirty work!
I suppose it is just one of many discrepancies.

So, boarding in UK turn and getting on land in the ANZAC turn? I see your point but that would probably make the rules complicated.

I guess a house rule could be (for example) that ANZAC units can board AND leave UK transport ships in 1 turn with the european hemisphere.
But it’s just 2 infantry (put there for defence purposes without increasing UK’s attack strength), is that worth an extra rule?

@P@nther:

@Young:

…Is there or is there not a fighter removed on EUS, and do the Americans start with minors or majors to begin the game?

The fighter is still there - and US start with minors, too.

Thank you.

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. :)

@moralecheck:

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.

@kcdzim:

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.