I am not sure Napoleon was ever really himself after the Russian campaign. What he expected after his victory at Borodino and what really turned out was very different. Expecting the Russians to surrender only having them chase him all the way back to France may have put some doubt in his mind. Maybe that doubt is what affected his decisions at a place like Waterloo. I know in sports that if you loose your confidence it can be hard to get back. I imagine the same could be said about war generals. Just a thought. Enjoyed the post.
Which is better? europe 1940 or pacific 1940?
-
I am planning on getting a friend one of the two games, either pacific or Europe, which one is better to play on its own?
-
It depends what you mean by “better.” Pacific 1940 has fewer nations than Europe 1940, so Pacific has the advantage of being a bit simpler and a bit better suited to a smaller number of players, while Europe has the advantage of being a bit more interesting and a bit better suited to a larger number of players
-
Do you prefer ships to tanks? than try Pacific.
If you like large land campaigns or live in Europe anyway, the European board is your choice.Finally you take both to be happy ;-)
-
End the madness… play both together.
-
I’m teaching my sons using Pacific, but I love Europe.
-
It does come down to, what sort of game (amd battles) you want, as others have said.
Pacific is mostly Navy. Europe a land slugfest. For me, Europe is probably more exciting. I
Love tanks and European geography and Politics.
Europe is, ultimately, about Germany and Russia and which Will overcome the other.
Pacific allows for more options. As the Allies, You can go South, for the islands or straight at Japan. Japan has to find the balance of Navy and Land units. -
Of course, if the Japanese player knows what he is doing, the Allies Will be reacting to him.
But my point is: Europe is probably more scripted, historically.
Suggested Topics
