EXACT pieces count for Pacific/Europe 1940 Second Edition

@tincanofthesea thanks! I’m going test it next time I play. Whats your feedback? @GeneralHandGrenade

Very interesting, Mr. Marc.  We have some friends here in Kansas City that work/teach/study at the Leavenworth staff college and we were just discussing a few weeks ago the German Staff College Kriegspiele Game and how these original 19th c. simulations are the origin of modern wargaming, with many of the modern conventions reflected, such as dice, complex ruleset, modular setup, special rules/exceptions, piece types, attempted realism, etc.  The professor in our group spoke about how he uses modern wargames to teach modern warfighting and what games/rules they emphasize, he’s basically a professional gamer (jealous!).

I find it interesting that many of the older Jules Verne style early wargames, like the one you describe, required some measure of dexterity in order to fire at your enemy as opposed to dice based games that simulate the hits/misses/damage.  Real naval gunfire has some element of timing/patterning/watching your misses in order to zero onto your target, there are some different considerations than trying to fire a pog or something.  I think we would hate to lose to people who are simply better shots than we are rather than better generals.

Gotcha.  I think we’re talking about two different things though.

My understanding was the other poster was saying “Placing fighters in CUS is no different than placing them in EUS” which of course wouldn’t be the case.  I see your point though and I agree  8-)

Our group has played with India and UK as seperate parts of the Commonwealth (Global 39 has the FEC {Far East Command} and the uk seperate}).  The allies have to work together and nt compete against each other.  The ANZAC player already has to share the DEI with India if either of them are going to have any real income to work with.  India and UK can work together as seperate players.

AS for the thread, build destroyers in Canada to hunt subs to work on your NO (no German Uboats in the Atlantic).  Also, bomg Germany in West Germany, Paris, Normandy…where ever you can hit them.  You may not be able to ivade effectively by yourself but you can harrass the German player enough that he has to pay attention to the Uk as well as smash the Soviets.  Landings in Norway and fortifying it takes away from Germany and opens another route to aid the Soviets.  Securing the Northern flank can help Leningrad or if need be retake it for the Soviets.  Zhukov44 was right.  Don’t lose Cairo.  Trops build in South Africa of tanks and mechs can help hold Cairo and even destroy the North African Italian army.  A IC build in Cairo, once secured will help limmit Italy and secure a route for US troops the attack the soft underside of Europe (usually not that well defended by the axis).  One last thing is hold Gibraltor if possible.  Building and air base there and sending some fighters can make US entry into the med so much easier.  It also  allows allied ships into the med to keep the Italians from their Med naval NO if the British med navy didn’t fare so well.

Yeah.  The fighters can scramble to defend, but without a destroyer present they can’t target the sub.

@RedHunter:

How was Russia able to advance that far? It shouldn’t be possible without direct America help. The moment that Russia moves beyond poland in Global you can call the game right there.

I dont think that I fully understand your question about Russia. They have only moved into Finland. The axis did surrender after six rounds however.

IMAG0021.JPG

By the way, this sealion airstrike scenario is also the reason why Britain starts out with a mech.  It can go to Eireland and back to London in time for the invasion.

Yes