Posts made by gtg21

Thanks everyone!! Appreciate all the help/tips!!! Will report back on how they turn out!

Hi all - a quick question for a customizing rookie.  I just bought some white units from HBG and am looking to paint them to match the country units from '40.    Not trying to get ahead of myself with detailing, just want to apply a base that matches existing units

Can anyone list the acrylic paints (brand, color & finish) they may have used to accomplish something similar?  Or, if they used spray paint, the brand/color/finish they used?  Apologies if this has already been covered.  If so, a link to that thread would be very much appreciated!

@ItIsILeClerc:

I usually do this to protect a big fleet in the SZ directly behind the blocker. Or as a (usually) 1-turn preventive measure against invasions.

Example: Japan wants to delay the USA from reaching a critical zone during a ‘KJF’. For the sake of simplicity, lets assume the USA wants to reach SZ6 with a much bigger fleet than the IJN.

Put a blocker in SZ16, now the USA can only reach SZ6 with air -not enough to be of any problem for the IJN. IF a Japanese counterstrike from the IJN + IJAF is a concern for the USN, this blocking tactic may work for a couple of turns in a row, even indefinately…

This is precisely what I do as Japan, particularly mid-game if the USN is holed up in Hawaii (which they usually are) and the IJN is split into several task forces operating in different SZs.  It lets Japan use SZ 6 as a safe placement to mobilize new naval units.  The DD block is critical in keeping the USN threat to a minimum while preserving Japan’s ability to split its fleet to deal with multiple threats (or to consolidate disparate naval builds) - not to mention keeping the US honest and unable to send in a few subs to cause havoc around the Japanese home islands (a common “tactic” or sometimes “strategy”  I’ve encountered from US players looking to stay engaged while they focus elsewhere (usually Europe)).

@Herr:

I’m not sure why it should be a requirement for an NO that it can be easily contested. For example, the US has several NO’s that are difficult to reach for the Axis, too.

I didn’t mean to imply that a NO had to be easily contested.  Just that this one - in the context of how its currently written - seems to me to be beyond the reach of being reasonably contested.    Perhaps adding Allied control of Caucasus would improve it?

I like all the others.  And I like the Persian Corridor NO in principle - but it does seem off to me.  In part because I can envision a board scenario where the USSR is collecting it but any objective person would look at the board and think “That’s nuts!”.  Axis control of the Caucasus is probably the best example.  Afterall, there are Russian territory control corollaries in both of the other Lend Lease NOs.  Why not this one?  Seems reasonable to factor in the fact that the supplies need to reach Russian territory somewhere, and the Caucasus is undeniably the entry point for this NO.

A separate question I have is what is the basis for making the 3 Lend Lease objectives collectively worth 15 IPCS?  And not 6 or 9?  It doesn’t seem like anyone is too concerned with the idea of Russia dropping an extra 5 infantry per turn (assuming all NOs are collected).  Do people really think the game is that tilted in favor of the European Axis on an average player level?  Seems to me splitting the baby and going with 9 total IPCs would be the more prudent approach rather than risking an unintended consequence of a different kind of imbalance.

The “Persian Corridor” NO seems too narrowly focused territory-wise as to make it unreasonably out of reach for the Axis to deny it.  But can be easily tweaked by adding Egypt and India as territories the Allies would also have to control in order to collect it.

If we accept that NOs are based (even if only loosely) on historic scenarios, this one would seem to need to encompass a few more territories.   For example, say Egypt and India are both Axis occupied, does one really think the “Persian Corridor” would be funneling any supplies?  Deliveries via that route - historically speaking - depended in large part on the Suez remaining open and the British maintaining a position in India (i.e. the Japanese not threatening it from the East).    Of course some supplies traveled by sea around the horn of Africa, but for practical purposes, Egypt and India are the fulcrum points that render the supply corridor open or closed.

Add Allied control of Egypt and India to the NO, and I think it becomes more balanced. Otherwise, it has the practical effect of being way too difficult for the Axis to deny it - particularly should the Taranto moves continue to hobble Italy and effectively foreclose European Axis advances in the Mediterranean.

Both Egypt and India are already recognized by the game design to be critical territories by virtue of their VCs and canal control. Seems natural they should factor into an NO designed around the very region they border.

Anyone!?  Going once…

Apologies if this has been asked and answered before.

Assuming you can use the G42 setup for either a Europe-only or Pacific-only game (and if you can’t - or its not recommended, please advise!) - what would be the correct turn order be for each stand alone theater game?

Would you use the G42 turn order, but simply remove non-theater countries?  Or would you revert back to the OOB G40 turn order for each theater game?

A convoy disruption question.

1 Russian sub is in SZ 99.  Greece is Italian controlled.  Syria is German controlled.  End of Germany’s turn, the sub is still there and the Russian player rolls 2 dice and gets a 2.  So 2 IPCs in damage to be assessed.

Do the Axis players then decide among themselves who takes the IPC hits?  For example, 1 IPC from Germany, 1 IPC from Italy?  Or can the disruption only occur against the country whose turn is ending because it is only that country who is about to collect income?  So effectively just 1 IPC from Germany and the other IPC hit is ignored?

Can someone link me to the J1 strategy that Cow developed?  Would like to see the Pacific compliment to this G1 strat.

Thanks in advance!

@Gargantua:

I can’t wait till they crush you, and make you sign the same thing, and text your boss.

Absolutely hilarious!  :-D

When do early adapters not pay more?  Seems reasonable to me to charge more per individual set, and then discount a complete set.

But I see your point if the goal is generate income to fund later sets.  Offering a discounted complete set early would be a great way to do that.  The problem of course being from a business standpoint, the people willing to pay for a full set now are very likely to buy each nation incrementally, which means a loss of some income over the long term for FMG - but a gain of getting more initial capital (as well as capturing sales due to buzz, which may trail off as people lose interest over time).

Ah the joys of retail economics!

Also - the German’s head looks fine to me.  Hard to make judgments without better rez comparisons.

@SalothSar:

Bring back the tokens>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why?

All well and good - though I haven’t been as lucky.  And from reading these forums, many others haven’t either.  But again, those are all in the context of AAP40 and not Global.  Not having had the benefit of playing a Global game yet, I can’t really say for sure whether the US Korean IC would even become a consistent strategy.

In any event, I was only pointing it out as a perhaps unforseen consequence of Russian expansion - one that could wind up being in Japan’s favor.

An interesting derivative of a Russian held Korea is that it denies the US player a Korean IC.

As Japan, simply letting the Russians hold Korea indefinitely would essentially eliminate the possibility of a US IC on mainland Asia (assuming that US strategy is still viable in Global).

The Japanese player can always choose to attack the Russians in Korea to reduce whatever stack is there - and/or -  keep a sub or two in SZ6 to negate Russian income - and/or - launch their own attacks into Siberia to force the Russians to reduce their Korean garrison themselves.

The IPC loss to Japan (of 3) could easily be gained from other conquests, including Russia’s own original territories.

Sure, its kind of “gamey” to leave Korea (particularly if its empty) in Russian hands, but ultimately could be to their benefit if it deprives the US of an IC build later.

The obvious wrinkle here is if Russia is cleaning up in Europe, and therefore can spare 30 IPCS to build their own factory there.  But any Japanese player should be able to see that move coming rounds in advance, and simply move to take Korea pre-emptively.

I’d add:

“But if activated Vichy forces are attacked by Allied forces, they fire once then immediately switch sides.”

:-D

@finnman:

There is an easy solution to this make Norway 1 or 2 in income like it should be.

Sounds like the easiest solution to me.

Also, Flashman’s observation on Norway being more valuable than any other Russian territory (including Kiev) presents an excellent case as to why an adjustment down to 2 IPCs would seem to make great sense.

I would add, if you remove the 1 IPC from Norway - in the interest of keeping Germany’s starting IPCs the same - that the IPC should probably be added to Romania to reflect the value of Ploesti and the fact that its possession (and protection) greatly influenced the German’s Russian campaign objectives.  This would also make its value equivalent to other Axis oil/historic resource territories - like Java and Borneo. (though oddly not the Caucasus - but I can understand the reason for that in terms of possible factory placement)

The result would be the two primary resource regions for the German war effort being equal in value. Scandanavia, the source of German iron ore and other rare minerals would generate 4 IPCS (Finland + Norway).  And Romania, the source of German oil, would also generate 4 IPCs.

The initial post in this thread has to be bogus.  I play as Japan almost exclusively and what he’s saying he did - well - I’m extremely skeptical.  Perhaps the noobs he played against set up wrong, or the group misapplied certain rules, because looking at the initial Global setup, I just dont see how what he’s saying he did is actually possible.

@Gargantua:

The Trick is to always play for the money, and always play for the long game.

Get your income to par with your opponent or better, and focus on battles where you are more likely to win more IPC value than your opponent.

decide ahead of time, map it out, what territories you need to take from whom, to maintain economic game control.  Primarily this will come down to British territoires n the south pacific, the middle east, and Africa.  The rest is just widdling your opponent down.

Well said.  I play with the exact same mindset.  Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Ditto here!!! Two copies scheduled to arrive tomorrow!!!

@calvinhobbesliker:

@McLovin1985:

Eastern US doesn’t have one? That’s a bit strange. Also for France.

If it’s needed, the allies are losing

Not totally true.  The Yanks may appreciate having the option of packing up and shipping the entire Eastern seaboard’s AA defenses to help defend landings in N. Africa or Scandanvia.  :wink: