Posts made by mastermind93

Touche, Hoffman. I honestly don’t have anything left to argue (Turkish-Strait-related), although the idea of non-infantry neutral units still does appeal to me. And either way, I agree that it is nice to have the option open to invade neutrals is one so chooses. And if nothing else, those lovely infantry units will still make a nice replacement for the silhouettes on the board.

@LHoffman:

Let us use your example of Germany or Italy attacking Turkey. They would have to control the land mass of Turkey in order to navigate the Dardanelles. To do so, The Axis will have to fight off at least 7 infantry, likely some artillery and maybe one or two small ships. That is just to be able to make an invasion in the Black Sea. That burns one turn which will give the USSR plenty of time to move forces in for defense or counter-attack. Regardless of how well the battle for Turkey goes, it would almost certainly be a one time attack. Even in Global, the Axis simply do not have the resources or leeway to make such a move more than once (if that).

…

That said, I still don’t see much application for extra Neutral units because historically they had next to nothing to fight a modern war with. Every country has manpower and some semblance of an army, which is why Infantry activation is a simple, accurate and universal medium. Unless I am mistaken, Turkey had one of, if not the, largest armed forces of any Neutral nation in WWII. Even then Turkey had a few subs, a couple destroyers and a cruiser. The post on this forum outlines their naval forces, calling them “insignificant”. Which I would venture to say includes armor and aircraft as well.

I will clarify and modify what I was trying to say. You could make it so that simply passing through the Turkish strait is seen an act of war. You don’t have to control Turkey itself in order to pass, but it IS seen as an act of war on a strict neutral. You could then place a cruiser or sub or something like that in the black sea to signify their small navy. With this method, it would be possible to move into the Black Sea and drop a small army behind enemy lines, taking a Russian territory (or two, or three).

It may be true that Neutral navies were rather insignificant, but I would point out that that forum also mentions that Turkey has 37 Artillery regiments, as opposed to 66 infantry (95 including cavalry). So while maybe tanks, planes, and ships aren’t that great, artillery are still significant, yes?

I do agree with Gargantua, although I have not played as many games of Global. I’m more of a 1942 or 1942 2nd Ed guy myself, so don’t take my word as gospel. I just think the idea sounds really cool, and do-able. Also, we could do more research into each of the neutrals to limit the historical inaccuracies.

And I do agree that, generally, attacking strict Neutrals is rather foolish, but not as much if you add other units, especially sea units. For example, my idea with the Turkish strait being blocked by strict neutrals (ie. strict neutral sea units in the black sea)… Germany (or Italy) might see it as beneficial to attack a strict neutral if they can also dump 8 units behind Russian lines right next to a Russian VC and IC.

The Second Editions are not out yet. The planned release date is September 18.

2012_07_09_AA1940Europe2_Solicitation_en_US.pdf
2012_07_09_AA1940Pacific2_Solicitation_en_US.pdf

If you could make it balanced, it would add a very interesting dynamic, to have neutral ships especially. (Imagine parking a weak UK navy behind a pro-allied neutral destroyer, preventing the Germans from wiping you out.) One thing you could do (to try not to upset the balance too much) is switch out units so that the neutrals have the same IPC value of units. Maybe just switch one Inf out for an Art? Something else that might be cool: Usually there is some kind of rule about whether or not the Black Sea is open or not. What if, instead, there is a strict neutral navy blocking the way (connected to Turkey)? However you put it, though, you could still use the infantry to place on Neutrals as a more tangible record of how many Inf are there…

As far as the different revisions to Global rules: Once I saw how much Europe 1940 was going for, I sold mine (making almost $200 off of it) and decided to just wait until 1940 Second editions came out. I was getting tired of all the revisions anyway.

One of the main things I was thinking is that instead of just infantry in those neutral zones, you could have other units there also, like fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. Sea units could be located in an adjacent sea zone and claimed or fought separately from the land units, or claimed when the land units are claimed. Strict neutral units in sea zones, however, could be ignored (as long as no one invades a strict neutral, of course) or maybe they would block movement. There are lots of possibilities there.

@CWO:

The lime-green British pieces from revised are much more compatible with the Chinese infantry.

That brings up another point. How do the Light Green HBG Neutrals compare to the light green UK units from Revised? Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?

@CWO:

@mastermind93:

What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).

I purchased a set of the yellow-green pieces in the hope they’d match the colour OOB Chinese infantry, but they don’t.  The lime-green British pieces from revised are much more compatible with the Chinese infantry.

I purchased a couple of the neutral sets, but not that color. Thanks, Marc. I suppose, though, you could still just use a completely different color for them, so that all the Chinese are that color (eg. HBG Yellow-green, Light Blue, Yellow, etc.)

What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).

You could make a house rule: Standing Armies. With some spare monopoly pieces or some Victory City Markers from HBG you could add a couple to East Russia (don’t remember territory name) and maybe to China as well. They could defend on a two or defend on a one w/2 hits or something to that effect. That way you don’t have an obnoxious amount of Russian attacking power in the East, but the defense is a lot better. The same would take place in China, although I think I’d rather have the fighter defend on a 5 or 6 even, as the “Flying Tigers” were very skilled pilots. Maybe you could pair those ideas? The standing armies could represent the extra time and effort the Japanese had to spend to break through China.

@wittmann:

Seems a lot of money. I would sell if they understand that it is being replaced. Would not want them to find out they could have had the 2nd Edit if they had waited and be angry with you!

You could just sell it on Ebay (if he doesn’t want it, knowing that 2nd Ed is coming out). That way you don’t have anyone you personally know be angry with you. They’re not going for as much now, but about a month ago, they were going for about $250. Just a thought.

@Gargantua:

These are seriously cool.

But I like what Most Holy uses.  It’s cool having chess pieces on the board. ;)

I do like that idea, now that you mention it. I had previously used the Task force markers from revised, and I was looking for an easier to spot, better alternative to use. My idea fell through (A&A pieces are too cool to be contained by plastic hobby glue), but I think the chess-piece one sounds cool. Queen to Moscow… checkmate?  :P

@UrJohn:

It’s a more difficult and confusing transition from 1941 to 1942 if you change most of the units prices instead of the TT values. The TT values are printed right there on the map, but unit prices are something you need to know by memory to be able to strategize your buys.

That’s a good point. However you could just multiply the cost of everything by two or three (probably two). It wouldn’t be too bad, then. Although the way it is OOB is an interesting twist all by itself. Russia being able to abandon the far east, Africa hardly being worth anything, etc.

@Gerco:

I would prefer giving every territory a IPC number. I think this is possible when you lower the value of other territories and it would make all land territories more important.

You could also have the IPC values assigned as normal, and just jack up the unit prices.

@Gargantua:

But isn’t “original” the same as implying the ‘default controller’?  And default control is now Pro-Axis…

I am hoping you are right, and I read it the way you do, but it should be specifically clarified.

So Pro-Axis is the new original? See what I mean? Yes, original could be interpreted that way. But the most common definition by far points back to the beginning of something, and at the beginning, the territories were strict neutral, not Pro-Axis.

I do agree with you on your second point, though: it should be clarified better.

@Col.:

Don’t think they do. They aren’t “original” pro-Axis neutrals.

I read it the same way. The word “original” applies to all three. If it didn’t apply to the pro-axis neutrals, then it wouldn’t apply to Italian territories either, and that just wouldn’t make any sense. But who knows, maybe WOC put that in there on purpose as one of the many mistakes which would help to justify a reprint. Just sayin…

@UrJohn:

Obviously Cow is in a bad mood. The game is cool.

Hahaha….  You guys crack me up…  Just sayin…

@Make_It_Round:

I agree that the best players of A&A try to reduce the number of viable choices their opponants have (taking out enemy transports is the move of choice in this regard); and in so doing, they definitely reduce the amount of fun others can have. Cost of doing business!

My question is: how few viable choices can be left to a player before the game becomes not worth playing for them, i.e. not fun anymore?

When I play with friends, we rarely finish a game. We also play for capitals/ world-domination, so there’s always a point at which it no longer is fun for the apparent loser of the game. If there is a general consensus that one side is going to lose and wants to surrender, I -ahem- the other side lets them do so honorably, rather than dragging it out.

@Hobbes:

Yup. This is starting to sound to me like a possible move if a lot of factors are met (one of which is ignorance of that this move can be made) but not really a valid strategy against a player who has faced it before.

I agree with Hobbes. Personally, if I was UK and was fearing Sealion, on UK1, I’d probably build some subs. Then next turn, if no destroyer was built, I’d probably just take out the naval units. If a destroyer was also built, I’d supplement the attack with my bomber and fighter.  Eat that, Germany…  =)

Already downloaded them. They look pretty cool. What I’m really wanting, though, is something a little more universal. In other words, I want something that is not nation-specific, kind of like the markers that came with Revised (2004), but looks a lot better.

Also, for those following this thread, I learned the hard way that plastic model cement does not work well with A&A pieces. The pieces started coming off without a problem, while the glue had just melted through the poker chips. (All who have used plastic model cement in the past know what I’m talking about) So I don’t have any more poker chips to use, and I’m still stuck with all my Revised pieces and no task force markers.  Oh well…