kemal81 wrote:I haven't played 1940 yet either, but I read the rule book, and I think it will force the allies to play there. You have basically 3 powers there that you don't want to fall. China, Anzac and UK Pacific (India is capital of that). I know I am talking too early without even have played the game so that's why I need to be corrected if I am wrong about anything.
I don't blame Larry Harris, the way people play the game. I am sure he wanted that fleet in the Pacific to fight in Pacific. But we as players keep trying to find easy ways to win the game. It is not easy to set up a game as complicated as this. And the game designers make a mistake here and there, and players want to capitalize on those mistakes. They probably put the UK Indian fleet to encourage us to fight in the Pacific, what do we do, we sacrifice them to kill the lonely Japanese transport and then again USA runs away. Other mistakes I believe there are in the game.
Russia made little bit stronger so they can defend themselves better and we use that to attack Ukraine. As if Russia was capable of doing that at that time of the real war.
Germany can take UK the first round with tech on if you purchase few long range dice and get lucky with it. In real war UK had much stronger fleet in the Atlantic and Germany was not capable of doing that as long as RAF existed.
UK can take FIC the first round. Here is my opinon to that. Huh!!!?
Japan, does a second attack on Pearl Harbor?
And USA has no honor and they will pretent that 2500 of her citizens didn't die in Hawaii.
I know it is just a game, but at least the first round should be historically accurate. After that we can rewrite the history. I am really hoping 1940 has fixed all of those, maybe even Anniversary. 1942 regrettably has failed that.
I have one more question to the people who think allies should not be forced to play in the Pacific. If there is nothing wrong, why are we bidding?
Don't get me wrong I enjoy Revised, and I can take on Allies with all concentrated on Germany. The only thing is I believe the game would be alot better when it is more accurate.
i agree with all these points however, in spring 1942, the war had already been going on for a little bit right? maybe pretend it is late spring or even summer 1940, then the historical accuracy needed is moot. pretend usa already struck back once, that the japan had time to build up, that the uk got more volunteers from india, that had built up some naval and air power and that russias stalin was just as mad as hitler and didnt care what he could afford (maybe accurate). besides, part of the charm of this game is the ability to rewrite history. perhaps if it was any more historically accurate it wouldnt be possible or maybe just slightly less fun for the axis to win?
in addition to not liking any downright forcing of tactics, i like the 24 victory territory idea, it encourages some manner of historical accuracy, while allowing flexability