@Imperious-Leader said in Manchuko-Puppets of the Empire:

Not clowns…puppets. Stay on point

Sorry bub, there’s Clown Puppets too !

Hello GHG, the problem we have is that the rules (in this case the Great Britain National Reference Sheet) clearly state that the Dutch colonies only become controlled or aligned to the British at the end of the combat phase :

“DUTCH COLONIES If Axis or Comintern declares war on the Netherlands, Netherlands becomes Controlled by or Aligned to Great Britain at the end of the Combat Phase. Once Aligned, it may distribute this income as it sees fit to itself, FEC or ANZAC.”

In your answer, you mention “As soon as the Dutch are are declared war on they come under the control of the British”, so that could be during a combat move against the Dutch and not only “at the end of the Combat Phase”.

However, if submerging subs is considered an integral part of the decision process of rolling and choosing casualties, then I agree with you.

Thank u sir

I think “Nome” is a type and they meant “Location Name” (probably a note from the draft of the rules that got missed in final editing).

So, that might have been a misprint from the V2 game. In V2, Finland had Elite Infantry that were 3/5 infantry in the standard game. In looking at the V3 standard game setup now, it only lists regular Infantry for Finland in the start. So in short, I can’t say for sure what should happen. I think if you go by the Neutral set up charts for V3, you need to assume that the “Elite Infantry” mentioned here are really just regular infantry.

So standard game has: 4 INF in Karjala; 1 INF and 1 Militia in Southern Finland; 1 Coastal Defense Ship in SZ 16.

I think for the expansion you change this to: 5 Utti Jaeger, 1 INF in Karjala (converting 3 INF to Utti Jaeger, and adding 2 Utti Jaeger); 1 Utter Jaeger, 1 Militia in Southern Finland (converting 1 INF to Utti Jaeger); 1 Utti Jaeger in Lapland; 1 Coastal Defense Ship in SZ 16 (I don’t think the expansion means to deny Finland it’s naval ship when it says “replace all Finnish forces”. I think that meant land forces.).

But maybe will come along and correct me!

You’re welcome.
In some ways GW-14 is the next evolution of V-3 as far as development. Almost all of the game mechanics are transferred from one game to another. As we are play testing and developing it we are constantly referring to the rulebook for 36 for how to resolve situations/rules in the game and then copy and pasting them into the 14 rulebook. It is a different game for a different time period though so much of it is new. I wouldn’t be surprised if more of the concepts in it are transferred to the next edition of 36 and/or some of the expansions. I’ve been looking at these rules for quite a while now and I didn’t realize that it wasn’t in any of the other rulesets until this.

Another fine example of being wrongly influenced by Axis and Allies in this game. In A&A Global, the submarines have first strike on each round of naval combat. Thanks for the clarification GHG.

@AlphaAeffchen said in Ship movement in peacetime (36 scenario):

Are my assumptions correct?

I would say they are. I think there are two exceptions though, 1) the US’s movement being restricted by their current income, 2) You cant combat move vs a nation through a canal they own.

@Arsilon said in Surrounded Cities and What's up with Naval base?:

I think this confusion stems from confusing Blockaded and Surrounded. One could interpret surrounded as a single ship blocking a naval facility. However blockades are something specific to having 3 or more surface ships in that facility’s sea zone.

While I see no confusion with “A blockaded Naval Facility is considered surrounded,” a more exhaustive sentence could be “A blockaded Naval Facility does not prevent a city not counting as surrounded.”

Hahaha, Bad Hoshi.

Yeah, sorry, my quote there was only in reference to your original hypothetical after we established this wasn’t possible, @insaneHoshi! My point was only if you could have attacked (which again, you cannot), it would maybe have been a risky idea!

The rules of any of the expansion sets replace the rules of the game within the scope of those expansion rules. You’re correct in assuming the British get a special price for radar when using the Sealion Expansion. You will find these types of special costs in many other expansion sets as well. Unless you’re creating your own house rules, use the rules of each particular expansion in your game.

Hello,

HBG has posted updated Reference sheets on their website in October 2020.
https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Global-War-1936v3-Downloads_c_1462.html

Since I had most of them already printed out in color, I was trying to figure out what pages need to be corrected or should be reprinted.

This is a work in progress, but if it can be useful to anyone else, I am posting what I can figure out so far. Please feel free to point out if I missed something.

Quick Reference Sheets:
Facility Reference Sheet v3.1 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 3 (Upgrade costs for factories)
Vichy France Reference Sheet v3.1 (updated 10/20/20) - no visible changes from v3.0
Technology Reference Sheet v3.0 (updated 5/5/20) - no recent changes
Quick Reference Sheet (posted 10/23/20) - New document

Nation Reference Sheets:
ANZAC v3.2 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 3 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Great Britain v3.4 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
China CCP v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (location of “Hainan” in Warlords section)
China KMT v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (location of “Hainan” in Warlords section)
Far East Command v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship) and 3 (Def. value of Seaplane & “Malay” corrected to “British Malaya” in Set-up section)
France v3.4 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Free France v3.2 (updated 4/17/20)- no recent changes
Germany v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 1 (“Bessarabia” corrected to “Southern Ukraine” in Victory Objectives section) page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane), and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Italy v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 3 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Japan v3.4 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 1 (“Malay” corrected to “British Malaya” in Wartime Bonus Income section, “Guam” corrected to “Marinara Islands” in Victory Objectives section), page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and page 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Neutrals v3.4 (updated 10/20/20)- no visible changes from v3.3
USSR v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - **Changes to page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane), page 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship) and 5 (Northern Caucasia" corrected to “North Caucasia” in Set-up section)
United States v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)

Expansion Reference Sheets:
Canada v3.1 (For “Canada at War Expansion”) updated 10/20/20 - Changes to page 1 (5 to 6 in Income and Production section), page 2 (placement of German subs in Set-up section), page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship) - Note that there are still incorrect references to ANZAC in the Build Tables section
Netherlands v3.1 (For “Netherlands Fight Back” Expansion) updated 10/20/20 - no visible changes from v3.0 - Note that the Build Tables section is still not adapted to v.3 rules with four-steps builds and no Seaplane stats
Turkey v3.1 (For “Turkey at War” Expansion) updated 10/20/20 - Changes to page 2 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 3 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship) - Note that there are still incorrect references to ANZAC in the Build Tables section

Hey,

thx to all of you for clarification. Im drivin to my hometown today. Have a nice weekend.

@Noneshallpass To your first question, the Colonial Infantry cost the same as the British, French, and Italian Colonials, 4 IPC’s.

To your “second” question as to what the Netherlands can build in the DEI, I’d say you’re correct that initially all they can build are those units you mention.

To your overall point on the Netherlands’ limited potential, I guess my first response that’s probably specifically by design. The Dutch are certainly a minor player in this game. I suppose in that sense you could compare them to the FEC in that they aren’t even allowed to build a Major Factory. I think this is realistic considering the size of the country. I think limiting their potential is the right move. But let’s not discount the affect being able to build Militia, Commandos, and Colonials in the DEI will have. These are areas that otherwise would sit stagnant until at war. This way some reinforcements can be pumped in from turn one to help defend there. So yeah, I agree with you that it’s probably an impossible achievement to build Factories of any kind for the Dutch.

But, I think you’re discounting something: Other Allied powers could Lend Lease the Dutch a Minor Factory once they’re at war, if you so deem in necessary to have. If that’s something you truly wanted, and thought could be held, have the USA, or UK send one via Lend Lease to whatever DEI island you desire.

To your other overall point of negatively affecting the British Empire, while I agree with you in part in theory, I’d have to disagree in practice.

True, this is money that the British Empire would theoretically receive and be able to divvy up amongst the UK, FEC, and ANZAC. It certainly takes away that potentially.

However, I think in practice for most games, it’s just that, potential. I think a lot of smart Axis players are coordinating their attacks on the Dutch so that the Germans are taking the Netherlands, thus triggering the Dutch entry to war and maximizing income, without coordinating with a Japanese assault on the DEI to occur on the same turn and/or the turn preceding Germany’s move. With this assumed coordination, this isn’t money the British Empire is going to receive anyways, as it will be in Axis possession. Or at least a good chunk of it will be on the first turn of war, with the rest of it probably to follow the next turn. So I don’t think this truly hurts as much as it might seem on paper.

True, the Allies could liberate those territories later in the game, and then the argument can be made that it’s negatively impacting the British Empire. Though, to play devils advocate, that might mean things are already looking bleak for the Japanese anyways if they can’t hold on to the DEI, making that extra money for the British superfluous anyways.

But maybe those are just my games. I personally never declare war on the Netherlands until I know I can make a concerted effort to hit the DEI first or at the same time as the Netherlands itself. I specifically want to prevent exactly what you’re describing: giving the British extra income they otherwise wouldn’t receive.

But then, let’s go back to how it affects the game. In addition to my thoughts above on how it affects the game for the British, I also think this can still actually make the Allies stronger. Again, you can pump in some immediate reinforcements in Militia, Colonials, or Commandos that you couldn’t otherwise. Plus, I think in a lot of games that money is wasted away to Axis occupation almost immediately. At least this way that money can go to some use for Dutch forces. Might also allow for more immediate troops to the front lines too. Maybe the USA continues to pump a Lend Least unit to the Dutch "home country"of London, if we assume the Netherlands has been taken.

My overall point being, I think there’s a lot of ways to get creative to keep the Dutch as a bit of a thorn. But I also don’t think it ultimately affects the British in as great of a negative way as it might initially seem on paper!

Can’t speak to the Reference sheet issues. I’d probably just ignore those and just use what’s on the main/new “Facilities” reference sheet for the game.

Yeah, if I remember correctly, it was though/decided that the Dutch turn would happen either directly after the British Empire, or at the same time. But I don’t think either of those were technically “official” responses/answers!

@JbuckBuddy
The militia don’t move

@insaneHoshi Hi, I meant that if the Seaplane have a patrol range of 2 instead of 1 from the start - that would mean that the allies can cover all convoy spaces with aircraft from start. That would be wrong, historically. So the range should be 1 to simulate the Atlantic gap problem the allies had.

@insaneHoshi good points all around. I wasn’t think big picture when you said that. Of course others would have to be at war to Lend Lease. So yeah, that makes it a different situation anyways. Still though, just goes to show there are a plethora of possibilities!

@sleipnersm38 Yeah, I hear you. I think they’re just keeping it consistent with their rules throughout the base game, i.e. bonuses can’t stack. That’s already something they’ve done. For example, defenders/attackers of a city with a river don’t get bonuses/negatives to stack on each other. Same with river and mountain territories, etc.

Just to clarify my example and yours too, a commander could help units on a mountain territory that were defending, but it would be non-mountain infantry units, since mountain infantry already have a +1 bonus. Regular infantry, militia, etc. could still benefit from that commander.

@Noneshallpass I think the roundels were originally just a fun extra flavor for using under your Panzer Grenadiers in the standard game (i.e. before they created this expansion). So it was, and is, fun to have the insignia’s included on even just for flair! But when using the Expansion I suppose they become worthless as a Global War piece since the standard game Panzer Grenadier rules are replaced. But yeah, I do think that’s the explanation on why you received them with the Expansion.

Good point on the wording. I could certainly be wrong given that wording that I clearly overlooked. My gut says that might be an error, in wording, but that’s obviously not official haha. I’d say if there’s one big flaw in the rules over time, it’s been consistency in wording and also clarification at times, so I do think that could be it.

I guess you could, as a sort of “house rule”, decide that the January 1943 placement rules can be changed to putting the roundels under mechanized infantry, and then the July 1943 would be upgrading those mechanized infantry to medium armor? May be too much of a stretch though.

@insaneHoshi Ahh, thanks!