You’re welcome
Version 4?
-
The map. I waited a year for 39 rules to come out. Was a bit pissed.
So Koba and I played 39 game with groups. So he wanted to see and me if we could setup 39 game on new 36 map. Set it up. 2 issues we had were Uk and med sz to small or not enough space. Anyway we looked at new v2 39 rules and way to long and much. I would probably play the game but most not in both groupsThought the map was really cool. Only cons were to many low territory values and maybe it was the railroad over kill.
Works better in tigermans Barbarossa gameRather have war room railroads like they have on Larry’s map.
-
@gen-manstein Do you mean the '39 rules for the original Global War 1939 game? Or the 1939 setup in the GW36 game? I think you mean the former, but want to be sure.
But that definitely makes sense. Would be hard to go between the two in that regard. I never played the original '39 game, but I also knew the V2 map was coming out soon as a '36 game, and that’s what really appealed to me personally. I loved the idea of staging some of it yourself pre-39.
I’ve never looked at LH’s War Room map much. Looked intriguing.
-
We played v1 39. Then v2 36 39
came out but the 39 rules weren’t ready. So had to wait a year. Bs.
Then I tried to setup v1 39 on the v2 36-39
Map but wouldn’t work based on Uk to close to Ger baltic and smaller med I believe -
Got it, I get you now.
Yeah, that’s rough. And it sounds like the V1 39 game was definitely different enough for it not to work on the V2 map without having the V2 setup ready to go. That’s definitely a bummer.
-
@chris_henry said in Version 4?:
Got it, I get you now.
Yeah, that’s rough. And it sounds like the V1 39 game was definitely different enough for it not to work on the V2 map without having the V2 setup ready to go. That’s definitely a bummer.
We actually liked the v1. 39 setup better than v2. 39 setup
Just can’t remember if I tried setup on map then or a year earlier before v2. 39 rules came out -
@gen-manstein Interesting. Makes me curious on what the original '39 game looked like in comparison to the V2 '39 game. We always do the '36 setup, so I probably couldn’t fully relate anyways haha.
Either way, they were certainly two different maps, with large enough differences in game play it seems where I’m not surprised using the V1 setup wouldn’t fully work in V2. Whether it’s spacing as you said, or general playability.
-
As someone who plays v3 on a v2 map, i fully imagine that minor map changes (if we take that at face value) will be not enough to significantly impact playing v4 on a v3 map.
-
@insanehoshi just the man I want to hear from then!
Curious, how did you reconcile setup for areas where there are territories that didn’t exist before?
How did you reconcile the new terrain features? Do you even use them, since they’re technically optional rules? Or did you buy the terrain markers set from HBG?
I thought a long time about just using my V2 map for V3. We might do so if we can get a game going again too. But I didn’t want to chance any setup debates with new territories. I know there weren’t many, but I think you get what I mean. But I also have been really attracted to the added terrain art to enhance the map.
That’s just it though, as you said, what does “minor” changes mean? To me that doesn’t mean adding territories on the map. But it might mean that for others.
-
Curious, how did you reconcile setup for areas where there are territories that didn’t exist before?
Fortunately, v3 only added territories, so we didn’t have to worry about merging multiple setup units into one.
And most of the new territories are easily distinct, even without lines (which we went in and marked up later).
The most annoying part of it were the facilities, you’ll need enough tokens for facilities to mark up the map, i used 1cmx1cm glass mosaic squares that I stamped letters on. We also assumed that every territory has a minor port, because ill be dammed if i have to set all those up.
How did you reconcile the new terrain features? Do you even use them, since they’re technically optional rules?
I think most of the terrain features are there in v2. I think we skipped on jungles and desert however as they are missing IIRC.
To me that doesn’t mean adding territories on the map. But it might mean that for others.
I think it might include minor things like
- Is Iraq Connected to the Ocean?
- Is Burma Connected to China (via passable terrain)
- Is Western Australia Mountainous from the sea (Rondel to Rondel terrain tracing doesn’t work for amphibious assaults).
- Do we really need minor ports?
- Updated Rondels
- Here would be my dream, built in battle boards on the north and south sides of the map. Get their image for the battleboard, set the opacity to 50% and set it to the bottom and top.
-
@insanehoshi said in Version 4?:
Curious, how did you reconcile setup for areas where there are territories that didn’t exist before?
Fortunately, v3 only added territories, so we didn’t have to worry about merging multiple setup units into one.
And most of the new territories are easily distinct, even without lines (which we went in and marked up later).
The most annoying part of it were the facilities, you’ll need enough tokens for facilities to mark up the map, i used 1cmx1cm glass mosaic squares that I stamped letters on. We also assumed that every territory has a minor port, because ill be dammed if i have to set all those up.
How did you reconcile the new terrain features? Do you even use them, since they’re technically optional rules?
I think most of the terrain features are there in v2. I think we skipped on jungles and desert however as they are missing IIRC.
To me that doesn’t mean adding territories on the map. But it might mean that for others.
I think it might include minor things like
- Is Iraq Connected to the Ocean?
- Is Burma Connected to China (via passable terrain)
- Is Western Australia Mountainous from the sea (Rondel to Rondel terrain tracing doesn’t work for amphibious assaults).
- Do we really need minor ports?
- Updated Rondels
- Here would be my dream, built in battle boards on the north and south sides of the map. Get their image for the battleboard, set the opacity to 50% and set it to the bottom and top.
Not on map but top and bottom battle boards
-
This post is deleted! -
Fortunately, v3 only added territories, so we didn’t have to worry about merging multiple setup units into one.
And most of the new territories are easily distinct, even without lines (which we went in and marked up later).
Oh wow, I don’t know if I realized there wasn’t any setup changes. Well that’s nice then. I didn’t know if the added London city territory, for example, would cause you to have to decide what units would be placed there or in the lower England territory. Pretty convenient there.
We also assumed that every territory has a minor port, because ill be dammed if i have to set all those up.
Hahaha that’s pretty good. Honestly, one of my reservations in V3 was the different dockyard/shipyard/ports. There’s so much on there now and a lot to remember. But a great houserule to just give everything a minor port for ease!
I think most of the terrain features are there in v2. I think we skipped on jungles and desert however as they are missing IIRC.
Got it, that makes sense too then. My biggest reason for wanting the new map is specifically because of the Jungle and Desert terrain, but if it wasn’t for you guys then no point on that front!
I think it might include minor things like
- Is Iraq Connected to the Ocean?
- Is Burma Connected to China (via passable terrain)
- Is Western Australia Mountainous from the sea (Rondel to Rondel terrain tracing doesn’t work for amphibious assaults).
- Do we really need minor ports?
- Updated Rondels
- Here would be my dream, built in battle boards on the north and south sides of the map. Get their image for the battleboard, set the opacity to 50% and set it to the bottom and top.
Certainly what I would call minor as well, and is what I hope it would be too! But I think you and Manstein are right, I should get V3, and if I want V4 later that cost isn’t enough to make me not get it!
The battleboard would be neat, but I’m like Manstein overall, we just use them on the sides. But I get the convenience of having them printed!
And @GEN-MANSTEIN, what an incredible table. We don’t have the space for this as of now, but I think we all are hoping to get there sometime!
-
@chris_henry I know there was definitely a few set up changes from V2. The french got an extra BB, the cruisers got divided up, and I think the British “Force H” got moved from 80 to 79. Some of the build queue stuff changed as well. Plus of course the added territories in Greece, Japan, London, Tobruk, etc. Nothing major.
My wishlist for v4 includes:- Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all
- A better Strategic naval move system
- More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
- On more sea zone from the US to HI. They are almost as far away from HI as HI is from Japan.
- Japan being able to take planes on their sneak attack
- Damage costs for capital ships
- Supply, defending retreat, in port, shipborne AA rules. All just good ways to add some accuracy to the game.
- Battlecruisers!!! And not those mislabeled things we have now. I want the Hood and Kongo and well, that is about it. Maybe Yavuz.
-
@trig said in Version 4?:
@chris_henry I know there was definitely a few set up changes from V2. The french got an extra BB, the cruisers got divided up, and I think the British “Force H” got moved from 80 to 79. Some of the build queue stuff changed as well. Plus of course the added territories in Greece, Japan, London, Tobruk, etc. Nothing major.
My wishlist for v4 includes:- Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all
**I noticed that too. Maybe on my next map make routes but can only hit in certain areas based on history.
** - A better Strategic naval move system
**How would you like to have this ?
** - More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
**Agree here. At least I have on my map only 1 move period through Asia and Russian Siberian territories to the coast.
** - On more sea zone from the US to HI. They are almost as far away from HI as HI is from Japan.
Yes. Should be the same for both countries or just 1 sz closer for US if possible. Depends on miles.
- Japan being able to take planes on their sneak attack
OK
- Damage costs for capital ships
Yes
- Supply, defending retreat, in port, shipborne AA rules. All just good ways to add some accuracy to the game.
**How would you use your shipborne AA ? I have in my game.
** - Battlecruisers!!! And not those mislabeled things we have now. I want the Hood and Kongo and well, that is about it. Maybe Yavuz.
Sweet
- Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all
-
Thanks @Trig . I thought there were some changes, maybe I misunderstood insaneHoshi’s comment above!
- More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
To your point on territories, specifically in Yugo, China, and Iran. First, it sounds like the Croatia at War Expansion is something for you! Do you use it? True it’s not base game, but getting that expansion probably quells your concerns there? I agree with China, I think some of those warlord territories could be split in two, at least. I don’t know how much Iran matters overall. I think that area is largely a sideshow compared to the others. At what point do they stop splitting? You could argue Africa should more or less double it’s territories as well then, same with Canada. But I do get what you’re saying.
- Japan being able to take planes on their sneak attack
I don’t follow here. You’re talking about the Japanese Special Ability, right? Nothing says Japanese planes can’t partake. It in fact says that all Japanese planes get first strike. Maybe I’m misunderstanding?
-
@chris_henry
The argument on the Japanese sneak attack, has been ongoing for a while now. The rule in the book states that Japanese ships can move 5 spaces when performing the sneak attack and the argument is carrier based aircraft can only move a maximum of 4 spaces according to the rules. I am paraphrasing but just trying to give you a basic understanding of the argument. In my opinion the Japanese aircraft should be allowed to participate in the sneak attack, this I believe is the spirit of the whole sneak attack scenario involving Japan. I am sure it will be straightened out soon if it has not already been and I just missed it…which sometimes happens. -
@chris_henry said in Version 4?:
Thanks @Trig . I thought there were some changes, maybe I misunderstood insaneHoshi’s comment above!
No, that was my problem. I misread his statement as what he wanted not what he expected. Hence my list. I doubt even half the things I say will get changed, but it is worth getting them out there.
- More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
To your point on territories, specifically in Yugo, China, and Iran. First, it sounds like the Croatia at War Expansion is something for you! Do you use it? True it’s not base game, but getting that expansion probably quells your concerns there? I agree with China, I think some of those warlord territories could be split in two, at least. I don’t know how much Iran matters overall. I think that area is largely a sideshow compared to the others. At what point do they stop splitting? You could argue Africa should more or less double it’s territories as well then, same with Canada. But I do get what you’re saying.
My thoughts are this: If you can get the space, make more territories. If possible, make the sizing as realistic as possible. For instance, the Belgian Congo is the same size as much of western europe, which is over 20 territories. That is not necessary, but 2 or 3 might be nice. And there is space, considering that almost nothing happens there and the armies involved are quite small. similarly, you could cut down Quebec of Northwest territories, or add in more territories in Siberia (or especially Western Kazakhstan. That thing is bloated.) Tsinghai or Tibet could be two territories. Even Iran could get another territory, Southeastern Iran or something. I could list a bunch of places but you get the idea.
On Yugo, I like the idea from the expansion, but I think a better solution would be to make 2 or 3 territories in the base game. A northern Croatia and a southern Serbia, possibly adding Northern Macedonia if needed. (Slovenia is just too small.) The expansion also only takes effect after the conquest, and the point is to make it a little longer to conquer Yugoslavia and show their historical problem of a decent army but a huge border. (Also, Greece is about 1.5 times smaller than Yugo, but gets 4 territories. Really?)
- Japan being able to take planes on their sneak attack
I don’t follow here. You’re talking about the Japanese Special Ability, right? Nothing says Japanese planes can’t partake. It in fact says that all Japanese planes get first strike. Maybe I’m misunderstanding?
Mark just answered this, and I would just love an ability to either give the plans a +1 or let them ride carriers or something. There are a lot of Sneak attack possibilities where it is called off b/c the planes can’t reach. this just seems unrealistic, b/c one of the biggest reasons for Japan to do well early on was air superiority. (Pearl Harbor anyone?) Not a big deal, but it is annoying.
Overall, I have great respect for the designers, this is just a list of things think could be improved or added. I look forward to v4, and can’t wait to see what they pull out next.
-
@gen-manstein said in Version 4?:
@trig said in Version 4?:
@chris_henry I know there was definitely a few set up changes from V2. The french got an extra BB, the cruisers got divided up, and I think the British “Force H” got moved from 80 to 79. Some of the build queue stuff changed as well. Plus of course the added territories in Greece, Japan, London, Tobruk, etc. Nothing major.
My wishlist for v4 includes:- Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all
I noticed that too. Maybe on my next map make routes but can only hit in certain areas based on history.
I mainly want this for the Coastal gun and terrain question, about where ships are. It just makes sense that we can use a existing system from the land and move it to sea. Also, now we could add reefs and sea terrain :) - A better Strategic naval move system
.
How would you like to have this ?
Mainly just an ability to move all ships, or move w/o transports, longer distance, etc to better reflect the speed at which ships move! I’m not sure, but it could definitely be improved. I need to try some things out. A air ferry thing would be cool too, seeing as we have a speed move for land and sea as well.
. - More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
**Agree here. At least I have on my map only 1 move period through Asia and Russian Siberian territories to the coast.
** - On more sea zone from the US to HI. They are almost as far away from HI as HI is from Japan.
Yes. Should be the same for both countries or just 1 sz closer for US if possible. Depends on miles.
Yes> They are 3,855.98 mi from Tokyo and 2,393 mi for San Fran. At least 22 and3 >
- Damage costs for capital ships
Yes
I use 1d6 for thins
- Supply, defending retreat, in port, shipborne AA rules. All just good ways to add some accuracy to the game.
**How would you use your shipborne AA ? I have in my game.
**
Mainly as a form of defense aginst air attack. A plane can attack ship with them shooting back at lower values. Would give some more accuracy. - Battlecruisers!!! And not those mislabeled things we have now. I want the Hood and Kongo and well, that is about it. Maybe Yavuz.
Sweet
I would like a system much like a BB but without any hitpoints, would be a fun unit.
k
Sorry for the bad text near the middle, my computer is acting up. Will redo on a ddifferent device. - Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all
-
Thanks @Trig and @Mark-the-Shark. I guess I hadn’t really considered that before! Has there been official rulings on that? I have somehow missed those discussions here. I can’t imagine they meant to not have planes be able to attack. I’m guessing that was an oversight when creating that rule allowing ships to move 5 spaces. That’s what I had always assumed at least. We’ve never even considered not allowing planes to go in that circumstance. I just let them ride with the carrier the 5 spaces, but they can’t attack outside that last landing spot.
My thoughts are this: If you can get the space, make more territories. If possible, make the sizing as realistic as possible. For instance, the Belgian Congo is the same size as much of western europe, which is over 20 territories. That is not necessary, but 2 or 3 might be nice. And there is space, considering that almost nothing happens there and the armies involved are quite small. similarly, you could cut down Quebec of Northwest territories, or add in more territories in Siberia (or especially Western Kazakhstan. That thing is bloated.) Tsinghai or Tibet could be two territories. Even Iran could get another territory, Southeastern Iran or something. I could list a bunch of places but you get the idea.
On Yugo, I like the idea from the expansion, but I think a better solution would be to make 2 or 3 territories in the base game. A northern Croatia and a southern Serbia, possibly adding Northern Macedonia if needed. (Slovenia is just too small.) The expansion also only takes effect after the conquest, and the point is to make it a little longer to conquer Yugoslavia and show their historical problem of a decent army but a huge border. (Also, Greece is about 1.5 times smaller than Yugo, but gets 4 territories. Really?)
I definitely get your overall argument for such large swaths only being one territory when much smaller areas are more. I guess to that I’d just say there’s a point in game/map designing where “less is more”. The Congo for example, while I totally agree with you given it’s size, is really a backwater in the game that is probably hardly ever touched, right? There were probably decisions made on that based on playability and overall usefulness I’d think. I know the overarching complaints on the size of Africa in this and basically all A&A games have always been there. But I think it ultimately comes down to playtesting and realizing nothing usually happens down that way outside of Northern African more or less.
I think a similar argument could be made for Yugoslavia. The entire invasion of Yugoslavia, start to surrender, was 11 days. That’s hardly even a fraction of a game turn of 6 months! It would seem weird to me to have that occupation potentially take 3 game turns to playout. I get your point on comparing to Greece, but the Greeks also held out for 6 months, and even then were only defeated after the Germans helped out.
I’m not sold on Iran though. Again, I get your points, but for a Neutral nation that historically was a backwater, I think 3 territories is fine. But obviously we all have our different thoughts. Yugoslavia, when put in the context of Greece, is pretty glaring too. I just always assume the expansion layover. Maybe you could just start your games with the overlay on your board as a bit of a house rule?
I do, however, completely agree with you on China. I think Tibet, Sinkiang, and Xibei San Ma, at the very least could each be split in two. Maybe even into three for Xibei San Ma. Yunnan could maybe have a North and South also. I think the internalized struggle of the Chinese Civil War alone could warrant this. But I agree too that it could help bog down the Japanese. Our games don’t usually see the Japanese move far inland after taking the money territories, so maybe we don’t see it as much. From a gaming sense though, I could see how the free recruitment rolls for the CCP, for example, could get too out of control if you give them 6-8 more territories to conceivably take over and utilize. Again, I could see how that could start to unbalance game play a bit.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound combative by mentioning everything piece by piece. I think you just hit the nail on the head on a lot of intriguing areas and the pros/cons can probably build up forever! I just think sometimes there was probably gaming considerations put into some of these thoughts as opposed to glaring, intentional omissions from overall landmass!
-
@trig “Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all”
Why would you want roundels in the sea, and how would that make anything easier?
Suggested Topics
