Development of Alternate Version of Rules

[Mike Koffey]

@rohr94:

For facility bombing and saturation bombing do you have escorts and intercepting?  just in general how do you do these two strategic attacks?

We are revamping the sequences here. In short we do have these rules. For saturation this is one of the missions we have. We are adding reconnaissance as a type of air mission in naval battles (remember Strawberry 5 in Midway finding the Japanese Navy?) I know it has been awhile since we have posted but we have play-tested a version but have needed to make some revisions. We are adding new weapons development and timetables for producing units (as suggested by you and others) as well as a few new types of units (militia/auxiliaries) and medium bombers. We are increasing maritime movement. We are adding weather as a significant factor (after all weather played a factor in countless engagements including D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, and Stalingrad and Russia in general).

The hardest part is set-up. Not every unit listed in the beginning of the game is mobilized on the board. Some of it is in process. The French army is not quite ready. They boast 5,000,000 in Reserves but these will be designated as auxiliaries and not as good. These nuances will help with the realism in determining combat power. We are adding Industrial complexes in the US as well as railroads in Europe.

We are typing this up. What will be needed to play is Global 1939 with all the necessary parts.

[sophiedog2]

Have you considered bombing of fortresses and a separate artillery phase, like in inasion of italy?

[Mike Koffey]

@sophiedog2:

Have you considered bombing of fortresses and a separate artillery phase, like in inasion of italy?

In terms of bombing fortresses - absolutely we have this as a strategic-phase action which goes before the tactical phase. In terms of artillery, we have considered an artillery phase but due to this being a strategic level game, we have included artillery along with all ground units in that attack or defense. We do have where improved artillery can pinpoint and select targets.

Thanks for asking. We are getting ready to launch the new rules version.

[Bud Tarentine]

I don’t know if anyone is still interested out there, but we’re play-testing the final version of the rules for this. Some significant changes have taken place as we have thought about World War II. They are the following:

1. Using a D20 for combat (along with the D6 and D12 for other things too). Buying D20 dice is easy if you don’t have any - they’re fairly cheap to get at your local game store or on-line. The D20 system allows for more variance between national armies, which is number 2) below. Ground units, for example, have a TH OFF POS score, which means a “to hit, offensive posture score” - i.e., let’s say a German Infantry in the Offensive Posture has a score of 17. The player needs to roll a 17 or higher on the D20 to hit. I basically converted the percentage ratios of the D6 into the D20. So, needing a 1 on the D6 now could mean a range of 17-20, depending on your unit/nationality and other stuff.

2. Variance of national armies. What I have done is make a series of reasonably easy-to-read charts for all the units and their capabilities by nation. Germany Infantry are better than Italian Infantry. You will be able to see the differences.

3. Terrain and weather: I’ve updated our weather chart based off of world-wide seasonal weather patterns. It took some time, but I think it’ll work (there were a few problems with our earlier version). Terrain: we’ve added Rivers to certain territories - most territories have rivers, but we’re only concerned with large rivers and delta areas - places that could impeded military progress significantly. It’ll affect combat in the first round of a battle and give defenders bonuses.

4. We’ve reworked strategic bombing damage on factories. It’ll probably take months of sustained strategic bombing to really start affecting the war. But it will. Major Ind. Complexes don’t have negative production capacity until after 20 points of damage, for example…

5. Limitations to industrial production: Major ICs can produce up to 6 mechanized units, planes or ships per turn; Minor ICs 1 mech. unit (i.e. Light Tank, Medium Tank, Heavy Tank, Self-Propelled Artillery, all planes, all ships). There are no limitations for Infantry, Auxiliary Infantry, AA Guns, Artillery or Paratroopers) - except one’s normal production capacity. We found it unrealistic that South Africa could produce so many tanks.

6. We’ve split the economies of Canada and South Africa.

7. UK-London, British Empire Far East, Canada, South Africa and ANZAC all go at the same time for strategic and tactical combat.

8. Destroyer screens during naval combat.

More to follow… I have to run at the moment!

[John Brown]

@Bud:

I don’t know if anyone is still interested out there, but we’re play-testing the final version of the rules for this. Some significant changes have taken place as we have thought about World War II. They are the following:

1. Using a D20 for combat (along with the D6 and D12 for other things too). Buying D20 dice is easy if you don’t have any - they’re fairly cheap to get at your local game store or on-line. The D20 system allows for more variance between national armies, which is number 2) below. Ground units, for example, have a TH OFF POS score, which means a “to hit, offensive posture score” - i.e., let’s say a German Infantry in the Offensive Posture has a score of 17. The player needs to roll a 17 or higher on the D20 to hit. I basically converted the percentage ratios of the D6 into the D20. So, needing a 1 on the D6 now could mean a range of 17-20, depending on your unit/nationality and other stuff.

2. Variance of national armies. What I have done is make a series of reasonably easy-to-read charts for all the units and their capabilities by nation. Germany Infantry are better than Italian Infantry. You will be able to see the differences.

3. Terrain and weather: I’ve updated our weather chart based off of world-wide seasonal weather patterns. It took some time, but I think it’ll work (there were a few problems with our earlier version). Terrain: we’ve added Rivers to certain territories - most territories have rivers, but we’re only concerned with large rivers and delta areas - places that could impeded military progress significantly. It’ll affect combat in the first round of a battle and give defenders bonuses.

4. We’ve reworked strategic bombing damage on factories. It’ll probably take months of sustained strategic bombing to really start affecting the war. But it will. Major Ind. Complexes don’t have negative production capacity until after 20 points of damage, for example…

5. Limitations to industrial production: Major ICs can produce up to 6 mechanized units, planes or ships per turn; Minor ICs 1 mech. unit (i.e. Light Tank, Medium Tank, Heavy Tank, Self-Propelled Artillery, all planes, all ships). There are no limitations for Infantry, Auxiliary Infantry, AA Guns, Artillery or Paratroopers) - except one’s normal production capacity. We found it unrealistic that South Africa could produce so many tanks.

6. We’ve split the economies of Canada and South Africa.

7. UK-London, British Empire Far East, Canada, South Africa and ANZAC all go at the same time for strategic and tactical combat.

8. Destroyer screens during naval combat.

More to follow… I have to run at the moment!

Wow Bud, you all have put some time into this. I really like 20 sided dice, because you can do so much with them, and I have plenty of them from D&D and fantasy games.

I can’t wait for your final rules.

This sounds very interesting. :-)

[Bud Tarentine]

Thank you John Brown. I’m back…

Additional rule changes:

8. Destroyer screens: Destroyers can try to intercept attacking subs before they reach the rest of the fleet (kind of like the way a Fighter scrambles to intercept an attacking bomber) - but on water. A submarine/anti-submarine warfare phase always goes before surface warfare (right after the Air Battle phase in Air-Naval Combat).

9. Weapons, Technology & Research Development: certain nations can acquire most of these; some nations are restricted to a few. We researched who had what technology or was “working on it” so to speak. Some countries start off with a few WTR developments at the beginning of the game too to reflect reality.

10. Politics. We know some people might not like political complexity to this game, but we had to make it realistic. And if Germany decides to start the war in Europe by attacking someone else besides Poland, that option is available. But, we want to remind players that World War II has already begun in a sense - Japan has attacked Nationalist and Communist China, the latter entities are supported by Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States (historically, anyways).

11. We lowered Italian overall IPC levels a bit. We did change how the United States would enter the war too. They start at 0, and do not roll to add to their national production until January 1940 (provided they are not attacked). They’ll roll IPCs until they reach 30 and will be capped at 30 until November of 1940, in which the US begins rolling 2-7 IPCs per month (plus bonuses). It signals the change in the Roosevelt Administration after the November 1940 election. The IPC level will also increase every turn by certain events on the board as a reaction to Axis aggression, including Axis occupation of Atlantic convoy zones. France has a similar slow start - because although France boasted of having 5,000,000 reservists, they couldn’t call them up easily. And this reflects French political leadership and their unwillingness to fight an offensive war. The French player can certainly attack the Germans, but it’s really risky because they won’t have much in the way of reinforcements during the Fall of 1939…

12. We really boosted the US strategic infrastructure. The US will be fully mobilized at 92 IPCs plus a 20 IPC bonus. Lend lease has been changed. The US can give up to 18 IPCs to Allied countries per month. The British can give 5; the Soviet Union can give C. China 1-2 IPCs per month.

13. Vichy rules. Simplified rules. Corsica remains Free French. All other French territories automatically become Vichy. Units on those countries may join the Axis or disband. Ships might be scuttled, join the Axis or the Allies. French troops in Allied controlled territories might remain Free French or disband.

14. Partisans and Axis Auxiliary troops. We’ve made an interesting chart that outlines potential Partisan uprisings and Axis Auxiliaries at certain times.

15. A general Events Chart is rolled every month that could affect one or more players - inflation, industrial fires, civilian volunteers, economic surges and also problems…Roll D30.

Anyways, these are a few things. We don’t know who will play this version. Perhaps no one will want to. That’s okay with us. But, what we’re going to do is play a few months of the war and then present the rules. The rules will be long and somewhat complex - I’m going to try to write them in such a way as to provide clarity and consistency throughout. Right now it’s about 55 pages long. It’ll probably end up being a little longer than that. Charts will be in the rules and also in an appendix for quick reference. We’ll also include a list of all units needed to play and our suggested map revisions. Those map revisions do not have to be “permanent” - just use scotch tape and a marker. We made our own terrain markers but one can just go to Staples and buy 1/4" colored dots (red=urban; yellow=mountainous; green=jungle/forest; blue=river or in a sea zone to account for 2 spaces to expand the Pacific Ocean since we think it should be bigger).

[Mike Koffey]

We will keep everyone posted about the final testing phase of this and then get the rules out. It is important to keep in mind that this will not be a “play in the afternoon” type of game but more or less like an RPG that is on-going. It will not be decided in three turns.

We broke down and finally added light tanks too. Just remember the roll to hit on the D20 represents “combat power” which can include a variety of things: quality of unit, tactical leadership, communications, logistics, training and tactical doctrine, etc. It is not “this was a better tank” and so it this piece should be higher. There are many factors that go into combat power.

[General 6 Stars]

Some of this stuff I agree with, but its going to be hard to get most players to play with all the changes and more stuff add. I would do it and buddy would but not the play group. IMO

[Munck]

I’m very interested in this. Please update this thread accordingly  :-D

Note: Do you know that a new version of Global War is due this November?

Check out the new map among other things on their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/GlobalWar1939?fref=ts

[Bud Tarentine]

Hi Munck,
We plan to keep everyone informed of its development - for those who want it. I am aware about the new version coming out in November. The map looks really interesting, although I’d personally want some modifications to it (I think Africa is too small and the Pacific is too small). We actually like the revised map HBG put out a couple of years ago… We just had to make modifications, including adding extra Sea Zones, placing a blue dot on certain Sea Zones to count for 2 movement points, adding terrain, adding territories (mainly in Africa), and changing IPC values for some territories. We also changed set up to reflect a historical approach - so we made set-up charts for all the nations. We didn’t change everything though. If it was historically accurate, we kept it. We based units on the board according to combat power and not number of troops/tanks (the Russians had about 19,000 tanks in 1939, but they don’t have a massive stack of tanks on the board).

Anyways, we’ve abandoned the idea of each turn lasts 6 months approach. That approach makes it more playable and faster (and maybe more fun?), but we just couldn’t reconcile it with actual historical events and ship and plane technology. Their movement points don’t coincide with history at all. Our one-month-per-turn will be a slow, grinding game - but we’re going for more realism. As a player, you get to make the strategic and tactical decisions that are difficult: we’re trying to lessen “game” aspects and heighten realism. Obviously it is still a game. But we’ve introduced things that will make the game more fluid: weather, terrain, leadership, logistics, somewhat complex rules for actual battles (with initiative, number of phases in a battle, offensive and defensive posture, retreating, amphibious evacuation, surprise and surrender), politics, an events chart and partisans, different training among nations and their armed forces, some new Weapons Developments. But most of all: changes in strategic and tactical turn order every month. Who went first in last round may not go first in this round. It’s random but there are modifiers that give you a better chance of acting before your enemy does. You’ll never play the same game twice. You don’t know what the weather will be like. And, of course, you might radically alter what the Axis or Allies actually did in the war. It’ll be like a game that you “save” and come back to later. Some people might not be able to do this, and that’s okay. But for those who want a more historical approach to World War II, we’re going to offer it as an alternate version.

[Chris_Henry]

Wow, just read this whole thread and it looks incredible. I’m in complete agreement about timetables. I know it’s hard in a game, but I’ve always wanted to figure out a way to make turns into one-month increments.

It sounds crazy, but I agree that the maps are too small to do this kind of game, so I like what you’ve done with the rules to force the issue. Like others have said, it will be hard to get people to want to play such a long game, but I am one of those. Completely worth it to me to have a high level of thinking game. I’m truly interested in seeing your rules, if nothing else even PMing me would be appreciated!

I was going to point out the 1936 map as well that was coming out. I haven’t bought any of HGB’s maps yet, mostly because I just don’t have the room. Once I heard of the 1936 map I figured I’d just wait. Would your game be able to translate to the new map easily?

So many parts about your game fascinate me and are similar to ideas I’ve always had but haven’t had the time to really put down and hammer out, I won’t even bother going into them all here.

[Bud Tarentine]

Chris_Henry,
Thanks for the feedback and question. As for the new map, I’m not sure if these rules would be compatible. You’d have to adjust a few things I suppose. We’re not in a position to get the new map right now. Plus, we like the 1939 revised map.

I think the size of the maps are okay actually - What we thought the problem was that ships - if the timetable is 6 months - would be able to move much, much farther than is allowed. And planes even more. It took about 15 days of sailing for American troops to reach North Africa from Virginia. Given loading a ship and disembarking, we figured that the US should be able to invade North Africa from the US in a turn - 1 month - not 6 months. So, we had to adjust the map by eliminating SZ 35 around Gibraltar, give the US “improved Naval Bases” that add an extra movement point during combat movement (i.e. ship 2, +1 for naval base, +1 for improv. NB = 4). But we added some extra sea spaces between the US and France by placing blue dots in certain SZs in the Atlantic so that the US couldn’t simply invade France from the mainland of the US - it’s a bit fictional. We may or may not do this and actually remove the blue dots…All in all, we didn’t want to make our own map - we didn’t have the time and we liked the revised version of the 1939 map (we bought the largest one)…

[Munck]

Do you have your current rules written down? Would love to see where you are at this point.

Are you looking for feedback or help from other people, or are you doing this ‘locally’?

The new map should be a better version of 1939 revised. They have made more changes since the Facebook post, so I don’t know the current lay-out. How have you made your revisions to the 1939 map? Have you scanned the HBG one or are you using ‘pen & paper’ ?

Another question, how many hours do you envision a game will take?

Again, keep up the good work  :-)

[Chris_Henry]

Sorry Bud, I should have clarified what I meant. It was more the land combat than anything I was referring to (I completely agree about ship movement realism). The idea of Burma falling quickly always bugged me, short fights in Africa, fighting in Italy etc. Essentially saying I agree with you on a way to simulate the longer drawn out battles. I had always thought of a map that had Burma split into two or three territories for example, but your version is more practical (as you’re right, it would take a ton of time to make a map!).

[Bud Tarentine]

@Munck:

Do you have your current rules written down? Would love to see where you are at this point.

Are you looking for feedback or help from other people, or are you doing this ‘locally’?

The new map should be a better version of 1939 revised. They have made more changes since the Facebook post, so I don’t know the current lay-out. How have you made your revisions to the 1939 map? Have you scanned the HBG one or are you using ‘pen & paper’ ?

Another question, how many hours do you envision a game will take?

Again, keep up the good work  :-)

Munck,

We have the rules down in draft form with additional charts for easy reference. We’ve received some feedback on this board. For map revisions:
new countries/sea zones: scotch tape, black marker for a new border - it isn’t permanent but it looks decent
IPC changes: we made little red and black squares with numbers, like you see on the map, printed at Staples on a single adhesive sheet (I forget the Avery number) - then we simply cut those out and peeled them off and put them on the board. Looks great. We made our own terrain markers this way as well. And we made some 1/2" square chips for RR, Defensive Lines, Weather - we also use HBG stuff and Axis & Allies stuff too, and counters from other games. But you can virtually make any type of chip you want.

The game will take months - literally months. I’m the Axis this time. My associate, who happens to be my brother, will play the Allies. He’s a really good player. I’ve somehow got to find a way to beat him.

BTW, we changed the Axis victory cities to 12, not 10 - it forces the Axis to essentially eliminate a major power - i.e. a major competing political system at the time - either communism or liberal democracy. That’s really what World War II is about as far as the Germans are concerned. Social Darwinism on a national scale - a global scale. We put all of that in the game as accurate, historical background, because we think it’s fun to also learn about history as you play the game…

[Bud Tarentine]

@Chris_Henry:

Sorry Bud, I should have clarified what I meant. It was more the land combat than anything I was referring to (I completely agree about ship movement realism). The idea of Burma falling quickly always bugged me, short fights in Africa, fighting in Italy etc. Essentially saying I agree with you on a way to simulate the longer drawn out battles. I had always thought of a map that had Burma split into two or three territories for example, but your version is more practical (as you’re right, it would take a ton of time to make a map!).

I agree. Having huge tank battles in the jungles of Burma never made any sense to me. It was an Infantry war. We made Burma’s terrain difficult (jungle and a river area), which will be a real challenge to the Japanese (I have to figure out a way to dislodge the British there).

Terrain, specifically, we’ve determined, has the following ramifications (jungle/forest, city, mountainous):
Mechanized forces have less combat power
Infantry get additional rolls in it when in the Defensive Posture
Aircraft have less of a chance to hit targets
Terrain also reduces the number of combat rounds a battle will have (normally it’s 0-5 rounds, but terrain will reduced this by 1) - which means - since combat units have 2 steps (full strength and damaged), initial invasions can turn into long, drawn-out campaigns over months in a contested area - with both sides pouring in troops to try to dislodge the other player(s)…

Then there’s the monsoon season in Burma, which virtually stops combat operations or limits them to a huge degree…

[Chris_Henry]

@Bud:

Terrain, specifically, we’ve determined, has the following ramifications (jungle/forest, city, mountainous):
Mechanized forces have less combat power
Infantry get additional rolls in it when in the Defensive Posture
Aircraft have less of a chance to hit targets
Terrain also reduces the number of combat rounds a battle will have (normally it’s 0-5 rounds, but terrain will reduced this by 1) - which means - since combat units have 2 steps (full strength and damaged), initial invasions can turn into long, drawn-out campaigns over months in a contested area - with both sides pouring in troops to try to dislodge the other player(s)…

Then there’s the monsoon season in Burma, which virtually stops combat operations or limits them to a huge degree…

Love it. These are truly things I’ve wanted to do as well in terms of terrain and attack/defense bonuses/detriments. I’ve had thoughts and what not, but just never written them down and put them to practice as you have. These sound really similar to the goals I’ve always wanted in thinking about it. I’ll be much curious to see everything when you have it completed!

@Bud:

The game will take months - literally months. I’m the Axis this time. My associate, who happens to be my brother, will play the Allies. He’s a really good player. I’ve somehow got to find a way to beat him.

I love the idea of a long game. I’m much rather get my WWII fix in completely than just play a game but still leave wanting more.

[Bud Tarentine]

As for the long game, we figured people play Xbox or PS4 and “save” the game and come back to it later; or role-playing games that people spend months even years on a campaign - playing once a week; or a TV series that progresses over a season. So, we wanted to introduce that concept to a WW2 game…

It might take a conceptual adjustment at first on how one can play a board game… The most important challenge besides setting time aside once a week or so is having a dedicated place to play. That’s the real challenge and we know that won’t be possible for many people. That’s the only real drawback I guess.

[General 6 Stars]

Bud, I’d be interested in your rules and setups to. I know the group wouldn’t play but a buddy or 2 might. I’m hopin to setup a 3rd gaming table were I could pretty much change out games, keep setup for certain games for a period of time.
I do have 3 HBG G39 maps.

Have you thought about having ships move only 2 spaces from a naval base and if no naval base, can only move 1 space for the whole map ?
Then you wouldn’t need the blue dots.

Also agree with your comment about time and space.

[Chris_Henry]

Yea, it’s certainly not practical/ideal for your everyday gamer. You’re right, it would obviously require a game room or table that isn’t going to piss off the family by being up for long periods of time haha. I just know you have people like me on here that would certainly love a game like that and appreciate your sharing it with us. People that want more of a strategic WWII game will love it!