• '20 '19 '18 '16 '15 '11 '10

    HBG and friends,

    We’re using the latest setup for Global '39 and have noticed that Finland’s setup does not reflect the territories on the map. The new setup lists “Finland” with four infantry. Does this mean Helsinki has four infantry and other territories of Finland are empty or does the old setup apply (which lists Helsinki twice by the way)?

    Thanks in advance for the help.

  • Sponsor '17 '13 '11 '10


    HBG and friends,

    We’re using the latest setup for Global '39 and have noticed that Finland’s setup does not reflect the territories on the map. The new setup lists “Finland” with four infantry. Does this mean Helsinki has four infantry and other territories of Finland are empty or does the old setup apply (which lists Helsinki twice by the way)?

    Thanks in advance for the help.

    Yes, but we have been playtesting some alternate set up for the Neutrals, slight changes but will fix some of the holes. We should have some revisions in about two weeks. Thanks for your input.

  • '20 '19 '18 '16 '15 '11 '10

    No problem Coach,

    We’ll playing this weekend. Will report on anything else we discover.

  • '20 '19 '18 '16 '15 '11 '10

    We have played approximately 16 hours and are into turn 5. Japan is up.

    Here are some observations and recommendations:

    The latest revision of the 1939 Rules present a bit of confusion with the set-up charts regarding turn order. France is shown on the charts as going with the U.S. and Nationalist China; in the Global War 1939 Rule Set they are shown as going with the UK as “free French”. Some distinction/clarification may help here.

    Axis Minors:

    Axis minors have conditions regarding attacks but nothing is mentioned regarding movement. For instance, no attacks can come from Bulgaria until at war with Russia.The question was raised as to whether Bulgaria’s forces could be moved into friendly axis territories before war was declared (we decided to allow Axis Minors to position their pieces with Axis held territories up activation).

    Axis Minors have some constraints regarding income. For example, Hungary us limited to 3 IPC per turn with all gains going to Germany. We had someone actually playing as the minors. It made it more interesting for this player when Germany was allowed to subsidize them to the tune of not more than 10 IPC per turn. Thus 10 IPC (or less) were spread around between Finland, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (or simply given to one of them–it was all very arbitrary, as it was completely up to the German player. The squables with the Minor player were hilarious.

    The fact that AM player is of Hungarian background really added to the debates. The German player mentioned something about a re-enactment of the kidnapping of WW2 Hungarian leader Horthy’s son if the recalcitrant minor didn’t back down. “You cheap ******’ Nazi! I’m broke.” was the reply.


    German builds in Axis Minor territories:
    We think Germany should be able to build in the Axis Minors without building complexes in them. Minors are considered to behave “as if” they have minor ICs in them. It is suggested the production quota shoud accomodate German needs on a limited basis. Perhaps a one unit limit or “infantry first” rule could apply to German builds while still leaving the door open for dedicated IC construction.

    Is Argentina considered to have a Minor IC?

    South Africa:

    We elected to make Canada a “seperate” entity while keeping South Africa under Commonwealth rule. How does the effect production in the SA IC? We elected to use it as a normal IC without restrictions regarding infantry primary builds.

    Fall of France/Vichy France/Free French:

    This rule was enjoyed by all and added a lot of tension and excitement (especially when the fleets were rolled for). Once the Vichy/Free French ownership wa resolved, questions regarding right of way in Vichy Territories arose. While it is stated that Axis forces cannot attack Vichy, it is possible for Axis units to pass through or occupy Vichy territories? The grounp decided to allow occupation but not out and out control.

    It is assumed the Axis takes France’s IPCs upon conquering France.

    It seemed the the first set of polictical rules provided a but more detail than the latest set. We often flipped back and forth between the two when questions came up. A more comprehensive rule set will really help out.

    Allied Friendly Neutrals:

    Can the U.S. take a friendly neutral before it is at war? We allowed them to, but clarification would be good.

    Russian Declaration of War:

    Russia can declare war on Germany on turn six (set-up chart) or when the 2x6d rolls get it to it’s specified production level (Political Situation Rule 4)—this is how the group understood this rule. The rules do not set it out in the manner above however. It would be a good idea to make the political rule-set and the set-up charts correlate regarding this matter.


    Holland is conquered by the Axis; what happens to Dutch overseas possessions? We assume Dutch units become Allies.

    Latest Rule-set.
    6 (b) Battleship  should read: Roll 1D6  to repair damage to battleship while in a sea zone containing a friendly naval base (currently reads: “carrier”).

    Red China:

    Our playgroup set up Red China as a group with a seperate income limited to purchasing infantry. They had a stating IPC and production of 3 IPC. No starting production or IPC figure has been given in the latest rules for Red China. More details regarding this faction woud be welcome.


    Are fortifications destroyed by taking hits or taken out like ICs upon occupation by the conquering power?


    Is there a limit on German/U.S. Airborne units?

    “Capitol”(sp?) Ships:

    Please clearly define capital ships in the rule-set. We defined them as battleships, ACs and cruisers. This is mostly in reference to FEC build limitations.

    Axis Minor Naval Builds:

    I know you’ve heard this one before. Can all the Axis Minors next to sea zones build naval units–-will there be rules and pieces made available? Our AM player wants to build a some ships and cross the Black Sea. The Soviet player is of the mind to pull the same stunt (going to get interesting).

    This it for now. We’ll have more for you as things progress and I make more notes.
    All in all, this is a great variant and everyone has enjoyed it.

  • Customizer


    Lot’s of info there.

    I might suggest that in the “standard” A&A rules the U.S. (while it is still neutral) can take control of a Friendly Neutral country because friendly neutrals are moved into in the
    NON-COMBAT movement phase. Thus it is allowed to do so while still being nuetral.

    Think Brazil. I hope this helps.

    “Tall Paul”

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 '13 '12 '11

    Hi Koba,

    Humm, not sure you have the latest rules. The ones I got are 4.1v. And on section 6 for naval units, the battleship are on subsection C and there is no mention of repairs. The rules before 4.1v had them though, repairs and carrier instead of battleship and on 6b.

    Also with the older rules, there was a suggestions page and on it it was mentionned to add a minor industrial complex to all of the Minor Axis country. there was like 7 suggestions on that page.

    Ref to France, it uses to be with #4 U.K. and Minor Allies, then moved to #2 spot with Russia & com. China, and the Free French are with #4 Uk,Dutch.

    I agree with your suggestion of distinction/clarification about France though.

    I don’t think the USA can take over Allied neutral while still itself neutral.

    Fortification are taken out like IC upon occupation, that’s how I played it.

    I will wait and see/read the official replys before going on.

    J.  8-)

  • Customizer


    YES, the U.S.A. can take over Friendly Neutrals, but can NOT approach the coasts of Africa or Europe while it is still neutral. That’s why I said “think Brazil”. I’ve called and confirmed with 4 different W.of T.C. “Rules Hotline” people. I invite you to call them yourself. The number is on the back page of the rules booklet.

    “Tall Paul”

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 '13 '12 '11

    Hi Tall Paul,

    That’s how I played the USA, activating Brazil, while playing Global 1940. But with Global 1939, I let the Anzac activates Brazil and most of the territories in south america, more $ to Anzac, + the neutral territory in africa while going towards s-a.  😉

    J.  8-)

  • '20 '19 '18 '16 '15 '11 '10

    Hi Radar231,

    Thank you for the information regarding the latest rules revision. I downloaded a rule-set from Boardgamegeek a couple weeks ago (file named v34.). I just went back to the site and found revision 4.1 and will review.

    The other old revision I have is 3.5. Neither include suggestions.

    I will see what Coach and Co. have to say about Brazil. As I mentioned, we let the U.S. player get them before being at war.

    I forgot to mention that we had to make up a battle board relfecting the 12d scheme. It is REALLY rough, but serves the purpose (at least until I figure out how to develop one which looks better).

  • '14

    Read through the latest rule revision and see if they clear up any questions you have. We playtested the latest version of the rules back in November and made very few changes! Let me know if you have any more questions


  • Customizer


    That’s a really logical and fascinating idea of yours to let the ANZAC player take Brazil and others as it really needs the income to be “involved” in any way in the game.
    Hat’s Off to you, Sir.

    The only games that I’ve played the ANZAC forces were when I also had to play the U.S.A., China, an U.K.(both sides) all at the same time. As we’ve been plagued with a pausity of players recently I didn’t have much time to spend on “Digger” strategy.

    “Tall Paul”

  • '14


    I think most of the things you are refering to have been corrected or a clarification given in the 4.1v of the rules.

    1. France moves with the UK and commonwealth. All IPC’s are captured……III additional Rules. 9.
    2. Minor Axis have to follow the rules set forth for them in the political rules…They may move in non combat!

    **As far as IC’s for the minors, we had them for a test game and then took them out. We felt that if Germany wanted to build units in the minor axis countries they could build IC’s. I do like the idea of pooling the money together!! These rules arent above being improved by house rules.

    3. Argentina is treated like the other Minor Axis, not pro axis countries!
    4. When Holland is captured all the DEI become Pro Allied
    5. Battleships and AC’s are capitol ships.
    6. China gets 3 IPC per turn and purchase infantry only.
    7. Fortifications are destroyed after a territory is captured.
    8. No limit to German or US airborne
    9. Minor axis building navies! If you have a Naval base and an IC then I say no problem!!

    Hope I helped you out!!

    Also make sure you have the latest setup charts…4.1v


  • '20 '19 '18 '16 '15 '11 '10

    Thanks Tigerman,

    I have the latest rules now and the set-up charts.

    More observations/questions after we resume playing.

    Everyone’s help and advice is really appreciated.

  • One problem I have with the 39’ map is the fact that japan can reach the NW US in one turn from the home island. Alaksa yes. Hawaii yes. Washington, Oregon and northern Cali, now that’s a streach.

  • '14

    Sim- it’s not a game changer or a game breaker! This map has been played numerous times and is very sound! I would agree with you if Japan could hold NW US after an invasion. I rhink most playing Japan dont even consider this move because the longer the US is not in the war the better , for the axis!! If we ever make another map we will keep this in mind, thanks for bringing it up!!

  • I don’t think it was a problem that Japan could land in the states, more the other way around. It is to quick for the states to land in japan.    We actually added sea zones by drawing a line through a few to better represent what we felt was more realistic and cohesive to the game we were playing.  House changes ftw 🙂

    States masses up on the coast, and wham they in japan mainland right at the onset of combat.  Why piddle with the islands when you can take away all their money with a lot less chance of losing it back to them.

  • Sponsor '17 '13 '11 '10

    I do not think you understand, U.S. is now at war and Japan is not ready or secured enough money or built their Army. I am pretty sure Japan has lost because of this move.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 21
  • 2
  • 11
  • 5
  • 8
  • 14
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys