Global War 1939 - Deep in the FMG Bunker!

Read the rules. Generally happy with what I see. Greatly simplified in the right places (e.g. no more US dud torpedoes) while some optional complexity is added in others (terrain rules).

One thing I really do miss, however, is the inability to retreat for the defender?? Was that decision made simply for reasons of added playing time?

@SS-GEN That’s awesome, not sure I’ve seen your war room before! We’d love to have it eventually!

My dad has been living with my grandma for a while now (partly because of his divorce, and also to help grandma around the house). So we play there on the dining room table. My dad’s dream is to eventually get his own place again and convert any spare bedroom to an awesome war room and get a sweet custom made table. Would love to do all that myself too, but house is probably too small and wife would probably murder me!

Love your setup there. I always envision damn near the same thing!

HBG 1936/39

If you have a copy each of Europe '40 and Pacific '40, as well as a copy of 1914, you should have enough pieces to be able to pull it off.  Personally, I use the British from 1914 for Chinese Nationalist pieces, and the Turks as Chinese Communists.  You can use the 1914 Germans as Axis minors, and the French as Vichy.

I do have a quick question for the creators brought up while discussing the minor axis powers in another thread:

If the Germans build a naval base on Romania can the Romanians (who don’t need an IC) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units in their capital (not ships next to it)? Using the same principle, are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.

I believe this next part is still under review, any word yet?

This leads me to a 2nd question, say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also fill the requirement to allow for ships to be built from Germany’s Romanian IC adjacent to it? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?

Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements for shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Say the Italians take Holland and build a NB (sz 16). Would the Italian NB allow the Germans to drop ships into sz 16 from their adjacent major IC in W Germany?

I still find Europe overly crowded, which is so annoying.

Just a thought. You could roll a die for automatic retreats. What I mean is if defender wants to retreat, then roll a die and that many can retreat. Bad die roll and he may have to leave a good piece behind. Also could force the attacker the same thing.

@Royal:

See now this is interesting, because I’m playing Germany, and I don’t have nearly enough troops to get through Russia. It’s 1942, and I’m basically trying to hold onto the, what I call, “Leningrad line.” I built a lot of infantry, which in the end caused tons of problems because They simply can’t get to the front line fast enough. Don’t get me wrong, I make about 80 IPP’s, but I don’t have the mechanized power to keep the Russians at bay. What they have done is basically let me have everything, and stacked artillery and Militia in Moscow and Stalingrad, making them unreasonable to even try to attack. I don’t know what to do! America is just about to enter the war and throw roughly 10 transports at my door. Italy is doing well owning all of Africa, but Japan never did well and China and is basically 3 years behind the ballpark. I could start buying strategic bombers, but it seems like carpet bombing is a waste, even with heavy bombers.

That brings me to a question that I would like to have input on for everyone who is reading this Forum (Thanks by the way, I really needed some feedback like this!) Carpet bombing only hits on a 2 or less, which is like hitting on a 1 for a D6, but worse because there’s more sides. (I know statistics are the same but they still never seem to hit!) I was thinking about increasing carpet bombing to a 3 or less, to give them the real firepower they had. I know that they were really good at simply destroying cities, but the only concept that can show that is by destroying factories. What do you guys think? Would it be too strong, or do you think it would be okay?

I don’t think Germany should be able to “go through Russia”. Historically, it wasn’t the case. It is one of many of A&A legacies / fallacies. The Victory Points gives you a hint as to what territories are important to win the game. Germany wins nothing except a few IPPs by conquering Moscow. If the Russian player in your game has stacked Moscow & Stalingrad with slow units, he has lost the game.

Re Carpet bombing, I like the rules as they are (and so does everyone else in my group). Strategic bombers are meant for infrastructure. Historically, ‘carbet bombing’ armies were not effectively used in WW2.