Development of Alternate Version of Rules

Hey!

When I first bought GW36 years ago, my group misread the rules and played the first dozen games with “full access to allies bases”. Since then we’ve played both “full access” house rule and vanilla rules, without significant balance issues.

With full access, USA shuttles troops to UK quicker. But the USA lands somewhere in Europe anyway and therefore full access doesn’t affect anything.

Eventually we settled on “Full Access to Allies Bases” as a house rule, and we like it.
It’s more historical, for the navy it doesn’t take the American fleet a full year to get back to America. For air forces…we figure that even if historically the Commonwealth and the USA didn’t share air bases; we assume Normandy had more then 1 air base, so in game everyone benefits.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

@Imperious:

This does not belong here. Spend 3 more seconds of time and notice global has its own section.

You forgot: “and welcome to the forum!”.

@Jinx1527:

Me and my play group have also done away with that rule a half dozen games ago, and found it was a great improvement.

Thanks Jinx, exactly what I was wondering. No ballace issues with a freelance Cominturn? Besides 2 different alliances possibly elliminating one together and turning on each other after.

We agree with you 100% Whitshadw!
Some of our early games had the crashing of last minute navies etc. for VC. But we value a cleaner, realistic victory and would play till 1960’s on the game calander again, to get one. Benefits of a covered playsurface allowing months of real time to complete a game. VC are only used if a restart is wanted or we declare a clear winner and figure out bragging rights.

billcallaway, I agree that on the surface they seem to be focusing too much energy on expansions and selling new sculpts then for getting the base game right. I think the original plan was to have these expansion sets and units come out a few months after the release of GW1936/1939 (as they have). The problem I believe is that the 1939 set-up got back up, and the rules needed an immediate update which threw the whole time table off.

I know how frustrating it is referring back-n-forth between the 63 page rule book, all the reference sheets, and the web site in an attempt to play the game as intended. I think they very well should have put out an official FAQ to high light the bulk of the changes while they were working on the rules update. Kinda like a transition reference sheet.

I however think that they are working diligently on a rules re-wright. As you know by going through the web site there is a lot of work to be done here. I guess I’m willing to be more patent so they get it right (surely don’t want multiple rules updates over the next couple years).

MY EXPECTATIONS are that the rules re-right will correspond with the very over due 1939 set-up release. It is also my understanding that the updated rules will work for both the 1936 and 1939 start dates.

I also hope that they put out a supplemental package of units and colored chips that don’t come with AAG40 so you can set-up GW1936/1939. Many people don’t have the units just laying around to even set it up.

All planes must take off and land in a zone that contains a friendly air base. So yes they cost 3 icp’s but don’t get the bonus move. Cheaper price is for all the air bases you will need to fly planes anywhere.

Other wise they cost 15 icp’s if you don’t use thee Optional rule.

@Tigerman77:

Ill have something by friday for you guys.

Will it be on BGG?

Thanks for the feedback man, it’s much appreciated!  I’ll be discussing this with the guys I play with.  Alot of the things you pointed out make sense, so I’ll definitely be rethinking them.

There’s a few points I disagree with though.

I figured the port in Santa Cruz for the Allies would actually be quite useless to them, in exception to the Commonwealth fleet fleeing the pacific, but that’s about it.  It’s faster to go through the Panama canal the vast majority of the time anyway.

Splitting sea zone 28 in half was done to make it realistic, because it’s just not practical in real terms.  I guess it just depends how you wanna balance gameplay and realism…  I’m pretty excited for that '36 map, we’ll see what they do with it :).

As for building in friendly territory, I can see your point with the Soviets.  I don’t see a problem however with places like Iran and Free French territories, vice versa for the Axis with their eligible territories.  Compromises can be made.  I’m aware that Germany can do this already with the minors.  At least it’s not like G40 where you can build anywhere (where there’s enough value in the territory).

I think the logistical issues with the way China produces is pretty much related to how the population itself fought with the military against the Japanese.  The population is scattered, yes, but why would a militia form up in force in western China when there’s no direct threat there, and then march their way over after?  Better to form up where you’re needed most, isn’t it, especially with the kind of transportation they had at the time?  The fight is in Eastern China, and that’s where the majority of the population is anyway, so more people can volunteer to fight close to the front lines, where it’s relevant.  Just send the supplies to where they’re needed.  Also in regards to C. China, the Russians are just too busy in my games to go there.  The C. Chinese collect little in the first place, so I figured it wouldn’t make that big of a deal.  F.E.C. doesn’t factor much into this for me, because they’re usually toppled within three turns when I play with my regulars.  I know it’s tough for the F.E.C., ANZAC and Americans later on otherwise in other peoples’ games though.  It just depends on what Japan does.  Giving them a major factory actually seems to balance out everything with the changes in that theatre I proposed.

I downgraded the factories in Karelia and Fukuoka and raised the value of Helsinki because the factories there in the official setup stand in contradiction to the rules.  For actual game mechanics in terms of how units work and what they’re allowed to do, I don’t agree with this sort of thing.  Raising/swapping the values in the territories can be done too, it doesn’t matter much, just as long as nothing contradicts the rules in that fashion.