No harm at all. I was just mentioning that they were the same ones. It’s easy to forget that the green pieces in the game aren’t actually the Americans, but rather the Allies who have retreated back to North America after losing WW2. I didn’t realize until you had posted your link that the Meteor was actually a British fighter.
I’ve been checking out the photos and progress of the Global 1936 play tests. It’s turn 10 and Germany and the USSR don’t look to be at war yet. Operation Torch looks like a go and the Japanese seem pretty much tied up.
How many turns does this game go to? (or has this been figured out yet?).
Yep, you should be able to knock out both their big fleets (plus the Canadian ships) G1 setting them back for quite awhile. With a couple subs here and there and the Luftwaffe you can keep them from building ships around England for a couple turns and they are forced to build a starter fleet off Canada. Even building off Canada isn’t to easy early on if the wolf pack is in tact because of the 1:1 detection ratio, and there is no airbase to scramble in Canada when they see your subs. It forces them to spend $ on ships, and less on resources elsewhere.
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.
Yeah, Wikipedia plays a big part in my research. But I stumble across other websites as Iâ€m hunting for things also. Sometimes I find declassified official documents from the time. I also use other games in my collection, like War in Flames and Battlewagon, where the designers did the research, and came to their own conclusions about how to fudge things. I used to be in Military Intelligence when I was active duty army. I spent six years at NSA (â€œIn God we trust. All others we monitorâ€) So I developed the habit of confirming intelligence from multiple sources whenever possible. Iâ€m still in the National Guard, actually. But I switched my MOS to MP so I didnâ€t have to drive so far for drills.
Good job on the research. Every time I start to do it for land forces, I get distracted by all the different sources, and how they use different methods for listing things. Yeah, with the way A&A works, where the infantry of one country is equal to the infantry of every other country (unless you are using the elite units in Global â€39), then you have to reflect differences in troop and equipment quality by using different ratios to represent one unit.
One idea Iâ€ve toyed with is using the same ratio for everyoneâ€s infantry, (like 1 for every three divisions) but then reflecting the differences in firepower by assigning different ratios for artillery. For instance, at the start maybe Germany gets an artillery unit for every 2 infantry, and France gets one for every 5 infantry, or something along those lines. The problem there, of course, is that the French (and Russians) really really liked artillery, and it made up a bigger percentage of their overall forces. So it would not be entirely satisfying from a historical perspective. For the same reasons, I am reluctant to just start them off with a bunch of SS units. Although I suppose I could just not call them SS units. But Iâ€d know. Iâ€D KNOW, and it would bug me