Global War 36 Seperate Board. Wahoo.
-
Yea nothing special about my post….
I did just watch the 4 hour long video of HBG doing a play test and potential changes or adjustments to 36’. Interesting.
Little bummed the map is being printed differently as literally just bought one a few days ago.
-
The new map is at least a year out.
-
That’s really frustrating. What did they say was being done with the new map? Is it meant to fix errors on the existing map? Or is it meant for one of their other Global War variants?
-
What did they say was being done with the new map? Is it meant to fix errors on the existing map? Or is it meant for one of their other Global War variants?
Some of the changes known so far:
- Small & wide railway gauges
- Minor ports (new facility) present on the board
- Jungle & possibly tundra (new terrain types)
Most changes can be implemented on current boards as well.
-
Well that sounds good at least. If it’s just cosmetic, so be it. Railways wouldn’t bother me, and I like using actual port facilities anyways (EBard on Shapeways has some great one’s btw). The Jungle is a bummer, as I’m not sure how I’d replicate that, but I’m sure could be figured out. Glad they are adding Jungle though, I always thought if mountains and rivers were present, for Jungle, and maybe desert, should have been shown as well for play purposes.
I sure wish they’d offer discounted prices for those of us that already have the 1936 map. If they did that in return with you shipping them back our original map, that would be nice.
As it stands, it’s really frustrating as a consumer to spend over around $180 on a game map, just for them to update the map and charge even more (presumably) for it. I sure couldn’t justify to myself buying a second map. It’s the exact same issue people had with 1st and 2nd editions of A&A 1940.
-
I watched most of the video where they discussed the changes. Aside from what Munck said, they also have desert and minor shipyards. They had discussed how they would modify for the various terrain additions and seemed to come to some consensus with the input of the viewers that perhaps it would be best to use the same modifier for all 3 types of terrain to avoid confusion. One thing that would be modified would be that ground units would only move one space instead of 2 in the desert and jungle. Doug didn’t think you should be able to move in tundra (it would be a no-go zone like the current desert is) and I agreed with him.That wouldn’t affect the game really though because it’s only at the very top of the map where tundra is located.
The reason they wanted minor shipyards was so that the Brits would be able to build one in India so they could repair their capital ships. Currently the ships need to be sailed back to the UK to be repaired. You still couldn’t build capital ships at a minor shipyard. The minor naval bases were to give more opportunity for lend lease. The bases were printed on the map and Doug said that they were thinking of offering the new map with the bases printed on the map or not printed on. It is for the most part the same map with those changes and with Canada more accurately labelled. Quebec is no longer labelled as Labrador and Newfoundland is back where it is supposed to be.
Nothing was really settled when it came to 36. They spent most of the weekend on the other games and are going to get together perhaps this summer to work at it some more. It looks like the 2025 game is getting near the final stages. There’s still a bit of work to do on WW1 and 1861 is still in the early stages.
-
Interesting. Thanks for the info GeneralHandGrenade.
I’d agree with what is said on jungle and desert movement. Don’t allow two space movement or blitzing generally. I’ve long thought of that as a house rule too. And agree, the same modifiers would be interesting. Would be kind of cool to say commandos or colonial infantry wouldn’t have the -1 defect in attacking/defending in jungle terrain too.
I also love the idea of tundra areas. I guess I’d have to see what parts of the map you’re saying would be impassable. Would it be parts of territories only, or entire territories on the map? I think with the advent of ski troops with the Winter War expansion, you could also have the same rules as jungle, desert, mountains. No blitzing/only one move, -1 attack and/or defense, but ski troops don’t have this negative effect.
Intriguing thought on the minor shipyard as well. I almost wonder, if the sole worry is UK ships having the ability to be repaired, if it doesn’t just make sense to make that a special rule. UK capital ships can be repaired and ANZAC, India, and maybe even South Africa capital territories. At the very least, minor ship yards shouldn’t be allowed to be built on captured territories.
-
Interesting. Thanks for the info GeneralHandGrenade.
I’d agree with what is said on jungle and desert movement. Don’t allow two space movement or blitzing generally. I’ve long thought of that as a house rule too. And agree, the same modifiers would be interesting. Would be kind of cool to say commandos or colonial infantry wouldn’t have the -1 defect in attacking/defending in jungle terrain too.
I also love the idea of tundra areas. I guess I’d have to see what parts of the map you’re saying would be impassable. Would it be parts of territories only, or entire territories on the map? I think with the advent of ski troops with the Winter War expansion, you could also have the same rules as jungle, desert, mountains. No blitzing/only one move, -1 attack and/or defense, but ski troops don’t have this negative effect.
Intriguing thought on the minor shipyard as well. I almost wonder, if the sole worry is UK ships having the ability to be repaired, if it doesn’t just make sense to make that a special rule. UK capital ships can be repaired and ANZAC, India, and maybe even South Africa capital territories. At the very least, minor ship yards shouldn’t be allowed to be built on captured territories.
But you could replace all naval bases at Capitals because that’s the only place you can build Capital ships. You want capital ship builds else where if not in setup pay 15. Naval bases would just defend sea zone and repair ships only.
-
I think that rather than adding the minor shipyard they should add a third size of factory. Majors would be 5 units, regular would be 3 units, and minors would be one unit. Then you could make a rule that you need a capacity of 5 to supply your shipyard. So one major like it is now, or 2 regular, or 1 regular and 2 minors, or 5 minors. All connected by railway. That way you could build a shipyard in India and build or repair capital ships there if you increased you factory capacity. At that time the Commonwealth was the greatest empire the world has ever seen and it seems unlikely that they couldn’t have come up with the capacity to build or maintain their capital ships somewhere in the Pacific where they had many colonies. Adding the extra factory would give you greater options in the rest of the game for all nations as well.
-
I need to change my settings. Didn’t see the discussion.
-
@SS:
But you could replace all naval bases at Capitals because thatÂ’s the only place you can build Capital ships. You want capital ship builds else where if not in setup pay 15. Naval bases would just defend sea zone and repair ships only.
Sorry SS, not sure I followed. You’re implying that you WANT to have the ability to build capital ships in other areas? My suggestion was simply if you wanted to ONLY repair capital ships at non-capital locations, not have the ability to build them elsewhere as well.
That’s what I thought we were discussing at least, was just the ability to repair capital ships elsewhere. Otherwise, what you’re saying definitely makes sense if the idea is to be able to build them elsewhere as well.
-
Don’t want to be a broken record but wish HBG would open source the map so others could work on it too. Lots of good ideas out there and some people with great Photoshop skills (i.e Sireblood/etc.). HBG could still print them or perhaps offer one-time use licensing if one wants to print elsewhere (hard to get and control a copyright though, I understand). Allows people to print different sizes too and on different materials.
My 2 cents.
-
Don’t want to be a broken record but wish HBG would open source the map so others could work on it too. Lots of good ideas out there and some people with great Photoshop skills (i.e Sireblood/etc.). HBG could still print them or perhaps offer one-time use licensing if one wants to print elsewhere (hard to get and control a copyright though, I understand). Allows people to print different sizes too and on different materials.
My 2 cents.
Your 2 cents is VERY valuable.
I’d like a elec copy to print a mini version so we can refer to it when planning, discussing moves with teammates. It’s so hard to see borders, values etc once the game is underway and there are pieces everywhere. Maybe a black n white version so we can just get something to refer to……
Suggested Topics
