Ah. Figured it out. Didn’t like the version of Firefox I was using. I switched to Internet Explorer and it worked. Thanks again.
Posts made by almashir
I’ve been thinking a lot about how to modify Global 1939 to make it less complicated, and playable in less time. Here are a few ideas I’ve been toying with:
- Change the start date to either June or December 1941. Barring outrageously bad dice rolling or very poor decisions on the part of Germany, it’s pretty much inevitable that Poland and France are going to fall. While it’s kind of fun to play out the Battle of France, it does add time and complexity. By using a later start date you eliminate having to figure out what units and territories go Vichy. Also, I don’t particularly enjoy tracking the diplomacy aspect of the game, and I like to eliminate keeping up with American entry status and production limits. I’m leaning toward the following:
a. Start in June 1941 (the eve of Barbarossa). Turn order:
i. Germany, Italy, Vichy, and Axis minors
ii. Russia and Communist China
iii. Atlantic British, Pacific British, ANZAC
v. USA and Nationalist China
b. I’d position the Japanese starting forces so they can recreate Pearl Harbor and the invasion of the Philippines on turn one, if that’s what they want to do. It’s sort of fudging the time line a bit by segueing from Summer to Winter of 1941 in the same turn. But, given the geographic separation of the European and Pacific theaters, I think we can get away with it. By letting the Germans play out the opening moves of Barbarossa, instead of starting in December 1941, it saves having to figure out what the aftermath of the first turn of the invasion of Russia would look like. It also gives the German player the flexibility to modify his strategy a bit from what the Germans did historically.
Eliminate most of the special units, such as SS, U.S. and Japanese carrier aircraft, heavy tanks, etc. Apart from cutting down on complexity, this helps a bit with crowding on the European map, since you can represent all your tanks or infantry with one stack, instead of having a separate stack for SS, Guards, etc. So each country has the same units available for purchase. But I’m still deciding whether or not to keep country specific attack/defense values and/or purchase prices. I’m more inclined to retain the differences in purchase prices to discourage unrealistic things, like massive Japanese tank armies or Russian aircraft carriers. I’d like to keep paratroops, and probably marines. Allow anyone to build them, but make them more expensive for countries that historically didn’t. Also use a separate air transport unit, instead of using bombers to drop paratroops. Air transport: Cost 6/Attack 0/Defense 0/Move 4 (loaded) or 6 (unloaded). Paratroop: Cost 4/Attack 2(3 on first round of combat if air dropped)/Defense 4/Move 1.
Modify factory production. Instead of major ICs building 10 units and minors building 3, change it to a multiple of the economic value of the territory. Majors can build up to 10 times the printed value, and minors can build 3 times the value. So a territory with a printed value of 4 could build 40 IPCs worth of units with a major IC, or 12 IPCs worth of units with a minor IC. This keeps battleships from being built in, say, Siam or Australia. Modify damage from strategic bombing accordingly. In other words, one point of damage reduces the multiplier by 1, so a minor IC with one point of damage can only produce 2 times the printed value of the territory.
Now it’s a matter of coming up with starting forces and initial deployments. I’ve got a copy of World in Flames I can use to convert the starting forces from the 1941 scenarios. Does anyone have any suggestions for different sources to use? Or any suggestions about other rules to modify to keep the game moving?
RE: Central Powers Navy?
Hi, CWO Marc,
I wrote the previous post on my lunch break at work, and didn’t have access to all my research, so I was going off memory to some extent. I’ve checked, and you are pretty much right about the secondary armament on post-Dreadnaught BBs. They seemed to range between 5 inch and 6 inch for secondaries on post Dreadnaught BBs for the most part. As for BCs, I’m seeing at least 8 main guns on all classes except the British Courageous and Renown classes, (although they had 15 inch main guns). But several classes were configured so they could only present 6 guns at any one time toward a single enemy due to their firing arcs, since some turrets were not mounted on the centerline.
But, given the scale of A&A, would you stick with the numbers I’ve suggested for initial set up? Or would you tweak them one way or the other for the sake of realism? I know we’ll never get 100% accuracy, given the abstract nature of the game, but I’d like to create as closely as possible the overall strategic balance.
RE: Central Powers Navy?
Personally, I modify the starting forces to more accurately reflect what each side really had available. I researched it for quite a while, and my best estimate of what each side actually had in 1914 was:
BB/BC Pre-DN BB Cruisers Subs
Britain 34 41 102
Germany 21 22 47 29
France 4 15 24
Austria 4 9 11
Italy 6 10 8
Russia 4 9 14
USA 10 21 33
Turkey 1 2 4
I am counting the modern (post Dreadnaught) battleships (BBs)and battlecruisers (BCs) as basically the same. Historically, the BCs were a bit faster that the BBs, but more lightly armored. Their firepower was about the same (typically 8-12 main guns of 11in-12in caliber, arranged mostly 2 guns per turret). They would also have secondary guns of 6in-8in, (which would be considered main guns on cruisers) and tertiary guns of 3in-5in. Pre-Dreadnaught BBs would typically be slower and have 2 turrets with 1-2 main guns each (still usually 11in-12in), and more reliance on secondary guns for throw weight. They also had lighter armor than the modern BBs. In theory, they should have been only slightly less effective than modern BBs. In practice, combining different calibers made gunnery a bit trickier, since you could not always tell whether a given hit (or splash) was a 12in round or an 8in round. So it was harder to adjust fire and get on target. All in all, it is probably best to count the pre-DN BBs as being closer to cruisers than battleships.
There were a few considerations when converting to A&A numbers. The U.S. fleet would have been split between the Atlantic and Pacific. The British had a fair number of subs, but they used them primarily for coastal defense, so they were mostly out of play. The Russian and Turkish ships tended to be mostly obsolete. That said, here is what I would suggest for starting forces:
Battleships Cruisers Subs
Britain 3 8
Germany 2 4 4
France 1 2
Austria 1 1
Italy 1 1
Russia 1 1
USA 1 1
Turkey 0 1
For deployments, I would follow OOB, except:
2 British cruisers off the coast of Egypt
All British BBs plus any cruisers not otherwise deployed in home waters
1 German cruiser somewhere in the South Atlantic
All German ships not otherwise deployed in home waters
RE: Lend-Lease improvement
I remember some ideas being batted around concerning lend-lease in a thread a few months back. I think the consensus for the best option was something like the Allies automatically get a +2 to the die roll. However, this is reduced by one for each Axis sub or surface warship in the Russian convoy box north of Scotland (if the aid is going to Russia) or the British convoy box east of Washington (if it is going to Britain). I suppose you could use the British convoy box by the Solomons for the FEC/ANZAC. It was also suggested that since, historically, quite a bit of aid was sent through Iran, Axis land units occupying it could also negatively affect the roll.
RE: Liberating Paris - House Rule?
Maybe for the first turn the French collect income after Paris is liberated, the money is stored in London. It can still be used to buy Free French infantry that can be placed on any surviving factories in France. But if it is used to buy any units other than infantry, they are placed in London. If the Germans immediately recapture Paris, the income stays in London, to be used by the Free French. If the Germans fail the recapture Paris on the first turn after losing it, the French are considered to have re-established their ability to produce tanks, planes, ships, etc inside France. After that point, if the Germans recapture it, they should probably get the loot.
RE: 6.1 RULE CLARIFICATIONS DATABASE
I think the large number of territories on this map kind of helps the game balance itself. Even if one or two (or even three or four) battles go against you, with the dice showing disfavor on an epic scale, you still have room to retreat and regroup most of the time. So a strategy that’s basically sound can still win out in the end, even in the face of some tactical and operational setbacks.