@GEN-MANSTEIN Hmm. That might just about work as-is. It looks like the Germans haven’t actually captured any Russian territory yet, about would be where they were just before Operation Barbarossa kicked off. Which is what I was trying to do. What conversion rate were you using for naval units? I was thinking something like 1 A&A piece = 4 real battleships or carriers, 6-8 cruisers (won’t differentiate between CA/CL), 12-15 destroyers, and maybe 20 subs.
Posts made by almashir
RE: Global War Barbarossa
RE: Global War Barbarossa
@GEN-MANSTEIN Oh, Sorry. I can see how that would be confusing. I was using Barbarossa mostly as a means to identify the starting point as the Summer of '41. But I was planning on using the whole map. I figure it’s a six month turn, so the invasion of Russia starts at the beginning of the first turn, and Pearl Harbor would happen at the end of the first turn. A bit of an abstraction, but it makes other things work out. I’ll search for your setup. It’s probably pretty close to what I need, except the Russians have been beat up a bit, and pushed back a territory or two.
Global War Barbarossa
Okay, I’ve been mulling this over for a while. I have the second version of the 1939 map, and I’ve been thinking of making some house rules for a start date of Summer 1941. This is primarily because I want the game simplified enough to be playable and make it easy to teach new players. I’m not a fan of the diplomatic stuff. I just want to get straight into the action. I also want Vichy/Free French dispositions already settled. But I don’t want a 1942 start date, because a lot of strategic decisions were already made by that point, and players (especially the Germans) are locked in to making a lot of the same mistakes they did historically. (Yes, I know getting involved in a land war in Asia is the big one, but there’s no getting around that. LOL)
The idea is that the U.S. would be in the war by the end of round one, so there would be no need to track U.S. entry status. The war in North Africa is still going on, and the Axis have another turn (maybe two) to try to win it before the U.S. tips the scales. I’d also simplify the units. No differentiation between tactical bombers and navy tactical bombers/torpedo bombers. A tank is a tank, and they all have the same attack/defense, regardless of nation. Same with all other combat units. No SS, Guards, etc. Still going back and forth on whether or not to have the economic prices standardized across nationalities, or maybe keeping the cost differences to discourage, say, massive Japanese tank armies rampaging across Asia all the way to Moscow.
That said, I’d still want airborne units, along with transport aircraft to carry them (as opposed to having them dropped from bombers or abstracting the transports). And marines. Both would operate in a similar manner. When dropped by air, paras get a +1 to attack on the first round of combat, after which they operate like regular infantry. Marines work the same way when making amphibious attacks. Also, tanks, mech infantry, and artillery have the same attack as regular infantry on the first round of combat when making an amphibious landing. Each nation limited to building one marine and one paratroop per turn.
Factories have no limit on the number of units they produce each turn. Instead they are limited to a multiple of the number of IPCs printed on the area in which they are located. This will allow a bit of flexibility, but should prevent the construction of things like capital ships in places that weren’t historically capable of making them. Small factories can produce up to 6 times the printed IPC value of the territory, and for large factories it’s 10 times the value. A large factory can only be built in an area worth at least 4 IPCs. Example: a small factory in Calcutta could produce 18 IPCs worth of units per turn. A large factory in Turin could produce 40 IPCs worth of units.
I’m still tweaking the starting forces and dispositions. I’m also toying with the idea of combining the turns of some countries. My current thinking on turn order is:
Britain(both maps)/Free France/USA/ANZAC/Nationalist China
USA can enter the war on turn 1 regardless of what anyone else does. This will allow Pearl Harbor and the invasion of the Philippines, as well as the opening salvo of Barbarossa.
I’m sure I’m missing some of the implications of these changes. If anyone has any suggestions or sees any glaring oversights, please let me know. Thanks in advance.
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.
RE: Partial IPC's or inflation of value of IPC's
Either method would yield the same thing, but I’d personally prefer to double the cost of everything, while doubling the printed value of the territories. But that’s just because I like to use actual coins (a roll each of pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters usually does the trick), and there is no 1/2 penny coin (unless you have some old British coins).
But, yeah, you are right that something needs to be done to differentiate the costs between units, especially with the number of extra units added to this version (heavy tanks, SS, Guards, commandoes, etc.)
RE: Global war 1939 expansion set
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.
RE: 2020 Master Players List Version 3.0
Almashir (Vincent) - Augusta, GA - A&A Global 1940, A&A Global 1939 (the huge HBG map), A&A 1914, Starfire, Star Fleet Battles, Battletech, World in Flames, Panzerblitz, Air and Armor, Midway, Battlewagon
I leave in a couple of days for my annual National Guard training, and won’t be back until the middle of April. Â Two weeks on Ft. Stewart. Â Yay.
RE: Start date second half of 1941
Well, below is from Wikipedia. And, as we all know, if it is on the internet, it must be 100% true, or the automated accuracy filters would not allow it
"After a few failed attempts at persuading the Icelandic government by diplomatic means to join the Allies and becoming a co-belligerent in the war against the Axis forces, the British invaded Iceland on 10 May 1940. The initial force of 746 British Royal Marines commanded by Colonel Robert Sturges was replaced on 17 May by a larger Army force, and eventually 25,000 British troops were stationed in Iceland.
On 7 July 1941, the defence of Iceland was transferred from Britain to the (still officially neutral) United States, by agreement with Iceland, and US marines replaced the British. Iceland’s strategic position along the North Atlantic sea-lanes, perfect for air and naval bases, could bring new importance to the island. The 1st Marine Brigade consisting of approximately 4,100 troops garrisoned Iceland until early 1942 when they were replaced by U.S. Army troops, so they could join their fellow Marines fighting in the Pacific."
Start date second half of 1941
Iâ€ve been toying with ideas for a start date that combines the beginning of Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor in the same turn. Assuming 6-month turns, this would sort of split the difference, with the initial push into the USSR at the beginning, and the Japanese attacks toward the end of the turn. You could just start in 1942, but I like to play out the opening moves of the German drive to the East. Also, I like to allow the Japanese to either repeat the historical strike on Pearl Harbor, since the 7th fleet wonâ€t get a chance to move, or maybe concentrate their first strike somewhere else. Iâ€˜d combine the turns of certain powers, which precludes some of the can opener tactics, but allows for combined arms for things like D-Day and German reinforcement of the Afrika Korps, without having to spread the transport trip across the Med over multiple turns.
So the turn order would be:
- Germany, Italy, and Axis Minors (and Vichy France, if applicable)
- Russia and Communist China
- Nationalist China
- USA, ANZAC, Free France, Britain, and FEC
The US and Russia are assumed to be at full income, and can declare war on turn 1, even if they arenâ€t attacked. This means one less thing to keep track of.
Things that need to be ironed out:
- Should the Germans get a 2-impulse sneak attack? If they do, I think the Russians need something to balance it out. Possibilities:
a. Russian infantry cost 2 IPCs (or maybe even 1) on the first turn only.
b. Instead of having a fixed deployment, allow the Russian player to redistribute some of his starting forces, within certain parameters (i.e., must have at least one unit in each territory on the Western border, and canâ€t stack more than one tank or artillery in the same territory, or something like that).
c. Something else? Or just no sneak attack for Germany?
- Starting forces and deployments.
a. Japan would start off controlling French Indochina.
b. Iâ€m not sure if there would need to be changes to what is printed on the map in China.
c. Britan/ANZAC would start off controlling Tobruk.
d. Vichy territories would be Marseilles, Rio de Oro, Morocco, all of Algeria, and Syria. Free France would control all other French territories outside of Europe.
e. Germany would control all of France except Marseilles, plus Yugoslavia, Crete, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Warsaw, and West Poland.
f. Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary are all activated.
g. Italy would control Greece and Corinthe.
h. Can anyone see anything Iâ€ve missed?
RE: My House Rules modified for Global '39
“On defenders retreat you shouldn’t be able to take them as casualties if they retreat.”
Well, I was thinking that would prevent someone from leaving a lone infantry behind as a rear guard. If the defender is going to be able to escape with some of his expensive units, he should at least have to leave behind a sacrificial lamb large enough to slow down the attacker. If he doesn’t, then he’s going to lose some of the units he’s trying to retreat anyway, without those units getting a chance to bleed the attacker before they die. Then again, he would be choosing from among units that had to survive at least one round of combat already. Hmm. Maybe I’ll try it both ways. It might work a bit different with 12-sided dice than it did with 6-sided.
My House Rules modified for Global '39
I’m not sure if this should go in the House Rules topic, or if that would confuse people who are not familiar with Global '39. I’ll move it if a moderator tells me to do so.
Anyway, I’ve used some of these in other versions of the game, and they’ve worked fairly well. I want to try them out with Global '39, but I want to make sure I’ve made appropriate modifications. So if anyone sees any game breakers here, please let me know.
Modified Turn Sequence
Certain powers take their turns at the same time, and can combine their attacks and have their units ride on each othersâ€ transports and air transports. If two or more Allied/Axis powers participate in an attack on an enemy territory at the same time and capture it, they must decide among themselves which power gains control of the territory. If they cannot agree, the player from whom the territory was captured gets to decide. Likewise, if they cannot agree which/whose units to lose when taking casualties as a result of combat, the opposing player gets to decide which units they lose. The turn sequence is as follows:
2. Russia/Communist China
At the beginning of any round of combat after the first, the defender may declare that he will attempt to retreat any or all of his units. The units he declares to be retreating do not get to fire in that round of combat. They can still be taken as casualties, but he can opt to take casualties out of his non-retreating “rear guard” units first.
Example: A Russian player is defending a territory with 10 infantry, 1 tank, and 1 fighter. The German player is attacking him with 6 tanks, 2 fighters, and 12 infantry. Due to astoundingly bad dice rolls by the German player on the first round of combat, the Russian loses only 3 infantry and the German loses 2. The Russian, not counting on the dice gods to continue to ignore the law of averages, assumes he will lose 5-6 more units on the next round. So he declares that he will retreat his tank, his fighter, and 2 of his infantry. On the second round of combat his 5 “rear guard” infantry score 1 hit on the Germans, and the German units score 6 hits. This eliminates the 5 Russian infantry left behind, plus 1 of the infantry that was trying to retreat. So the Russian successfully retreats 1 infantry, 1 tank, and 1 fighter.
Japan cannot declare war on Russia unless the Axis controls at least one of the following at the beginning of the Japanese turn:
3. Washington, D.C.
4. San Francisco
6. Every territory on the map with a Chinese roundel printed on it.
Russia cannot declare war on Japan unless the Allies control at least one of the following at the beginning of the Russian turn:
2. Both Rome and Paris
If the conditions are met to declare war but the player chooses not to exercise it immediately, he loses the opportunity if he has not done so before the other side re-captures the relevant cities/territories.
Land units that are not marines, SNLF, or commandoes attack with a 2 on the first round of combat when making an amphibious landing. If the combat lasts more than one round, they attack normally on all subsequent rounds. Artillery also loses its ability to support infantry to raise their attack value on the first round of combat during an amphibious landing. Tactical bombers may not be paired with a tank to raise their attack value on the first round of combat when the tank unit is making an amphibious landing.
Air Transports / Airborne Assaults
Air transports cost 7 IPCs to build. They have no attack or defense value, and may move up to 4 spaces per turn if carrying an infantry or paratroop. If they are empty, they can move 6 spaces per turn. If you do not own air transport pieces, use a heavy bomber with a piece of masking tape on the wing.
During the Non-Combat Movement Phase an air transport may be used to transport one paratroop or regular infantry from one friendly controlled territory to another friendly controlled territory. This ends the air transportâ€s movement for the turn, even if it moved less than 4 spaces. Air transports cannot carry tanks, artillery, mechanized infantry, AA guns, or marines.
During the Combat Movement Phase an air transport that starts its turn in the same territory as a paratroop may load that paratroop and air drop it onto an enemy-controlled territory. If there is an AA gun in the territory, the air transport must first survive anti-aircraft fire before dropping the paratroop. If the air transport is destroyed by AA fire, the paratroop is destroyed with it. If a paratroop is dropped into an enemy controlled territory that contains no enemy combat units, there is assumed to be a â€œgarrisonâ€ unit in the territory. The garrison unit defends with a 1, and must be eliminated before the paratroop can capture the territory. The garrison unit is ignored if there are also units attacking the same territory that are not making an airborne assault. When air dropping paratroops, air transports may not make â€œsuicide runsâ€ (i.e., They must have enough range to land in a friendly controlled territory).
Each power can transport a certain number of units by railroad during the non-combat movement phase each turn. Being transported by rail uses a unitâ€s entire movement allowance for the turn. Units can move by rail any number of territories per turn, as long as all territories are connected and friendly controlled by a nation that takes its turn at the same time as the player using rail movement. In other words, German units cannot rail through Japanese controlled territories, and Russian units canâ€t rail through Nationalist Chinese controlled territories (although they can rail through Communist Chinese controlled territories). Units may not rail move into or through a territory unless it was friendly controlled at the beginning of the playerâ€s turn. Rail movement may take place across canals and straits, provided the appropriate territories were controlled at the beginning of the playerâ€s turn. Rail movement may not take place across impassable areas (i.e., Sahara Desert). Rail capacity for each player is as follows:
Nationalist China â€“ 1 unit per turn.
Britain â€“ 2 units per turn.
USA â€“ 2 units per turn.
Russia â€“ 2 units per turn.
Communist China - 0
Germany â€“ 2 units per turn.
Italy â€“ 1 unit per turn.
ANZAC â€“ 1 unit per turn.
Japan â€“ 2 units per turn.
If there are no Axis subs or surface ships in the convoy box between sea zones 3, 5, and 14 at the start of the US turn, then add two to the die roll when giving lend lease to the Russians. For the British, it would be the convoy box between sea zones 27, 31, and 32.
Alternative Factory Production
Major IC: Instead of producing 10 units of any kind, the factory can produce 10 times the printed economic value of its territory. For instance, if the Major IC in Britain is undamaged, it can produce up to 60 IPCs worth of units per turn. Thatâ€s 10 tanks, or 20 infantry, or 6 fighters. Western Germany can produce 50.
Minor IC: Can produce 6 times the printed value of the territory.
(Note: The minor IC in Bombay is converted to a major IC. However, the first 9 IPCs built there each turn must still be infantry. The major IC in Karelia is converted to a minor IC, but additional minor ICs are added to Kiev and Stalingrad. The major IC in Fukuoka is converted to a minor IC, but an additional minor IC is added to Sapporo.)
Now this obviously necessitates changes to strategic bombing and repairs. So each point of bomb damage reduces the multiplier by one. Example: If the factory in Western Germany takes 4 points of damage, it can only produce 6 times the value, or 30 IPCs worth of units. Repairs restore the multiplier at a rate of 1 times the economic value per IPC spent on repairs.
RE: Eastern Front Broken - $5 German tanks too powerful, income disparity a problem
That sounds like a good idea. How about if there are no Axis subs or surface ships in the convoy box between sea zones 3, 5, and 14 at the start of the US turn, then add two to the die roll when giving lend lease to the Russians? For the British, it would be the convoy box between sea zones 27, 31, and 32.
RE: Eastern Front Broken - $5 German tanks too powerful, income disparity a problem
Well, there is the lend-lease rule. The odds of losing some or all of the IPCs make it somewhat unappealing, but it does give the allies a chance to pull Russia’s bacon out of the fire.
RE: Sea Lion G1 vs US entry
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, that’s kind of what it looked like to me. But the initial setup plus the German double super blitzkrieg turn at the start almost seemed like the designers were laying down a triple-dog-dare on the Germans to try it. :lol: I’m glad to hear it’s not that common. I’m one of those dweebs who likes the game to present roughly the same set of options and challenges as the leaders of the time faced historically. While the RAF gets a big chunk of the credit for preventing an invasion by bloodying the Luftwaffe’s nose, I think the main reason the invasion didn’t happen was the sheer size of the Royal Navy.
Sea Lion G1 vs US entry
I got the map for Christmas. It’s awesome, but I haven’t had a chance to play yet. Looking at the starting setup, the Royal Navy starts just out or range of most of the Luftwaffe, which is a good thing for preserving their sea power advantage. However, this means the RN is also not in a position to block a German invasion on turn one, if the German player decides to build nothing but transports and land 14 units in London before the British player has a chance to do anything. On the other hand, the penalty of immediate US entry seems like it would be a fairly ominous deterrent.
For those of you who have a few games under your belts, is a turn 1 Sea Lion fairly common? If so, does it seem to be worth the penalty for the Axis of immediate US entry? It seems like it might be a problem for the Germans to commit that much of their initial construction (plus starting air power) to taking London. Paris might actually be able to hold out for a turn or two. This could be bad news with the US in the war, and the USSR a turn or two closer to being able to do a reverse Barbarossa while a big chunk of the Wehrmacht is out of position mopping up France. Not to mention what immediate US entry would do to Japanese war plans.