Posts made by cdatkins74

Hey global warriors, we do have a Facebook page for Global War 85. Lots of updates and pictures posted there and I try to answer questions as best I can.

Just finished the most recent playtest. China won the game (barely), Warsaw Pact second, NATO third. The game began with a hotspot scenario representing a significant Warsaw Pact buildup in Central and South America, which kept the US very busy (the Soviets even managed to briefly hold a U.S. home territory) and consequently NATO struggled to hold the Warsaw Pact back in Europe. China managed to hold out against an early Soviet attack by concentrating on purchasing lots of infantry and taking advantage of their ability to wage People’s War.

The game is really progressing nicely and we need to playtest two more hotspot scenarios (next on the agenda is Able Archer, then South Africa) over the course of the spring and summer.

In my opinion, the absolute best use of militia is by Japan if they invade China. They are cheap and can be built quickly in those valuable coastal territories, and since China does not attack effectively since they have only infantry or cavalry, the militia are a decent and cheap defense.

I am not as high on militia elsewhere, since they do not project threat, but they do have their uses for sure.

@trig hey there I am the designer of GW 85. Happy to see a forum here and happy to answer questions and interact as I can.

Task Forces exist in the game because in the 80s the navies organized their naval groups into task forces to do certain things, mainly to protect sealift through enhanced capability to detect surface, air and subsurface threats to the sealift lanes. Capital ships - mainly carriers - were a key cog in this wheel and never moved outside of a task force. So the game recreates that through the task force concept. When a task force conducts combat it can do certain things that a bunch of frigates, subs and destroyers moving alone cannot do.

I wish I could say more but as everything is still being tested, I think it would be best if I didn’t.

Hope this helps!

@mrgoatcheese agreed, personally I would not give the bonus to AAA though because I am unsure that the Maginot Line actually enhanced AAA ability, like it did normal land units.

They do have the blackshirt units, but it would be fun to have more.

Maybe something about their reticence to use their navy and their big ships after Taranto?

@Chris_Henry and then the 4th by just spending their 7 IPPs to spend BBs the rest of the game!

I kind of disagree with that change for v3. I like that these minor nations get to collect income and spend it how they see fit. Won’t that change under the v3 rules?

@mrgoatcheese Italy does have an independent reason for invading Abyssinia: Italy gets two potential VPs for controlling up to 2 new territories at the end of the game. Abyssinia would be 1, and Albania another. In both cases, those territories would be taken without subjecting Italy to having war declared on it by the Allies, and Italy could theoretically sit tight until the end of the game and collect those two VPs.

The main reason I like the Netherlands Fights Back expansion is because it allows the Germans to hit the Netherlands in Europe without all that income going to the Commonwealth which puts the Japanese at a severe (and likely ahistorical) disadvantage in the Pacific.

Chris, that’s why in my house rules I give special abilities to battle cruisers and light cruisers. BC’s get naval target select and CL’s get AAA ability. That makes them a little more special and worth investing in all on their own.

@mrgoatcheese a competent Japanese player will first take all naval bases from the KMT and if they do it in July 37 then you will have a long year until the Burma Road opens to Yunnan in July 38. And a competent Japanese player will also be pressuring Yunnan by late 38/early 39.

And then there is the fact that the US might not be able to lend lease at all to China until the US hits 15 IPP. It depends on how you interpret two contradictory statements on the US reference sheet.

The best USSR can do is lend their 2 fighters and 1 tactical to the KMT or the CCP if you use that house rule. Russia has to spend that 8 IPP on its own needs or risk foregoing Portugal/Iran/Mongolia/Finland in the short term and maybe risk getting steamrolled by Germany in the long term.

I agree with GHG, I don’t think it matters

Also - in this game you can really view the naval units as smaller or larger navies or armadas. So a destroyer is really a small group of aircraft carriers, naval aircraft, BBs, BCs, CAs, Light cruisers, etc. Where a BB is a much larger group of similar types of ships.

Or you could view each individual unit as a much larger group of similar units. So a battle cruiser is really 5+ battle cruisers, destroyers are 15-20 DDs, etc.

Either way I think it works.

I am playing with battle cruisers and light cruisers in my current solo game of Global War 36 (2nd edition). I find they are a great edition to the game.

Can militia be built in territories you conquered on the current turn? Or only on territories you owned from the start of your turn?

repost from main forum:

Hey everyone, I upgrade to a 4x8 map for GW 36, so I would like to give my 3x6 to someone who could enjoy this great game.

Details here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC41fa4uD6I

Good luck!

@Chris_Henry thanks for the reply. In my game, I am going to play for the same rules for Sumatra and Borneo as Curaçao. I.e. if Japan takes them, +1 for Allied production of most units

Going to use the Netherlands expansion in my GW 36 game.

I have a question: what is the point of the oil derricks in Sumatra and Borneo? They can be strategic bombed, but then have to be repaired.

Does this only benefit the Allies? The Japanese would never strategic bomb them, to only have to turn around and repair them.

What am I missing?

Repost from main Global War forum:

Hey everyone, on You Tube I go by the alias “Admiral Sea Bass.”

I just started a new Global War 36 series on my YT channel. First video is up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKLCrKpPC6I

I will be covering the expansions and optional rules I will be using, then strategy for each major power, then a solitaire play through.

Oh - and I will be giving away a 3x6 map.

Come join the fun!

@Chris_Henry agreed. good thing the game is worth it!

@Chris_Henry no worries, and I am sure you are right on the 3 IPP versus 2 IPP.

@Chris_Henry good question. Too bad that discrepancy survived the new, v1.4 national reference sheets.

@Chris_Henry good post. Japan cannot take its eye off its objectives - like DEI that you mentioned - just to annihilate China. In fact, as long as Japan takes and holds the coastal provinces of China, you could argue it should have little interest in going further.

@Chris_Henry I have the same question as your #1 and #2. I really have no idea especially on #1. I deducted that “the Maritimes” must be Nova Scotia. However I have no idea on the prairies. I am going to assume Alberta - Saskatchewan.

I also found an even bigger issue in the CAW rules: text says Canada gets 3 IPP income and starting money, but chart says 2. I am going to play it as being 3, but it would be nice to get a clarification.

On your #3, I think the new GB setup has a militia only in Ottawa, so will just replace the militia chip with the QOR chip.

@Klaykowalski I have never played with that expansion. However I am curious whether you are using other expansions as well? For me, Partisans seems to heavily favor the Allies. So if I ever used it, I would balance it by something that favors the Axis - like Elite of the Reich or something like that.

@Rank-Carcass that is basically the same strategy for how Russia defends itself. Pull back from the front, maybe set up blockers, then hit on the counterattack. I will try that in the game I am getting ready to play.

@Rank-Carcass I do like the new convoy rules better, even though you think they might favor the raiders. I would fix that by requiring the convoy protectors to develop some kind of technology like sonar. That would require sonar to provide a benefit that counters the impact the new rules has for the raiders.

Very interesting strategy from the Germans. I wonder if that won’t become the standard strategy for the Germans moving forward - if they can knock out the Russians quickly without the Allies harming them on the west front that seems like a consistent recipe for success.