Hey all!

Been away from the forums for a little while, life seems to get in the way

I’m getting that itch to finally paint my units, and am hoping for a bit of help here.

Does anyone have any good painting tutorials/tips/etc.? I’m asking anything from the specific brand and colors of paint to use for each army/unit, to different techniques to getting this done!

I’m hoping to get a lot painted. I’m talking all major powers, with some minor/neutral powers done too. Would love to have Canadian, South African, Greek, Finnish, etc. all looking awesome on the board. As well as desert, jungle, European, winter, etc. schemes for armies.

I suppose of biggest concern would be getting the right colors! If anyone has any tips on any of this, all would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Chris

@mrgoatcheese

Interesting though. I’ve long thought about similar rules for minor nations. Have a sliding scale of who would join what alliance. It’s not unlike HBG’s expansion rule for diplomacy, I’ve just thought about this for a couple years haha.

Yeah, have a scale, say 1-20. Strict neutrals start in the middle, others who may favor one side or the other start closer to who they favor (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary closer to the Axis at 20; Netherlands, Greece, etc. closer to the Allies at 0). Different factors cause nations to slide one way or the other. Money lent, other neutrals being attacked, etc.

What I thought would be fun was to do similar to what you’re discussing. Have one of the ways they slide be major battles. Let’s say Romania has joined the Axis. They can still slide back to neutral status if things go wrong. If the Romanian’s lose more than 8 units in a single battle, for example, that might be bad for morale on the home front, so they slide down one towards the neutral scale. Maybe the USSR gets closer to their border, it would slide down again, etc.

Interesting, you say all units will cost the same in V3? I kind of liked that some countries had advantages over others in different costs.

Alright, Covid-19 has me with nothing much to do, so thought I’d post something here for fun.

If you had to chose just one, what would be your favorite difference that was put into place for Global War from the traditional A&A games?

Terrain features being uses? Lend Lease? Special Abilities? Units (though this one seems loaded)? Expansions?

I think my biggest thing is the concept that this is a three way game. It’s definitely harder at times if you can’t get three to play a game of course, but I like that not everything is so “black and white” (or, Axis and Allies). It adds some levels of diplomacy at times, but also adds flavor to what you’re really trying to accomplish, which is to win the game, and not necessarily take Capitals.

What about you?

Just wanted to come here and say congrats and a huge thank you to @djensen! You’ve done so much to keep this site going, and I think we all know and appreciate that!

Hey all,

I’ve played AA for a long time and, as many others on here, find 1940 to be awesome. Most of our games almost always have consisted of my dad, brother, and myself over the years. The play is something that, I wouldn’t call predictable, but you of course don’t see as many different things happen with different/experienced players. While I usually win regardless of which side I am, that’s certainly more of a reason for a lack of diversity in players I am sure.

Point being, we haven’t ever done a whole ton of HR’s, though they are something I’ve always wanted to do, though my dad is a bit hesitant on change in these games. As I’ve read posts here over time and see that the general consensus is that the Axis is too strong. While I would love to add HR’s to add Canada (and South Africa), Axis minors, paratroopers, etc., there is certainly a lot of balancing to take into consideration. While it may work for my own HR’s (because of that lack of difference in playing styles I pointed out), I’m trying to think of ways to try and evenly balance everyone’s games in this community at large. One thought I have on that is adding Vichy France rules.

• When the France and Normandy/Bordeaux territories are overrun, the Vichy regime is set up. The territories of Southern France, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, and French Indo China become Vichy controlled, as well as the units on them and the naval forces in sea zone 93. The remaining French territories and units are considered Free French.

• Vichy France gets it’s small income of 9 IPC’s to produce units in Southern France, while a Free French government is set up in London, using the remaining 4 IPC’s of French territory. Germany is still allowed to build units in Southern France, but the combined German/Vichy French forces can still not exceed the production amount (this is to allow Germany to build a navy in the Mediterranean still if they chose without having to build a minor in Yugoslavia if they don’t want to).

• European Axis units are not allowed to enter Vichy French territories. They are only allowed to do so once an Allied invasion of North Africa happens (or we can just say once Allied units enter a Vichy French territory). Historically, the Vichy French government/cooperation with the Axis was very shaky, and Hitler did everything he could to make sure this wasn’t disrupted, for fear of the Vichy government turning on him. Mussolini wanted to take control of French North Africa, but Hitler would not allow it for fear of angering Vichy into war. It took a lot of diplomacy to get Vichy to agree to stage the Luftwaffe in Syria, which was only thwarted by a small, but difficult invasion by the Middle East Command.

• The Japanese are still allowed to invade French Indo China as they normally are without any political repercussions. Historically, Japan was feeling pretty big about their Axis partners defeating France and wanted to get their share of the pie. They waltzed right into French Indo China and staged units there, essentially saying they had no choice as a defeated power to Japan’s ally Germany. This ended up a huge and important staging ground for Japanese units in the invasion of Malaya and Burma later on.

• When the Allies attack, they roll a dice to see what the Vichy forces in that territory will do. On a role of 1-2 the Vichy forces will fight the Allied landing. On a 3-6 they refuse to fight and join the Allied side (this can be change to 1-3, and 4-6 if the odds don’t seem fair). Historically, neither side had much of an idea how Vichy units would react when Operation Torch (the American invasion of North Africa) commenced. Some were certain the French army would refuse to fight, but the French Navy was seen as more sympathetic to the Axis cause. Each time the Allies move into a Vichy territory this same sequence is done.

• After the Allied landings the Axis are free to move in as they please, though it will be an act of war against the Vichy government and would have to fight as they normally would against them. So the Axis has the choice of hoping the Vichy units will stay on their side and fight the Allies, or chose to not risk it and attack to keep the ground.

I feel that this generally will not help the Axis, and potentially balances out a bit. Germany and Italy loose out on the potential money of the Vichy French territories. Even though they don’t need to risk the units to kill the French, thus preserving some forces, they also don’t get that money and also don’t know for certain what the Vichy units will do once the Allies invade. They also won’t have the same kind of defenses set up to stop a Torch invasion because of it.

This also allows the extra 4 IPC’s of French money to be put to use for the Allies under the Free French government, instead of wasting in purgatory waiting for the Axis to take them or Paris to be liberated.

I understand this takes away an Italian NO in not allowing them to take control of the French North African territories. This either further balances the game against the Axis, or another NO can be featured for them. Perhaps +5 IPC’s for the Axis holding Malta, Crete, and Cyprus.

Again, I’m more just spouting ideas out to see if anyone thinks this will help with balance. Too much in favor of the Allies? Just trying to think of ways to not have to include a bid. Please let me know what you think, I’d love to see. Brutal honesty is appreciated if you just hate the idea.

Happy Gaming,

Chris

I’m realizing there’s conflicting information for colonial troops for the UK and French. Hoping someone here has an answer!

Under the “Great Britain Special Abilities” section on their reference card, it states:

 Colonial Infantry: The British may build colonial units any of its Colonies (British starting
territories that are not part of the Home Country). These units are regular infantry and can
move and attack. No factory is required to build these units. Britain may build a total of two
infantry per turn. The zone they are built in must have a point value.

Bold added by me. This pretty clearly says they can build two per turn.

But then, under the “Specialist Inf” section of the reference card for Colonial Infantry, the Build limit section says:

Can be built without a factory and can move.
Build 1 per turn. Maximum 1 per territory.

Again, bold added by me. This clearly says 1 per turn.

Of note, the French reference sheet does not have this same discrepancy. Seems pretty clear on that one that it’s one per turn.

Anyone know what the superseding rule should be for colonials? One or two a turn?

Thanks,

Chris

@cdatkins74 Ha I had not even noticed that one! I guess I’m unsure how that should be played. My assumption is that they should be given 3 IPP to start with. I say that because it is clearly written early on. I’m sure there was a typo in the chart. Plus, Canada only has +2 IPP’s of potential peace time income increases. That would only bring them to 4 IPP if they only start with 2 IPP. Meaning, they could never reach their full wartime income, and the ability to declare war, until the UK herself was attacked I would think.

Good call on #3. It appears I was oblivious to the fact that I’d accidentally scrolled down to the 1939 setup and saw the Infantry in Ottawa there. My mistake!

@cdatkins74 Thanks. Yeah, it seems like a lot of things slip past, even with multiple updates! I get things happen, would be nice to have them fixed/updated/clarified a bit more often though!

Nope, the rule is that Militia can move 1 within Soviet Home Country. So they could not move to attack anything outside of the USSR original territories.

@mrgoatcheese

Expanding on what GHG said here. The Home Country does not expand. It is only their original territories connected by land to their capital.

Russian Militia may move/attack within any original USSR territories once at war with a major power. They may never move/attack anyone outside of any of their existing original territories.

That is definitively the official rule, as they’ve been asked that question before!

I haven’t heard anything more. I also heard Italian set was “next”. I know they usually have a bunch of stuff at once, so not sure how next “next” might actually be haha.

Do you know what was going to be in the second base set? I think I’ve only heard a glancing mention of it, but not sure I heard specifically what pieces?

Oh no, not confusing at all. Was truly just an assumption made haha. But you are right that there are very specific movement rules from A&A Global. I’m sure that at least in part colored my assumptions.

I’d always made an assumption that US ships on the Pacific state borders at SZ29 and SZ64 could move up and down the US coast between those two territories as they wanted. It’s not much, but people might have their reasons. That might have been too bold an assumption though.

Thanks again GHG! I know the difference between a territory and a minor nation

I must have misread that rule somewhere to read territory when that wasn’t the case!

And again, I definitely overlooked the word Attacked in the reference sheets!

Thanks for the answer! I would not have guessed that!

Interesting again. That also might have been my misreading. For some reason I thought I read somewhere that the rule was attacking a territory, not nation. But the USA and Great Britain sheets don’t say that, they support your claim.

Thanks again for pointing out, these are definitely minor differences in wording, but make a big difference in game play! Maybe my 5 month old has me misreading things too much

@Noneshallpass good point on the rule being attacked and not just possessing!

Spain would make sense then, as that is it’s own separate conflict within first.

Your Turkey example wouldn’t work in the sense of Anatolia and Istanbul not bordering the USSR, even though Kars does. But that’s all a moot point since this wouldn’t be an attack on a Neutral or minor Turkey, as they would have been influenced to join.

Thanks for pointing that out, I completely overlooked the word attacked!

They are considered Advanced Mechanized Infantry according to the German sheet, as shown by them not being accessible without first researching Advanced Mechanized Infantry.

The rules state at 7.8 that Advanced Mechanized Infantry are “Mechanized Infantry for all purposes except as follow: Improved attack and defense values may pair 2:1 with blitzing with armor (e.g. 2 Advanced Mechanized may accompany one blitzing armor).”

So we know from that they are consider Mechanized Infantry. So from there, the Mechanized Infantry at Table 12-1 are categorized as Vehicle Class.

Hope that helps!

I’m feeling a bit dumb for asking this, but I haven’t had a chance to play V3 yet (this virus can’t go away soon enough), and something is just dawning on me.

V3 changed the rules for when the Allies can declare war on the Comintern. I think it was a good change, but certainly can change potential strategies. I’m talking about the ability to declare war any time after the USSR takes a territory that doesn’t border USSR home land territory.

I understand that this isn’t something that is necessarily going to happen the moment the USSR takes something to activate this rule. That wouldn’t benefit the Allies much in a lot of games if it happens too early. But this is possible now, which begs my maybe dumb question(s).

There might be other instances, but these two pop in my head immediately.

1. The Spanish Civil War. Say the Repbulicans win the Spanish Civil War. If at some point they become aligned to the USSR, does that automatically mean the Allies can declare war on the Comintern, since Spain doesn’t border USSR home country?

2. If using the Turkey at War Expansion. If the USSR ends up controlling Turkey, and then later aligning them, does that automatically give the Allies the ability to declare war on the Comintern?

I suppose the Turkey at war example is somewhat avoidable. If I’m remembering properly, the controlling player doesn’t necessarily have to align Turkey at any point in the game, and can choose to keep them as just a controlled Minor power. This wouldn’t trigger the Allied ability to declare war (unless the rule is for USSR/Comintern control, and not alignment, but I don’t believe that to be the case). But that might affect a Comintern player using this expansion from attempting to control/align Turkey, no? There’s obvously upside to taking control of Turkey, but some players might not find a benefit in simply controlling Turkey without the ability to align and use the full might of USSR resources?

All just thoughts, any input is great!

I think you’ll find a lot of assumptions made in the rules haha. While it’s obviously VERY different from A&A, there is a lot pulled from it, and I think sometimes the creators take that for granted in assuming things players may or may not already know.

So with that said, I’m like 99.99999999% sure you need a land unit to capture. That’s funny if it doesn’t say in the rules (I don’t have in front of me), something I probably never would have noticed or thought about! But the logical meaning would be a land unit is needed.