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.

When it comes to planes in this game, I tend to want to lean more towards a bit more historical realism. By that I mean, high level bombing/carpet bombing in WW2 was, by and large, extremely ineffective. And I don’t think should be amplified in game.

Yes, I’m sure everyone can hunt and pick some select instances of successful high level bombing against military formations (as opposed to stagnant facilities/cities). But overall, this was an extremely low efficiency attack. There’s a reason dive bombers/tactical bombers came into existence and heavy use in WW2. For example, I believe at Midway and the Coral Sea, B-17’s were found to have hit 1% of their targets. They were quickly considered not very suitable for that type of warfare.

The problem with high level bombing against targets like this is/was because the targets move. It was extremely hard to actually hit a moving target from the altitudes these heavier bombers were flying at. Hell, it was really hard for them to hit facilities/cities as well from that high even, and they weren’t even moving! The wind that high up comes in to play as well.

I personally struggle to even allow heavy bombers to carpet bomb units in game, if I’m being honest. I know from a game-play perspective it’s more fun to give them more options, but in historical context, it was not the overall norm for a heavy bomber to try and target units as opposed to buildings. Again, I know there’s individual circumstances where this happened. But in the grand scheme of the war on a game of this scale, I struggle to see how that can be shown in game with how little effectiveness it actually had!

To me, having Tactical bombers have target select already simulates pretty perfectly the abilities of planes to hit specific targets, but that might just be me! I think allowing medium bombers something like this maybe would make more sense, but not anything larger than that!

@captainnapalm I guess to me this is the rule:

“Movement: All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules.”

That part of the movement section just says that it happens during movement, period, and doesn’t specify during combat movement. The sentence after that is just expounding on the fact that blitzing is a specific thing of it’s own and couldn’t be allowed either, but as a part to the wider rule of the terrain rule that encompasses all type of movement, combat or non-combat.

@generalhandgrenade I’m simply pointing out it’s understandable how this question was asked. It’s nothing to take personal, as I’m not attacking anyone’s knowledge of the game or anything. It’s not a secret to players that the rule book has a lot of questions that arise from it with assumptions and ambiguities written in, and HBG has said multiple times they appreciate feedback to be able to clarify the rules (as is evidenced by a running 9-page errata). I’ve seen rules way more clear cut than this get clarification errata’s haha. I won’t argue the point anymore here, as my goal isn’t to make back and forth arguments. A question was asked, and it’s a pretty simple assumption to make that the OP isn’t the only one asking the question as they play. I’m frankly surprised a simple clarification suggestion has been met with this much hostility. I would think a clarification would be welcome for players and not met combatively, but I guess not.

Anyways, on to other posts

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

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!

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?

@board-3659 I believe Doug’s Youtube update the other day on 7/30/21 said they were hoping for a Thanksgiving 2021 release date. I wouldn’t be surprised if that got pushed back, but that’s the current info that’s been given!

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

@thrasher1 I totally agree with you here. Would be awesome to have some of that done and incorporated. I think the potentially tricky thing that I’ll be curious to see is how to implement things like this while still keeping the rules/feel of the game A&A at its core. I say that from the lenses of the developers, as I have to imagine that’s going to be on the forefront of their minds as they design. You can’t stray too far from what A&A is and still call it A&A, so it just makes me wonder how “convoluted” they may go to showcase some of this. Again, I certainly hope they do, but will just be interesting to see how it’s all implemented!

We had long ago made some Vichy rules for our 1940 games that were pretty simple so that we didn’t stray too far from the parameters of the A&A rules!

@superbattleshipyamato Oh absolutely. I’ll be curious if in a game like this the French are somehow worked in, or if they’ll just make the French African territories Axis for the sake of game play. Definitely a lot in this campaign that’ll need to be looked at!

@reloader-1 I probably should have clarified my post. 100% agree there would be too much missed. I guess the real crux to my question would be if there would be a mechanic to then have the U.S. join the game later. Like, would it be like the 1940 games, where the US will enter the war on a certain turn? If so, awesome! Part of me had just wondered if with a focused theater like this they might not want to introduce the complexities there, but I hope they do, to be clear!

All speculation at this point obviously, just excited to see how it pans out!

I’m pretty excited about this too! (and I got on a the pre-order list for the 1914 reprint).

North Africa was my first choice, but I guess it depends on the kind of game they’re going for. If it’s like the conventional A&A games (classic, 1941, 1942, Global, etc.) then I think North Africa is a fun way to go. Taking Tunis serving as the Axis “capital”, and Cairo as the Allies “capital”, or something like that.

If it’s going to be more like Guadalcanal, Bulge, and D-Day though, I think a Stalingrad or Market Garden would have been the better approach. But curious to see what it’s like.

North Africa is so interesting too. Do you do a pre-US entry into the war game, or post? I assume post, but it’s almost two distinctly different games whichever way you go!

@general-5-stars Thanks for sending! Interesting rules there! A lot of what I was thinking too (glad I was on the right track haha).

Yeah, I think the idea is a lot of fun to have them added in! I think it’s ripe for expansion possibility, but who knows!

@Linkler I don’t remember where I heard this, it might have been one of Doug’s Youtube updates, but I had heard somewhere that they didn’t really have any immediate plans for really any expansions for a little while. They’ve been focusing on Meltdown (which just released) and 1914 so much, as well as Midway earlier this year, that I think any expansions have really taken a back seat! I’d personally like to see expansions as well, since the 1936 game is really the one that interests me haha.

@mark-the-shark Really? Where at? I looked at the 1939 game, and there’s a link to the rules that says it’s on Board Game Geek, but the link appears to be dead!

EDIT: As I typed that, I tried to go the Board Game Geek directly, and it appears their servers are coincidentally down at the moment! I’ll have to take a peek at those rules when I can!

@general-5-stars No I never did! When I first discover the Global War series/HBG, they were just rolling out V2 of 1936. The 1939 map didn’t appeal to me nearly like 1936 did, so I saved my money until I could get 1936 V2 haha. That’s cool they had them as separate playable powers though! Now I wish I’d seen the rules to get an idea of what it looked like!

Yeah, I’m right there with you. I just think it’s fun to showcase the powers and see how long any can survive in the course of the war haha.

@linkler I don’t know how many real playable rules like this have been put out there.

I’ve long loved the idea of having like an “Axis Minors” sort of expansion idea, having Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland being separate playable powers. I personally like the look of having a ton of different nations shown on the map and not just absorbed by their major power overlords haha. It obviously can make the game take longer, but could be fun!

I’ve toyed with ideas for a while, but I’d say one of the biggest things is balancing the changes made (at least in the way I’ve viewed the possibility of them being separate powers).

Anyways, my general thoughts are somewhat broad right now. Romania would keep it’s own IPP of course, but there would be some kind of trade agreement with Germany too. This way the major power of Germany maybe doesn’t lose out on too much money, and the minor power Romania can have a bit more to supplement building units. Maybe something like Germany gets +2 IPP and Romania +1 IPP a turn for trade or something.

Romania would buy, move, attack, etc. on the same turn as Germany. Romania/Axis Minors can’t conquer territory (i.e. anything they might capture becomes German).

Germany can Lend-Lease to one Axis Minor power per turn. I feel like the potential of allowing Germany to Lend-Lease to all Minors every turn would become a big boost for them to get units on the front line quickly. Maybe limiting to one minor a turn would make them have to pick and choose where to put it.

The biggest thing here is rebalancing though. In what I’ve talked about, you’re giving the Axis more IPP via Germany-minor power trade, and the ability to build units directly on the Eastern Front lines more or less. To me, this most negatively affects the Comintern, so maybe you have to add X amount of militia/infantry/something to the Comintern starting units? Something like that, not really sure.

I’ve also thought about putting limits on each Axis minor too. For example, Finland won’t attack any farther than Leningrad. Historically speaking Finland wasn’t too enthused with major pushes into the USSR, so limiting them to Murmansk, Leningrad, Karelia, etc. would be interesting and sort of hamper the Axis that way. Same with the other minors. I think of Romania in terms of their oil fields a bunch, and needing to protect those. I’ve thought of a rule where if Turkey is non-neutral/non-Axis controlled/Aligned (i.e. it’s controlled/aligned by the Comintern or Allies) then Romanian units will not attack into the USSR until the Turkish threat is eliminated, and all units currently in the USSR would move back towards Romania each turn until Romania is safe again. Also, Romania units can’t move any further west than Yugoslavia, some things like that.

Again, nothing here is fully fleshed out, but all thoughts/ideas I’ve had!

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

@trig That’s strong evidence, and I cannot argue with the brightness of the roundel in Shensi. However, note Nanking. It is printed in red, is a city, and has a star indicating a major power capital. Shensi is a territory name, not a city name.

I could be misremembering here, but I don’t think the city names in being red necessarily actually mean any thing in-game. I think that’s just there stylistically. Constantinople is in red, for example, but that isn’t Turkey’s capital city/territory, and the Constantinople territory itself doesn’t have any special usage in-game either.

I guess to me, 1.3 Colors and Roundels covers this:

“All Nations on the map are identified by a color and a roundel. Nations that have more than one land zone have the brightest roundel located on their capital and muted roundels in other locations.”

That to me makes it pretty clear that Nanking serves as the KMT capital, and so would be subject to the KMT losing it’s IPP to the bank if taken.

It also makes me believe then Shensi would serve as the CCP capital since it’s the only territory they possess, and I would agree with @Trig that the roundel does look to be brighter like other single-territory countries.

However, to play devil’s advocate, the CCP and KMT reference sheets both list as Chinese Home Country “All starting KMT, CCP, and Warlord land zones, Formosa, Hong Kong, Rehe, Northern, Western and Eastern Manchuria”. When you look at that, it could give credence to a single capital for both factions being Nanking.

I ultimately think that Shensi serves as the CCP capital though, and if taken the CCP loses all IPP to the bank. But this is a very interesting topic that I’m certainly not certain on!

@insanehoshi “subject to”, by definition from Merriam-Webster, means:

“affected by or possibly affected by (something)”.

To me, that reference at 9.17 is just using “subject to” to mean if the defender has chosen to scramble interceptors.

I guess I obviously can’t guarantee any of this, but I doubt it was intended to allow defending fighters to be able to intercept and then also take part in a defense. I’d think they get one defensive action, and it’s up to the defender which one it is they’d like to do.