@GeneralHandGrenade thanks! Yeah, that makes sense. Was just curious that they weren’t just adding all the units from the expansions.

I remember the SPA rules from the Afrika Korps expansion, that’ll be a fantastic piece to have, and will add serious punch to blitzing forces!

That’s a great Gurkha rule too!

Looking forward to it! Was hesitant to spend more money on yet another map, but I really do like the terrain feature upgrades to this one. Also fear the version 2 game will fall to the wayside, and miss out on the serious rule book flaws that this one will hopefully fix!

@cdatkins74 exactly!

That thread I mentioned goes into a bit more detail. While that seems like a solid plan for Italy on the surface, you of course end up freeing up however many Allied units/IPP’s to concentrate their efforts elsewhere on the map. Yeah, you can’t just leave the Med/Italy without a force in the area to check them, but an Allied player won’t have to spend so much there keeping them in check either! Some give and take there, but I suppose is something viable one could try sometime!

That’s what GHG is making it sound like to me.

I definitely get your point, I think it’s a lot of fun to be able to select what you’d want to buy as the minor power. But I guess I understand from a “simplifying the rules” standpoint to make this happen.

That said, I wonder what’s more helpful to those nations. Take Greece for example. Do they have better odds of building a unit with their 1 IPP a turn (assuming that territory wasn’t captured right away, that is)? Or are they better off rolling a D12 and needing a 1, 2 or 3 (again, depending on what was or wasn’t taken) to get an infantry/2 militia? Greece conceivably has as a 25% chance to get a unit if no territory lost right away. Those are pretty decent odds.

There’s a whole other thread discussing that very thing somewhere on here. It was interesting to see. Hell, they could get 3 easily if they just assisted in helping the Nationalist win the Spanish Civil War too, and still never actually fight anyone.

I agree with that. I actually never liked that all the DEI money went straight to the Commonwealth (assuming the attack on the Netherlands thrusts the UK into war right away, that is). This makes a lot more sense to me too.

@cdatkins74 sounds fun!

Also curious here, maybe @GeneralHandGrenade can answer, about newer units.

I see you listed the self-propelled artillery as a new unit, but not an armored car. Curious if that isn’t going to be added to every day games without the expansions they are part of? SPA were part of the Afrika Korps Expansion, if I remember correctly, like armored cars were first introduced in the Manchuoko Expansion, I believe? Just curious if armored cars were becoming part of the unit list as well.

Thanks for the response @GeneralHandGrenade and @cdatkins74 !

Sorry, I may have come off a bit unclearly, and maybe needlessly. Just trying to start a potential conversation of thought.

I guess my question was really on “realism”. Which, I’ll just come out and say is obviously not a needed factor, and I completely agree more units is more fun. Again, was maybe just a discussion topic.

Almost exactly to your point, honestly, is what I mean. If a single cruiser represents maybe 5+ cruisers, it would not be realistic to then show the difference of heavy and light cruisers. On a scale like this it wouldn’t realistically make sense to note all those things.

But I do concede, realism is not of importance. Was just a curiosity on others’ thoughts there.

All that said, I do also agree with the point @GeneralHandGrenade makes about smaller nations being able to buy some nicer firepower without having to spend way too big.

Also, hell yes to Gurkhas! I’d hoped that would be a new unit at some point, looking forward to that one!

Alright, I have a question for everyone here that I’m curious on.

The above says, and I’ve heard in other places, that the game is adding more new units. Is this true? I’ve heard the difference of Light, Regular, and Heavy Carriers? Light and Heavy Cruisers? etc.

I wonder what everyone thinks about that from a playability standpoint. My point being the scale of this game.

This game is on a larger strategic level map. This is not a tactical level game. And each turn is 6 months long. I mention all this only to ask, is showing the difference between a Light and Heavy Cruiser really something that can, and should, be shown on a game like this?

Don’t get me wrong, I love all the pieces HBG does. Would be awesome to have and what not. That just seems to be things that could be shown on a smaller scale game.

Is this just me thinking this?

Thanks,

Chris

@Warwick

Sorry to chime in a bit late, but had a couple thoughts here.

That’s an interesting reading of the rules, and one I had not fully considered, and I wonder if HBG did not as well when writing them. The rule reads (as in not with the expansion):

Dutch Territories: When the Axis declares war on the Netherlands, place a British roundel
on all Dutch territories. Britain receives all income from these once at war. The British player
may, when collecting income distribute the income from Dutch territories between Great
Britain, the Far East Command and the ANZAC as he sees fit.

By that reading, just on it’s face, the UK, FEC, ANZAC do not automatically enter the war once the Netherlands is attacked. They all get increases, sure, but they do not automatically enter the war. So it’s a bit misleading to say the UK is missing out on all that money, when they might not be getting it right away anyways.

But I see what you’re saying. If you make the adjustment of placing British roundels on all Dutch territory immediately after war is declared, then that could be construed as war on the British.

My gut tells me that what HBG meant with this was that they are still Neutral Dutch, but are now British controlled until alignment can happen once the UK is also at war. Regardless, it’s another example of really needing to polish the rule set to be waaaaay more clear/less contradictory. But yeah, I agree with @GeneralHandGrenade that the interpretation is as he lays out. But again, I’d say very astute reading on your part for the technicality!

@mrgoatcheese

Ahhh okay. Yes, that I knew. Apologies, I definitely misunderstood what you said!

Well, thanks all for the clarifications. Definitely was nice to get clarification for Italy’s IPP’s.