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!

@monsieurmurdoch Hello!

I’m not a definitive source on this, so don’t take what I say as absolute truth haha.

I thought I saw in one of their videos recently that the plan for the 2025 game was for later this year, or early next year. I will say, historically speaking, the dates HBG usually give for the rollout of something are typically a bit ambitious, and you usually end up waiting a few months longer. But you never know!

As for the game itself, I’ve understood it to be basically the same concept as the 1936 game. By that I mean, it’s not a boxed game. You’ll get the game map, battle board, tech chart, etc. in your purchase, but that’s about it. Everything else you need to buy yourself. So all units, facilities, dice, money, etc. are all things you need to buy. At least as it pertains to the 1936 game, I think it’s always been assumed that customers have previously existing A&A games, which can make up larger amounts of your forces needed for their game.

All that said, I know the units for the 2025 are modern day forces, and they don’t have a ton of that available on their page. So it’s maybe possible they do have units included in the game-price. Either that, or you’ll start seeing units available for purchase on their site!

So not a lot of concrete info here, but wanted to pass on what I believe I’ve heard re timing, and what my belief is of the game itself based on their previous 1936 game!

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!

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

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?

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

@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!

Hey all,

A bit random here, as I don’t have a ton of interest in this game. But I’ve certainly seen people here unhappy about the status, so thought I’d share some potential news.

There’s a Facebook page called “Everything Axis and Allies” that I follow. A guy there just today posted that he received a message from the creator of the game. A few people commented with astonishment. The original poster then replied with this direct quote below. I’ll note that he says English isn’t his first language, so any typos I left as is for authenticity:

“Eric Harvey, write me last friday to tell me that they gonna start to print it in the mid august. but i tough the project was cancelled due to the time… haha that’s why i ask some of you if you already play the game ^^”.

So there’s that. I’m happy to report back here if anyone interested. A few people have asked him questions, so I’m curious to see if he responds. I suppose it could be nothing, but sounds like you all might want some hope (or are way past it!).

@vondox You know, as I’m looking at the rules again too, I did forget that annexation is considered a combat move, but where no combat actually occurs. So, I could certainly see how the captured factory rule (i.e. reverting to a minor) could be interpreted here.

The fact that the German setup sheet for the 1939 setup has Bohemia as having a medium factory as well though is still what makes me think this was just an oversight. Bohemia is also not German Home Country in 1939 setup, but starts the game German and has a medium factory on it. By your reading of the rules, you’d just make that medium factory a minor the moment the game starts, right? To me, that doesn’t make sense!

I think by strict reading of the rules you guys are correct in the way this would be handled, but I do wonder if it was meant to stay a medium factory for purposes of annexation. But yeah, would love to get input from someone there, this might be a good errata question!

@vondox @Trig That very well could be then!

Here’s a counter question though: Why even bother making that a medium factory in the first place then? No units can be built from it until it’s aligned, but the moment it’s aligned or conquered it just changes to a minor? It seems like that’s either an oversight on HBG’s part in terms of not even being worth putting it there in the first place, or we’re interpreting this incorrectly.

@vondox I’d actually assume the opposite. Aligning is not the same as conquering, so I wouldn’t assume that those rules pertain to Neutral nations that are Controlled or strict Neutral and then become Aligned later on.

So, I’d say that the medium factory in your example would stay medium.

Could certainly be wrong I suppose, but since the rule doesn’t strictly say that about Aligned nations I wouldn’t apply a conquered territory rule to an Aligned territory rule.

I think I’ve always considered hitting both as integral. I think you need the money from the DEI, and you certainly can’t just allow China to sit there and grow too strong one way or the other.

But like @Trig said, I think hitting China first/earlier is typically the way to go, and then hitting the DEI before they start getting reinforcements should certainly be part of your plans!

@delaja Long reply here, sorry in advance haha.

First to the point on gameplay. I should clarify that (even though it’s off topic). I LOVE playing this game. I frankly don’t have any issues with how long gameplay is myself personally. It’s a long game, if that bothers someone then this isn’t the game for them! So part of me leans in to that and says “what’s adding a little more time” haha. But at the same time, my brother and dad have a harder time wanting to add even more time to a game! So I tend to try and pick and chose the best ways to spend that extra time, and reviewing specialized units too much has so far just not been it. If it was just me, I’d love using all the elite units every game, and just deal with the time it takes! So no, not really a need for shorter gameplay, as that’s just not what this game is, but more of a selective look at what we do to make the game even longer!

Anyways, back more on topic. To the point on Special Operations Forces. I definitely agree that there was some overlap there, especially since I pointed it out haha. But part of me did that because it’s not necessarily the case that someone uses the Special Operations Expansion. So maybe it’s something where those units are made available in the Elite Expansion as well? If both expansions are being used, just have a disclaimer that the rules for each are the same? Just a thought. But certainly understood that the role of Special Operations are smaller units, so that might not be what you’re looking for in Elite Units.

To Elite Units and choice made. I guess here’s a counter question, and this is something that I just might not be as read up on as would needed from a historical context, but what would constitute Allied Elite units for you? The Germans have the SS, which makes sense. The USSR the Home Guard, which also is unique and makes sense. Italians, if you were to make it, could have Bersaglieri. Japan having SNLF makes sense.

But for the Allies, what is the equivalent then? It sounds like Airborne, Marines, Army units, aren’t what you’re looking for. Do US Ranger units count? Or are those too small? I guess I don’t know what, for any Allied nation really, is the equivalent to the Axis and USSR ones mentioned above to be able to make this for game play? My thought, which was probably reflected in the units I suggested, was to take specialized units from history that had performed well during the war and to make those Elite. But that was also because I couldn’t think of a unit type that exists to meet the “Elite” criteria that you might be looking for?

I’m so torn on the Elite Expansions. Part of me loves them/the idea of them, and think they add a really fun, unique flavor to the game. But at the same time I have to this point not felt adding all the time it would take to have to cross-reference what Elite unit does what with some kind of chart before every single battle they might be in. I’ve just thought of that as being a huge amount of time added to the game, but maybe I’m wrong without having played them.

All that said, here’s some ideas real quick.

USA:

• 82nd Airborne - Probably most famous airborne unit.
• 101st Airborne - Probably 2nd most famous airborne unit.
• 442nd Regiment (Nisei) - I know this is in the Minorities at War Expansion too, but they were so decorated on their merits as a unit besides being a Minority unit that I just wanted to point them out again.
• 2nd Ranger Battalion - I think the most famous WWII Ranger unit. Fought at Pointe du Hoc on D-Day. Maybe some kind of amphibious rule for them like marines.
• 1st Infantry Division - Probably most famous army unit in WWII famously called “The Big Red One”. Fought in Africa, Sicily, and Europe.
• 3rd Infantry Division - Fought in Africa, Sicily, and Europe.
• 1st through 6th Marine Divisions - Maybe not all 6, but all had big parts. I suppose the 1st Marine Division is the most famous.

UK:

• Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) - This is shown in HBG’s Special Forces Expansion already, but thought important to show here as well.
• 1st Airborne Division - The “Red Devils” multiple theaters, and famously fought in Operation Market Garden.
• 3rd Division - Saw action in the early war as part of the BEF, was at Dunkirk, and later was part of the D-Day landings, and fought in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany.

FEC:

Long Range Penetration Groups - Commonly called “Chindits”. While it seems their wartime record may have been exaggerated at times by Wingate, still a very interesting and unique force for the FEC to have. Fought in Africa and South-East Asia.

ANZAC:

• Australian I Corps - Renamed the ANZAC Corps since it comprised New Zealand units as well. Fought in Greece, Crete.
• 2nd New Zealand Division - Fought in the British 8th Army in North Africa.
• Australian 7th Division - Fought in New Guinea

Free France:

1st Free French Division - First units to join de Gaulle and consisted of French nationals as well as colonial units from the French empire.

Canada (If using Canada at War Expansion):

• 3rd Infantry Division - Fought at D-Day

Hybrid:

1st Special Service Force - Commonly called the “Devil’s Brigade”. This was a combined American-Canadian force. Could be used for the USA, UK or for Canada if using the Canada at War Expansion.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Yup! I apparently decided to not take the word “control” in that sentence in the GW36 game sense of the word that time for whatever reason

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Not quite.

Italy and Free France would have to go to war with each other in order for Abyssinia to become aligned with Free France instead of just controlled. If Italy and Free France don’t go to war, Abyssinia would continue to only be controlled, not aligned.

Likewise, Abyssinia does not need to win the war to become Free French. They simply need Free France and Abyssinia to be at war with the same major power.

@insanehoshi Oh wow, thanks for that. I think that was my source of confusion for sure!