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

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,

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!).

@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

Yeah, like I said, it could be nothing at all. The fact that it’s August now and none of you contributors have heard anything makes me wonder on the accuracy of this statement. But thought I’d pass along!

There hasn’t been any new communication on that post since I posted here either. I’ll be happy to update you if there is anything more added.

@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.

@Nathan-Greve

How interesting. We haven’t had this be an issue in games yet, but I hadn’t considered that Iceland, for example, is just totally unusable now if it’s really all Tundra! A shame for Iceland specifically, as I believe for a time it was used as a weigh station for convoys heading to England.

Agreed with @Trig on some of the expansions, I don’t think they were really modified completely (properly?) to integrate seamlessly to V3.

But speaking of expansions, one fun house rule you could use for Tundra might involve elements of the Winter War expansion. Namely, use Ski Troops in your game. Maybe only Ski Troops can access Tundra territories/borders or something to that affect? That way there’s still a restriction, but you can have a work around by having to by specialized units to move/combat within the Tundra zones!

@insanehoshi Interesting. I suppose from what I see in the rules, the only thing I can think of for when you can’t sign would be if a state of war already exists between Germany and the USSR. Even then, I don’t think it says that explicitly, so I may be making assumptions! It would seem weird to be able to sign after a state of war already exists though.

I suppose situations like what you describe would only serve to either make the potential signing more or less enticing, depending on your point of view? Like, if Romania and Finland have already fallen, maybe nothing stops you from signing, but is it really worth doing so now?

Will be curious on the answer here.

@warwick I’d have to agree with @insaneHoshi here.

The Example of Romania on page 8 of the rulebook seems to address this too:

“If the roundel is not located in terrain, but you need to cross a terrain type in order to reach the roundel from the border of the land zone, you are subject to “border terrain” rules. Border terrain rules for that terrain type last one round”.

So while that specific example seems to be talking about combat, it does still mention that the terrain rules apply when crossing a mountain border. I just mention that one since it’s using an example just like what you asked, if you cross into a territory with a mountain border, but the roundel isn’t in the mountains.

But also with the rule just being “All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules”, I’d think you have to take that at face value to mean crossing a mountain border reduces movement to 1, even in non-combat movements.

@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

@insanehoshi It’s a very unique circumstance. I think 99 out of 100 games this situation doesn’t pop up, but it is possible of course, as this example shows. I’d be willing to bet a lot of players hadn’t considered this scenario as being likely.

I’m just saying, people know the alignment/control rules as written. And then there are the unique alignment conditions as written. But with all of those other nations and rules, Poland is alone as being potentially aligned to a neutral major power is unique. Every other one happens with a major power at war or full income. That in itself makes this situation unique.

I’m not saying the rule is written incorrectly, because it’s not, but I’m just pointing out a way to write it that would take away this question being asked again. The OP wasn’t off-base for asking this question is all I’m saying. And if it was asked here, I’m sure it’s been asked by others playing the game that maybe came across this situation as well. It’s frankly a simple 4-5 word clarification errata.

@generalhandgrenade The big difference there though is that Germany already starts out at full income/wartime economy. GB doesn’t necessarily have to be with this example.

I’m just saying, adding that qualifier would alleviate questions entirely. Because as it stands now, as evidenced by this questions even be asked here, people see Aligned and will say “but how is that possible when the rules says you need to be at war with the same major power to align a minor nation?”

@generalhandgrenade I’m aware of the tables. However, every one of those other tables require the nation to be at war with a Major Power, or their Aligning Major Power already has their full/wartime income (basically the Axis in that example). Poland would seem to be the only exception to that, as this example shows that it’s possible to Align Poland even if GB is still neutral and/or not at wartime economy just yet. That’s fine of course if that’s the rule, I’m not debating that if that’s the case. The point I was making is that qualifying that part by saying Poland Aligns to GB regardless of GB’s war/neutrality status, would be more clear. As it’s stated now it can cause a lot of questions (as the original post here has) as to how that’s possible given the games usual Alignment conditions. Adding a “regardless of GB’s war status” qualifier would serve to clear up the rule entirely and leave zero ambiguity.

@insanehoshi So it’s just completely outside of the standard rules for alignment then, got it. I guess I would have thought the rules would say something like Poland Aligns to GB regardless of GB’s neutrality status to specifically mention this veering from the standard rules. But I guess not.