Posts made by Chris_Henry

@tank-nut Hey there!

So, there’s a bit more to it than that. There’s probably a lot of parts of the game that are related, but I’ll try and keep confined.

So in A&A, naval bases just increase movement. This has more than that.

There’s 3 types of naval bases. 1) Port, 2) Dockyard, 3) Shipyard.

1. Port.

Ports grant an extra movement for ships just like A&A. But they also are used as supply paths for Lend Lease. In GW36 you can lend lease to other nations, but they have to go through ports/undamaged railways, etc. So port can be very important for shipping lend lease supplies/units. You can send $3 worth of money or units through a minor port, and $5 worth through a major port. You can place these anywhere that has an ocean border. Also, it’s only a major port that grants the movement bonus, not a minor.

2. Dockyards

Dockyards can do the same things as ports, except while a minor dockyard can only support $3 worth of lend lease, a major dockyard can support unlimited amounts of lead-lease material. Dockyards can also be used to repair capital ships. Same as above, only major dockyards give movement bonuses.

3. Shipyards

Shipyards can do all the same things as ports and dockyards. The difference here is that they can also produce ships, 1 non-capital ship per turn for a minor dockyard, and 5 ships of any type for a major dockyard. Major dockyards can only be build in your home country too, you can’t build them in overseas and/or conquered territories, etc. Same as above, only major shipyards give movement bonuses.

Hope that helps! It’s a lot to keep in mind for sure!

@tank-nut

Hey there!

So, I have the V3 map, I haven’t upgraded to V4 yet. But I do know that the V4 map differs in some ways from the V2 map. I can’t remember specifically all of the changes, but there’s more territories now. There’s an extra territory each in England and Japan I know for sure, for example. and I believe an added territory in Norway as well. So while not a ton of changes, there are some that I believe affect the initial setup. I’m sure you could tweak a bit though to make it work if needed. And of course there’s the added terrain features as you mention. Funny you mention not liking the jungle terrain, I specifically bought the V3 map at the time because I wanted the added terrain features!

It’s been a couple years now, so I can’t remember our specifics, but I remember us using our V2 map and using the V3 rules and we just tweaked some set up and/or rules as needed to make it playable before we pulled the trigger on buying the V3 map.

Hope that helps! And I hope you find some UK players!

@meyott Hey there! I haven’t been able to bust the game out in a while, so I’m maybe a bit rusty here, but I believe these should answer your questions.

1. When Greek Alignment happens would depend on at what point in the game Turkey is Aligned too. If the Axis win Influence over Greece before they’re at war with anyone, then Turkey would not be Aligned with the Axis just yet, and so Greece would not be able to become Aligned with the Allies right away. If the Axis was at war with the Allies, then Greece would become Allied Aligned immediately.

There’s seemingly a bit of contradiction between the Turkey At War Expansion rules, and the Turkey Reference sheet though.

• The Reference Sheet states that “If Turkey becomes Axis Aligned (i.e. its at war with the Same Major Power as Germany Japan or Italy), Greece will immediately become Allied Aligned”.

• The Expansion rules at 1.5© and 1.6 state:

“1.5© Declaration of War: Even if Turkey becomes Aligned to a Major Power an independent run Turkey is not forced to declare war and can remain neutral until it wishes to. Other nations can declare war on Turkey as per Global War Rules”;

“1.6 Greece: If Turkey becomes Axis Aligned, Greece will immediately become Allied Aligned”.

So to me, the Reference sheet is saying that Greece becomes Aligned with the Allies when Turkey is at war with the same Major power as the Axis, but the Expansion rules at 1.6 just say Greece becomes Allied Aligned the moment Turkey becomes Axis Aligned, seemingly regardless of Turkey’s belligerent status.

I know that’s not me really answering the question, haha. We’ve played based on what the Expansion Rules say though and not the Reference sheet, meaning that once Turkey becomes Axis Aligned, Greece will become Allied Aligned, regardless of Turkish war status.

2. Good point on Home Country here. I guess I’d refer to the rulebook for “Home Country”:

“Each nation has a group of land zones that comprise their Home Country as defined on the National Reference Sheet. For a Minor Power the Home Country includes the primary nation but not its colonies, islands or conquered land zones”.

@SuperbattleshipYamato Thanks for this!

@Krieghund Thanks for that! I must have just overlooked in the rules. And yes, I do have the new rulebook from Renegade. Thanks again!

Not saying these are at all perfect, but I posted about some potential Vichy house rules for 1940 a while back as well! Just thought I’d share here in case it sparks anything for you as well or anything to go along with your own!

I explain my thoughts in this post, but my hope was to avoid any massive deviations to the standard A&A game play. By that I mean, I didn’t want to go crazy adding or changing a ton of specific rules or anything that exist in the game already.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26099/vichy-france-global-1940?_=1688593330283

Sorry if any of these have been asked and answered elsewhere (and also if these are obvious and I just missed in the rules), I didn’t notice any threads on this so thought I’d come here. I had a few clarifying questions on amphibious assaults I wouldn’t mind having cleared up!

• For the artillery bombardment that gets to happen from defending artillery units on amphibiously assaulting units, is that on top of their regular defense, or in lieu of? So for example, if I have 2 artillery defending, do they get their 2 shots at the amphibiously assaulting units at the beginning of the phase, and then also their standard defensive roles as well? I wasn’t sure if the initial bombardment replaced the defensive roll entirely, almost serving like a first strike with subs in other A&A games.

• Do fighters have any negative impacts when joining an amphibious assault? I know tanks don’t get their special attack ability when amphibiously assaulting, but I wasn’t sure if fighters had the same negative affect (i.e. do they help with aerial superiority and/or do they get strafing shots)? I had thought I’d read it in the rules, but when we ran into this in the game I couldn’t find it again. Quite possibly I was totally misremembering what I read, but thought I’d ask for clarification!

• I’ll use the actual game example here for ease. The UK amphibiously assaulted Kiel. The naval base there of course allowed for the use of mines. After the initial attack, Kiel was contested. If on the UK’s next turn they want to send their transports back to London, pick up more troops, and land them in the contested zone of Kiel again, do the Germans get another round of mine attacks? I wasn’t sure if the territory being contested made this not possible.

Thanks in advance!

Thanks guys! Yeah, haven’t gotten a chance to finish the game yet, but I’m definitely seeing spots where I could have done better as the CP already. I watched some of The Good Captains videos like you said, and I most definitely misplayed the CP navies right away at the very least!

@superbattleshipyamato Thanks, I’ll check those videos by him out!

Yeah, I’d agree with you on the turn length in time, a year is probably about right. Goes to the point of waiting until turn three a bit late in my opinion if house ruling for historical accuracy.

Sorry for replying to an older thread here! I just got a copy of 1914 with the Renegade Studios release, and we started and almost finished our first game just yesterday.

I’d first say I’ve really enjoyed the game! I’m a massive fan of the larger games (1940 and Global War), but it’s fun to have a game like this that can more or less be finished in a single day when there isn’t maybe time for the larger ones!

I too was struck immediately by Italy being a belligerent nation from the beginning of the game. Unless I’ve misunderstood at times, the general consensus is that it’s awfully hard for the Central Powers to win I think? That could give credence to a small change with Italy as well. I know I typically don’t like to make massive changes to rules and setups, so a delayed entry by Italy could be very intriguing.

I have a couple questions on your proposals though, and I’m curious how they’ve played out for you.

1. My initial thought is that waiting until turn 3 for Italy to join the game is far too late. My largest reasoning for saying that is because the US enters on turn 4. If your reasoning is historical, I don’t think a single turn is fairly representing the two years in between Italy and the US joining the war historically, when the preceding 3 turns encompass less than a year between the historic start of the war and Italy joining. So my real question is, what about delaying Italy only a single turn? Does that present any real changes you think?

2. My other big notice from what you said is not allowing Italy to purchase any units until such time as they enter the war. I get in some ways why this might be needed to avoid just having them be as strong as they might have otherwise. But how are you justifying allowing the USA to purchase units every turn until they join, while not allowing Italy to? Again, I mostly don’t like making too picky of nation-specific rules like that (i.e. if not allowing one neutral country to purchase units, then no neutral country should be allowed to purchase units, etc.).

Curious on your thoughts! Still learning this one of course, so I’m super curious!

Just wanted to come here for an update. I just received my copy of the 1914 reprint this morning, and it looks fantastic. I’d signed up for the pre-order, but I think they’d initially given an August release date. So if I’m remembering correctly, they were ahead of the game there. Hopefully anyone who didn’t pre-order will get their games soon too! Came pretty well packaged, and everything looks great. I haven’t taken inventory yet, but the eye test makes me think there’s plenty of chips and German infantry (both key complaints from the original run, if I understood properly). Excited to get this one on the table to play!

@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!