Topics created by Chris_Henry

Thanks GHG! Good to know I was wrong there. I took it to mean that they weren’t eligible, but that did seem unfair to the defending player.

@ghetty
Also don’t forget the turn is 6 whole months . It’s not unrealistic.

Yeah you should only Lend Lease if you have the dominate influence against Turkey.

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.

@cdatkins74

I know. I said that if being at war with Abyssinia meant that Italy was at “war” and therefore received their “wartime income”, THEN Italy would have no incentive to attack. Because if they attacked and won then they would cease to be at “war” and would go back down to “peacetime income”. To counter this, I assume the creator made the rule that one must be at war with a Major Power to receive “wartime income”.

I believe “wartime income” should be changed to “Total Mobilization”, or “Total War Economy”, or something of the sort as to avoid confusion.

Heck, perhaps there should be three levels of income. Peacetime (limited troop types can be built), wartime (all troops can be built but you’re not at total war and don’t yet receive “wartime economy” or what I proposed to be “Total War Economy” income bonuses), and “Total War Economy” (you can build anything and receive wartime bonus income).

@Wildcat6305 Thank you for confirming! I was 99% sure. This is my brothers first time playing, so he’s had his own opinions on what some of the rules mean, so I’ve had to explain a lot.

Yeah, that’s why I wanted to specify that Yugoslavia and Greece had also been attacked. He starts the game at war with Abyssinia, and Albania isn’t technically an attack, so I knew those didn’t count.

@SS-GEN Thanks for the reply!

Yeah, I’ve adopted that Vichy idea in other games in the past, essentially for the 1940 games. It’s simple, but adds some unknowns, and stays true to history. When the Allies landed in Torch, they had no idea what to expect from the French forces. While not much blood was shed against them, there were varying degrees of French resistance to the landings, from surrendering immediately, to straight up changing sides, to fighting back with all they had. So I’ve done a simple rule: once the Allies attack a Vichy territory, you roll a dice for each unit. 1-3 they become Allied, 4-6 they become Axis (were neutral before) and fight back. You do this for each territory as it’s attacked, helping with the uncertainty of what different garrisons might do. If the Axis move into Vichy territories at all, the French forces fight against them immediately.

Anyways, I’m getting off track :)

So yes, the Vichy aspect would be part of this, on top of the rest.

I agree with you, you couldn’t go too far out of Africa. I wouldn’t envision this game going any further North than Rome. Maybe even just to Reggio di Calabria at the tip of the boot even. That was only a thought if the Mediterranean wanted to be used at all. This would still encompass Sicily and Malta, so that would still be interesting. If not, I say just a map of North Africa, stretching from Morocco to Cairo, or Tunisia to Cairo, depending on the time line preferred.

So sounds like, by your omission of mentioning the USA, you’re in favor of an early war scenario?

Given that my thought process here is an A&A official game, I don’t think hexes is envisioned here. I think Battle of the Bulge does that, but again, have not played. I suppose you could, but I’d be in favor of what you say, chopping up territories into multiple smaller ones.

I think a one round of combat situation would work for this game. A lot of North African fights weren’t as drawn out as in other theaters (save some of the more famous ones). To that end, I’d even say one round of combat, then everyone disengages until the next round. The dessert made communications hard, I think this would well simulate that small tactical battles that had to happen.

Again, given the scope of an A&A game, I don’t know well how weather or terrain may fit into the mold. I think you maybe have something done to simulate the dessert. Whether that be no blitzing for combat, affecting free moving, etc., but not sure. But that’s part of why I’ve posted here! To see what others may think! I agree, lost to consider here, though the guys on this forum are usually up for that :)

@GeneralHandGrenade Great, thanks so much for clarifying GHG!

@GeneralHandGrenade Thanks for the info, GHG! Much appreciated as always!

@Wildcat6305
Haha that was directly related to being new to the game. My brother’s first time playing. I’m trying to remember what he said, but he either had forgotten about the Maginot Line rule, or just didn’t think the attack also coming from Picardia would make it happen (thus my asking the original question here).

In the end he knew he’d blow by (and he was right, I think I only rolled one kill from the defenses there), and wanted to use his Lightning Strike ability. It was the last turn to use it, and his men in Munich would have been out of place to help if they didn’t also attack.

Just a learning curve mistake! I will say, teaching someone new makes you realize how much there is to learn in the game. I’d read the rules multiple times over before even purchasing the map, so I already had/have a good base, as opposed to him or others going in completely blind.

@Phelan-Kell
Thanks for the great reply! I am hoping to add decals to each as well, so thanks for that tip too. Sounds like I definitely do need to do a bit more homework on this before I get started. I want to do it right!

There is some review of expansion compatibility, but modifications are made. My favorite is Oil Wars which can work with anything. I think many of them you have to chose which rule will take precedence if you are playing multiple expansions. The new East vs West nuclear rules will supersede those previously published in Nuclear Weapons Marker rules, so you should not play these together.

Global War recently released Zombie and Atlantis expansions, has anyone tried either of those? They look like they would be lots of fun and a good way to spice up an otherwise traditional wargame scenario.

Hey!

When I first bought GW36 years ago, my group misread the rules and played the first dozen games with “full access to allies bases”. Since then we’ve played both “full access” house rule and vanilla rules, without significant balance issues.

With full access, USA shuttles troops to UK quicker. But the USA lands somewhere in Europe anyway and therefore full access doesn’t affect anything.

Eventually we settled on “Full Access to Allies Bases” as a house rule, and we like it.
It’s more historical, for the navy it doesn’t take the American fleet a full year to get back to America. For air forces…we figure that even if historically the Commonwealth and the USA didn’t share air bases; we assume Normandy had more then 1 air base, so in game everyone benefits.

Playing the USA is a bit tricky. It’s really a different situation based on how the Axis go about things (mostly with Japan, if they go for a straight takeover of china, or going for dutch, etc.)

I’ve noticed that especially if you do the 1936 setup, that it’s important that the USA focuses it’s early turns on ground forces. The factories can keep up no problem earlier on, and it starts with an OK navy. Later when they start making more, they can easily build up transports, and be ready to throw it’s forces in right away when the war starts, especially if the Atlantic is under control.

I’ve noticed otherwise that it’s hard to compete with the Japanese navy, especially if the campaigns are going well for them in China and other places. I’ve started coordinating with England to put a large part of their overall navy into the pacific to really put a dent into their forces in order for the USA to finish them off well.

That’s what I’ve gotten to understand from the few games that I’ve played.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

It looks like a really good expansion and I’m looking forward to playing it in a game when Rank Carcass gets here to the War room. I made a video for the Partisan Expansion as I will eventually for all of the others;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX3dQCOvwQA&t=329s

Nice! That really is a big game changer. Especially for CCP.

Can’t wait GHG!

From the recent newsletter, it seems HBG are working on a “1946 Expansion with overlay”:
They expect it to be released this fall.

Looks very interesting  :-)

5e8fe5de-6eb4-422a-b483-4ac9074ab567.jpg

Makes sense Charles DG.  General HG uses armored cars as artillery scouts.  Could do something similar.

And I didn’t realize that was a 1939 setup rule, so that is cleared for me as well!

Thanks for pointing out 9.20 as well. I’ll be sure to point that out to others, as they seemed misinformed on that front.

Overall, I definitely agree with you. This is probably a one time chance it works against an opponent. But, it may still alter the way the Soviets are played early on a bit!

What an excellent report, you are a grear story teller!