You get them from board game geek. Version 5.1, dated November 3, 2012. For whatever reason, you can only get to the most recent rules by clicking on the May 24, 2012 rules (updates version 5.0) link.
Posts made by Moose11
-
RE: HBG's Global War 1939 FAQ
-
RE: 1939 Map - Jeremy's Variant with Set-up Charts 2.0 In Development
Except, Charles de Gaule never said “Viva.” That is not French. He said, “Vive.” When he said “Vive le Québec libre,” in Canada in 1968, he instantly became persona non grata and was promptly evicted from Canadian soil, never to return. Not a very loved man in Canada as he is associated with the nascent separtist movement in Canada, which the Canadian government continues to deal with to this day.
-
RE: Japanese sneak attack
Two further clarifications please. When the Japanese conduct their sneak attacks, following combat the units participating in each sneak attack are permitted a full non-combat move.
1) If the sneak attack results in the capture of a territory with a naval base, may the naval units move 3 spaces as Japan owned the naval base at the commencement of the non-combat move?
2) Can planes fly four spaces to participate in a sneak attack (normally not permitted as this would be a suicide attack) and then fly four spaces as part of the non-combat move (a total of 8 spaces - 4 spaces in followed by 4 spaces out)? -
RE: Strategic/Tactical Bombingof Naval Bases in Great Britain
You can find it on Pages 9 and 10. Strategic bombing raids occur before combat.
-
RE: Strategic/Tactical Bombingof Naval Bases in Great Britain
The current rules allow for strategic and tactical bombing damage to have an immediate effect. For example, in land battles, one can use a strategic bomber to hit an AA gun in a territory being attacked by ground troops and planes. If the strategic bomber is not shot down by the AA, the AA is taken out and the land battle can proceed with no AA defence. The same logic would apply to naval bases.
-
Strategic/Tactical Bombingof Naval Bases in Great Britain
Naval bases assist in naval defence by firing AA on the first round of combat when enemy aircraft are present. This advantage can be removed if the enemy succesfully conducts a bombing raid of the naval base (3 or more damage). Given that naval bases defend adjoining waters, is it considered an attack on the mainland of Great Britain for Germany to bomb an English naval base? i.e. would attacking the naval base in either sea zone 15, 23, or 24 be considered a German attack on the English mainland? I am unsure as the naval bases provide AA defences to sea zones, not land zones.
-
RE: SUBS Overpowered -and- SUB Clarificaitons
If you are taking suggestions Tigerman, I like the rule that battleships cannot strike back at submarines. Battleships were designed to draw enemy fire, and lots of it, and to bombard prior to and during naval assaults. They were not built to take on submarines; hence all the wonderful destroyer and cruiser escorts. I vote that battleships not be able to strike back at submarines. If you are thinking of increasing the power of battleships, how about three strikes to sink (and four for the Yamato battleships). Maybe increase the cost by a few IPCs to retain value in cruisers.
-
RE: SUBS Overpowered -and- SUB Clarificaitons
In a multi-ship naval battle, when subs hit on their first strikes, can the defender choose a sub as a casualty that cannot fire back. Or, since subs do not have first strikes on one another, the defender must choose a surface ship as the first-strike casualty?
-
RE: SUBS Overpowered -and- SUB Clarificaitons
Americancyo, you wrote:
Now Im not a huge fan of the one on one ratio for Destroyers to Subs
Also Im a little confused why a sub would negate another sub’s sneak attack but whatever.I don’t think subs negate each other’s sneak attacks. Both friendly and enemy subs can sneak attack as long as there are more subs than destroyers, regardless of how many subs each side has. That is my understanding of the rules.
-
RE: SUBS Overpowered -and- SUB Clarificaitons
For the record, I think the submarine rules are balanced. Germany’s strengths are tanks and submarines. Remember in our last game Garg, I had about 12 subs in the Atlantic at one point. I still lost them all as they are quite poor in defence (which is how they were easily destroyed), have poor maneuverability (can only move two spaces as opposed to the allies who can move three virtually all the time because of the plethora on naval bases they have in the Atlantic) and have no naval bases from which to defend from enemy aircraft. Submarines are Germany’s only advantage in the Atlantic. Without them, the allies would be able to conduct amphibious assaults on a whim.
Remember, during WWII, Canada had one of the world’s largest navies. They built no capital ships, one cruiser, and many, many destroyers.
As for the Pacific, I would not be purchasing subs for the Japanese. I would be purchasing aircraft carriers and expensive planes because planes are required to supplement naval assaults. Japanese mech, artillery, and tanks are too expensive for their bang, forcing Japan to buy infantry and aircraft.
And I won’t even go into the inferiour and expensive troops for Italy.
The game, in my opinion is very balanced and just needs a minor tweak for the Dutch East Indies.
-
RE: SUBS Overpowered -and- SUB Clarificaitons
I believe that cruisers, aircraft, and destroyers can only hit detected submarines. If an undetected submarine fires, it becomes detected that round and can be hit by any of the aforementioned units. Submarines can always hit undetected submarines.
-
House Rules
Gargantua and I are very aware that version 6.0 will be released within the next month or two. We thought we would share our house rules in the hopes that they provide new ideas:
1. If Holland or the DEI is attacked, all other remaining territories turn Pro-Allied, and have to be activated manually, territory by territory.
2. Coastal battleships attack at 6, defend at 6 (regular battleships attack and defend at 8). When hit, they attack and defend at 4 (as opposed to 5/5 for regular battleships). Coastal battleships should not have the naval bombardment ability. Coastal means a ship must END it’s movement next to a territory with the same original roundel as the territory it started next to. Naval bases give +1 movement to coastal ships.
3. When a neutral capital falls and the coastal battleship moves to the closest friendly naval base which is not adjacent to a territory with the original roundel (e.g. Portugal falls), then the ship becomes immobile, like Vichy units.
4. Paratroopers may not be dropped on industrial complexes unless they are accompanying an amphibious or ground assault. Bombers dropping Paratroopers do not roll attack dice. Only one AA shot per bomber. If the AA shot hits, both bomber and paratrooper (if applicable) are lost.
5. Fortification limits apply to no more than 10 infantry. One can fortify up to twice per territory, but only one fortification per territory per round can be built. Two fortifications allow two rounds of bonus defence. Only 10 infantry benefit from the fortification each round.
6. Once a minor axis power is attacked, it becomes activated and acquires income.
7. The following are additional true neutral starting troop placements (for South America, Mexico - minus Baja - and Mongolia, we used Argentina’s 47,000 troops during WW II as the baseline). The rest were for better playability:
Chile - 1 infantry
Peru - 2 infantry
Colombia - 1 infantry
Venezuela - 1 infantry
Mexico - 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 armour
Baja – 1 infantry
Ulaan Baatar - 2 infantry
Zavkhan – 1 Infantry
Riyadh – 1 infantry
Medina – 1 infantry
Ireland - 1 infantry
Afghanistan – 1 infantry
Belgian Congo – 1 infantry -
RE: SUBS Overpowered -and- SUB Clarificaitons
I beg to differ. I believe the subs are not overpowered. And this from someone who lost more defenceless axis ships to allied subs than anyone else.
While defending against any fleet with destroyers, the subs are virtually defenceless with a two-defence.
However, it is unreasonable for a couple of subs to sink an entire armada. I agree with Mr. MalachiCrunch. If no destroyers are present, the submarines should be limited to sinking two ships each before the submarines… run out of ammo. I then propose that the attacking submarines have the choice to submerge, or retreat out of the sea zone.
-
RE: After Action Report! Good News! and bad…
We played a good long game of Axis and Allies Global over the weekend. I played the Germany and Italy. The Axis lost on turn 9. While the game was great fun, I experienced a number of frustrations and disappointments. Do the game creators have any comments regarding the following?
I was barred from conducting amphibious assaults on Russian occupied Finnish territories while Russia was still neutral. My opponents were adamant that this would be a declaration of war against Russia (I was out-voted). My inability to conduct amphibious assaults into Finland with German troops was instrumental in my permanent loss of Scandinavia. My understanding of the rules is that Germany and Russia may fight it out in Finland without declaring war on one another. This includes being able to conduct amphibious assaults onto Finnish territories. Since the Russian destroyer is neutral to Germany, the seazone occupied by the destroyer is considered neutral allowing any German ships to move freely within. Thoughts please?
By turn 9, the allies had control of the Atlantic. The Axis was in control of the Pacific and Mediteranean. The Allies had bunkered up in Sidney, Calcutta, and Cairo, with significant armies of infantry, rendering capture of these key cities virtually impossible. Likewise, Germany had effectively created Fortress Europe with huge armies easily able to repel any large scale amphibious assaults along any coast. Russia was very close to being overrun as it was losing the war of attrition with Germany and was fighting Japan to a standstill in Western China (and had lost all Russian territories East of Novosibirsk). Italy had a production of 51 and was transporting troops to Gibraltar to keep the American fleet out of the Meditteranean, and to conduct amphibious assaults on Russian territories around the Black Sea (Turkey was under Axis control). With one strategic bomber and a commando (both flying from the Cairo airbase) the allies dropped a paratrooper on Rome, and landed in the only non axis-controlled island in the Meditteranean - Corsica. I capitulated at that point as up to that point, the game was in the balance. No Allied fleet was present in the Mediterranean. Five axis destroyers and two axis transports were in the sea zone adjacent to Rome. Over one dozen Italian troops were in Turin as the Axis preferentially built in Turin every round. Were the rules designed to allow paratroopers to drop into enemy territory and capture a capital? This does not seem reasonable, unless the drop is part of an amphibious or land assault on the capital.
Last question. We had another disagreement in a naval battle. Three destroyers and two strategic bombers attacked six axis submarines. In the first round of combat, the allies scored four hits. I argued that only three submarines could be hit as they were undetected prior to the first round of combat. The allies disagreed stating that three submarines were initially detected. When the first three submarines were hit, the allies argued that the destroyers could detect the remaining three submarines to allow further hits. The allies also argued that the undetected submarines were unable to retreat from combat stating that only the attacker may retreat. I believe the rules allow all undetected submarines the ability to retreat from a naval battle, regardless of whether they are defending or not. Please clarify.
I still love this game!!!
-
RE: HBG's Global War 1939 FAQ
Once the U.S. is at war with the Axis, yes. Until they are at war, they are not allied with anyone.
Mark
-
RE: HBG's Global War 1939 FAQ
Page 12 of the rules states, “New facilities can be placed in any friendly territory you have controlled since the beginning of the turn.” Allied territories are considered friendly territories, therefore the U.K. should be able to purchase facilities and place them on French, ANZAC, Canadian, South African, or FEC territories. I would also suggest that these can be built on Chinese territories once Japan is at war with the Commonwealth.
Any comments, Variable or Tigerman?
For our house rules, we add infantry to the capital cities of all neutral capital territories, including true neutrals, at the end of turn 2.
-
RE: HBG's Global War 1939 FAQ
FEC and South Africa have very limited building capacity. The intent of the infantry build order is to limit what can be purchased, unless the U.K. builds troops on Calcutta or South Africa as well. Infantry does not comprise mechanized infantry.
The game creators are attempting to work out the kinks with the Dutch countries. For a house rule, we state that Holland and the DEI are neutral until a Dutch territory is captured by the axis. Once this happens, the remaining countries must be activated by the allies, one by one. If Holland falls, then the neutral rules on page 30 to determine the new loyalties of each ship must be followed.
We play that if Germany captures East Poland at any time, Russia is automatically at war with Germany.
Romania provides 4 IPCs to Germany’s economy and has an economy of 6 IPCs.
Happy playing!!!
-
RE: HBG's Global War 1939 FAQ
Star of Africa,
There is no canal rule for the Denmark Straight. I understand that new rules are being discussed, but for now, all nations can move through them.
National China may only attack original Japanese-held territories and the French colonies. They may not enter any original FEC territory except for HK, so Burma cannot be entered.
Coastal battleships and subs must remain adjacent to a territory containing their original roundels. So, the Brazilian battleship cannot enter African waters.
A neutral destroyer or transport can move anywhere when controlled by the axis or allies.
And where can an escaped costel battleship move e.g. the norway navy??? The rules are unclear on this. For our house rules, we state that an escaped coastal battleship moves to the nearest allied port and then becomes fixed in place, as per the Vichy rules.
If the Dutch fleet becomes controlled by the allies, the dutch transport could move ANZAC troops (it could move any allies’ troops).
The last Question about navy, can the finnish destroyer + figter attack the soviet destroyer without declaration of war against soviet union and the soviet destroyer + airplanes the finnish destroyer without being at war with germany. If the Russians attack Finland, then the Finnish destroyer and fighter can attack the Russian destroyer. As long as Russia and Germany are not at war, German ships would be ignored.
The first troop you have to build in South Africa and the first 3 troops in India have to be Infantry. Mechanized infantry do not count. I believe Commandos are not considered infantry.
Can you build a fortification in India (FEC) with money (IPC´s) from Commonwealth or has India to spent the money.
The Question includes air- and navelbases. I would say, no, FEC must spend the money to buy fortications, air bases, and naval bases on FEC territories. UK can only build units.You can activate Finland at the first impulse of Blitzkrieg (1.Turn) and move the Finnish troops in the second Impulse of Blitzkrieg. This applies to Hungary and Romania as well.
The +2 Defense by fortifications in the first round of combat applies only to “foot” infantry.
-
RE: Japanese sneak attack
For the Japanese sneak attack to be effective, as it was in 1941, the allies must be unprepared for the attack. In our last Global 1939 game, the allies attempted to avert a sneak attack by placing destroyer blocks one sea zone away from the evident Japanese target. While this is an extremely logical move for the allies, it renders the Japanese sneak attack impotent. Likewise, it is impossible to capture the U.S. fleet “unawares” as the U.S. fleet can naval base jump away from any threatening Japanese fleet. I would think that the U.S. should be prohibited from moving any of its starting Hawaii fleet (with the exception of the carrier) away from the islands until the U.S. declaration of war. I also think that Japan should be permitted one blitzkrieg naval attack to obviate the allies’ predisposition to place destroyer blocks. This blitzkrieg attack would count as 2 of the 3 sneak attacks Japan is permitted.
Thoughts?
-
RE: Japanese sneak attack
Tigerman,
I am not clear on your response. Are you saying no AA fire at all as one cannot defend from the first round of the sneak attack, and there is no AA after the first round? Or there is AA fire as the AA is not affected by the sneak attack?
Thanks!