Posts made by TheAandAClassicDude

@Valladares Noted! Will change ASAP

@barnee Feel free to take a look at my rules here! https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_zHdtZj-QwcWAd-ufKAvgSz8lsZQpYVZ

Hi all. I just wanted to share my W.I.P map that is meant for my custom 1939 Game that uses Global 1940 as a template. In order to begin this project I used the map file which Tjoek so graciously uploaded here https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28942/tjoek-s-1940-global-map-file-and-setup-charts-updated-may-30th-2018 and a fantastic photo editing software called GIMP.
This 1939 game isn’t meant to just be a set up difference and is meant to almost be its own creation entirely with drastically different rules and powers. Regardless of my expansion, I would like to receive some criticism and how I could improve my map. I am already very aware of 2 glaring issues: the creation of my own borders (Specifically in places such as Spain and Vyborg) as well as incorrect coloring of territories according to the owner of said territories (Such as Belgian Congo). If anyone is aware of a solution to either of these issues please let me know because I would like to make my map look as clean and flawless as possible.

Here is a dropbox link to my edited map: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o6xuzc5fvvwhyrj/1939.png?dl=0

According to the description of the ‘‘BATTLE PIECES’’ - AMERIKA SET (YELLOW GOLD) PRE-ORDER product on HBG, it says, and I quote, “Pre-Orders on Yellow Gold Amerika Allies Sets will be available for 5 weeks only (Ends Dec 31), after that they will only be in the new Amerika Game with tan Allies, Black Germans, and Yellow-Gold Japanese”. The bolded text seems to indicated that HBG will rerelease Amerika with different color pieces? Does anyone have anymore information on this rerelease? I am fascinated by the prospect of being able to have Amerika’s unique pieces in 3 more colors.

@GeneralHandGrenade I was able to complete Germany using your proper pieces list; before I continue to the rest of the powers I’d like to get your opinion. How do you think this is organized? Too complicated, confusing, excessive? You can check it out in my new folder at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qYIo43lRrczPFlhS-Vq-FbCitjk040UL

@RellHaiser Hey RellHaiser, I appreciate your input. I did want to comment on having to buy 5 pieces of a unit which you only need one of though, seems like a real waste. It would be nice if HBG could sell every necessity at $60 per country or something like that, it would save both parties a headache.

@GeneralHandGrenade Great, I’ll try to use your resources and make the same exact lists with updated requirements according to your lists. I appreciate your input as well, its of great help to an up and coming GW player like myself.

@GeneralHandGrenade Oh shoot my bad, need me to delete this post because its rife with inaccuracy then? I’ll take your call since you seem to be the latest Global War guru out there.

Greetings everyone. Now, I don’t actually have all the necessary components nor have ever played Global War 1936-1945 myself, but I would like to share a Google Drive I’ve made of every required piece in the game. Assuming that the reader owns a copy of Europe and Pacific 1940 2nd Edition (If you’re going to play Global War you might as well for its pieces, no reason no to) I looked through what pieces these two game provide, how many pieces excess or short they are, and how much it would cost each nation to buy all their pieces. Resources I used to calculate and keep track of everything was Young Grasshopper’s thread of the components of Europe and Pacific 1940, Historical Board Gaming’s own “Needed Pieces” document for Global War 1936, and of coures a TI-84 Calculator. I like to think that I covered all bases and that this would be a master list on how much one would need to spend for each nation and what pieces to buy, as well as potential replacements for pieces that have cheaper alternatives. For individuals who have a full GW’36 game, I would greatly appreciate your input and corrections to my errors and maybe we can use this thread in the future for newbies to the game (like me) when buying pieces? I understand that Generalhandgrenade has made a video about necessary pieces, but I understand that some people would enjoy a document to be able to read at their own pace. (P.S I’ve already asked the admins if I’m allowed to share links and they approved of me doing so).

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nY4BBk-iieHnJyEyFspd_oCr76aecGIH?usp=sharing

Quick question, am I allowed to share a link to a Google Drive I created? I created a folder for an in depth “required components” for Global War 1936 pieces and am wondering if Moderators will allow me to link to it.

@Argothair:

I’m not really clear on how your rules would work – someone is rolling a die to get bonus cash? Who? When? How much cash? Do the Republican / Nationalist sides of the civil war have any starting forces, or are they entirely donated by the patrons? Does Spain always end the civil war with an army of exactly 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk no matter how stalemated or one-sided the civil war was? Given that control of Spain is apparently worth something like 19 IPCs in units plus 3 IPCs per turn in income, plus control of a tactically useful forward base, is there any reason why each side wouldn’t donate the maximum allowable amount?

All of that said, 1939 scenarios are tricky because they make it really hard for the Axis to win – the general consensus among historian types is that the Allies could have won the war quickly, easily, and decisively if England and France and Poland (let alone Russia!) had all made a coordinated attack on Germany before Germany had a chance to plunder half of Europe. So you need some mechanics that either stop the Allies from attacking or stop them from coordinating their attacks; otherwise the Axis get blown away. You also need to find a way to nerf the American economy so that the Americans don’t have 4 years of massive spending to prepare for a 1943 invasion, or the endgame also becomes an easy Allied victory.

I think the overall tendency of introducing the Spanish Civil War is to further advantage the Allies, because it provides yet another potential beachhead that the Germans need to defend. Let’s say the Allies invest nothing in Spain, the Axis contribute about 3 infantry, and so now the Axis are basically guaranteed to win the Spanish Civil War and will wind up with 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk plus an income boost of 3 IPCs per turn. Well, the 1 art + 1 tnk gets used up real fast, and then it’s not obvious that 3 IPC per turn is enough to pay for an effective garrison of an additional high-value territory near Berlin/Rome. If the Soviets get control of Spain and Italy or whoever has to waste resources invading it, well, that’s that much worse for the Axis.

None of this is to say that you can’t or shouldn’t have a Spanish Civil War in your 1939 scenario, just that you have to be careful about it. Be careful not to advantage the Allies too much, is my advice.

“Someone is rolling a die to get bonus cash? Who? When? How much cash?” Yes, in a 2 player game the Axis player and Allies player rolls a die. In games exceeding 2 players, the Italy Player and the Russian Player roll the die for their respective side. Neither side has starting forces and their units can only be received through the die roll and donations. The amount of cash earned is the number on the die.

“Does Spain always end the civil war with an army of exactly 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk no matter how stalemated or one-sided the civil war was?” Yes Spain always begins with that much but the Iberian peninsula itself has been split up into multiple territories.

“Given that control of Spain is apparently worth something like 19 IPCs in units plus 3 IPCs per turn in income, plus control of a tactically useful forward base, is there any reason why each side wouldn’t donate the maximum allowable amount?” Yes, the lack of IPCs to do so in the first turn or finding a better use for the IPCs.

Now I understand 1939 is hard for the Axis to win, which is why I’ve taken liberties here and there and added rules (Such as politics, neutrality, and ways to sap money from the Allies). I believe had I introduced this with my entire 1939 scenario, a lot of your question would have been cleared up. Also going back to liberties and realism please reread the first sentence I’ve added as a disclaimer “This isn’t realistic”. I see Axis and Allies as more of a game with history theme rather than an accurate history simulator. This isn’t to say that I’m not grateful for your feedback (Which I am) but I would like you know 2 things

1: I prioritize fairness and fun over realism

2: I did not explain everything and things that would balance your suggested issues.

If you would like I could begin a thread explaining my whole game and then later on we could revisit this and see my idea with a new Point of View.

This isn’t realistic (to all the people that always get on me for realism). I understand what does and doesn’t make sense and why certain things happened. I just wanted to make a fun little rule that adds a bit of flavor as well as making a territory not useless.

I had a cool idea that ties into a custom version of Axis and Allies that I’m making. My friend and I are making a 1939 scenario and we are incorporating the tail end of the Spanish Civil War. What we have is that during their purchase units phase, each nation can either donate 1 ground unit, or 4 IPCs to their respective sides of the Civil War. The Axis support Nationalist Spain, and the Allies support Republican Spain. Then, both sides use whatever money they may have to purchase units. Only after this they roll a die to see how much bonus cash they get and once more buy units. Since Anniversary’s scale is smaller than 1940’s, its just an immediate combat that takes place. The winning side “gets” Spain. Spain is worth 3 IPCs and has 3 Infantry, 1 Tank, and 1 Artillery. If Nationalist Spain wins, then Italy gets to annex Spain. If Republican Spain wins, then the U.S.S.R gets to annex Spain. How do you guys think balancing works out?

@Argothair:

Well, I’m not a stickler for perfect detail; I just think mechanics in the game should correspond roughly to what they’re meant to thematically represent, because that makes the game more entertaining and easier to ‘model’ in your head…instead of having to memorize hundreds of rules, you can just apply a bit of common sense. Can I strategically bomb this factory even though it’s guarded by thirty fighter planes? I might not remember the exact interceptor rules, but I can still be pretty sure that it’s a bad idea. If you make the pieces shaped like bombers represent horse cavalry, and you make the pieces shaped like destroyers represent minefields, then common sense stops being useful, and every rule has to be tediously memorized. A little bit of unrealism (especially oversimplification) for better game play is perfectly acceptable, but we shouldn’t be totally cavalier about accepting unnecessary unrealism. Or, at least, that’s my opinion.

With that in mind, allowing players to manufacture tanks and planes in what would today be modern-day Chad or Sierra Leone or Yakutsk or Bali strikes me as very unnecessary unrealism. Those places still can’t build planes today, 75 years later.

As far as breaking the game, I think other commenters have already pointed out the downsides better than I could – the Japanese would be able to easily recruit reinforcements in western China and/or central Asia, which would make a mockery of the carefully crafted supply line difficulties in that region. The whole point of the Japan-China war is that Japan has better technology (tanks, planes, etc.) and initially superior numbers, but Japan has trouble pressing its advantage because as Japan eats up Chinese territory, it gets increasingly far from a source of reinforcements and loses its flexibility. Meanwhile, the Chinese are constantly hemorrhaging units, but they can deploy what units they do have literally in any of their territories. That’s an interesting asymmetry that gets flattened by the new rule about micro-factories.

You get similar problems for the British in central Africa (it’s interesting that the British have to figure out how to ship troops north from the naval base and minor factory at South Africa and have trouble penetrating deep inland; drop a micro-factory in the Congo and all of a sudden that interest is gone), for the Germans in Scandinavia after the Baltic Fleet gets sunk (it’s not worth defending Norway with a whole minor factory, but on the other hand if you leave Norway without any defenses then the Americans can easily pick it off with one transport and make a huge profit by denying the German NO), or for Japan in Western Australia (normally ANZAC can fight on for a while against a modest Japanese landing because Australia is so far from Tokyo, but if Australia has been kicked out of the money islands and Japan gets any toehold at all, then Japan can build micro-factories in every Australian territory it conquers and snowball its way into Sydney, meaning that a minor ANZAC defeat automatically becomes a total ANZAC defeat, which is less interesting).

Okay, I’m convinced. I must have not seen the repercussions that this had. Thanks for pointing them out Argothair!

@Argothair:

I like this idea, but the board is not really made for it.

General De Gaulle nailed it here – having a third tier of factories would be really interesting, but most of the map isn’t designed with a third tier of countries in mind. In Soviet Russia, there are some obviously plausible “tertiary” factory sites like Vladivostok, Vologda, Archangel, Chelyabinsk, Perm, and Kazakh, all of which had notable concentrations of heavy industry in the 1940s…but these are all worth the same 1 IPC as completely ridiculous locations like Sakha or Nenetsia that couldn’t manufacture even one squadron of airplanes if they broke the local economy trying to do it.

Same thing in Africa – the idea of having the Gold Coast or French Central Africa pump out combat-worthy tanks is just laughable; these places couldn’t even manufacture sliced bread in the 1940s. On the other hand, Rhodesia or Ethiopia probably could have managed it. They’re all worth the same 1 IPC.

Same thing in the Pacific – there’s no industry or even enough locals to recruit on Iwo Jima, which is worth 1 IPC, but you could have easily recruited a few infantry regiments and equipped them with locally sourced rifles in, e.g., New Guinea, which is worth 0 IPCs.

So I think you either need a totally custom map, or you need some other way of extending the unit roster for production centers. I favor the “training camp,” which might also cost about 7 IPCs, but where you can recruit up to 2 infantry (only) per turn, and no other units. This helps get at the idea that you can set up a recruiting station just about anywhere, even if there’s no industry to speak of, because rifles are lightweight and easy to ship or haul across a continent – but you can only manufacture tanks and planes in genuine industrial centers that were built up at least a little bit before the war started.

But at the end of the day, so much of the game is unrealistic. Why bother getting it down to the very last detail when there are other aforementioned inaccuracies such as Siberian territories being worth as much as they are. You didn’t mention once how it would break the game, only how unrealistic it is.

@Combat:

we call them Recruitment Centers.  This picture is of one I put a red-cross flag on to represent a hospital.  I sell them at my shapeways store.  https://www.shapeways.com/shops/war-game-miniatures

I really like the name of your factory, and the complexes look nice too!  Do I have your permission to call them Recruitment Centers as well?

@Charles:

This has some very serious implications:
All of eastern Russia and China will become easy places for Japan to build up.
Soviets can be building in the east.
The big Pacific islands that Japan usually takes can be easily reinforced from within.
An invasion of Australia is more realistic because micros can be built in the west.
The U.S. will be building micros just about wherever it can (North Africa, Hawaii, Iwo Jima).
Africa in general becomes a factory haven.

I like this idea, but the board is not really made for it.

Would you say so? It sounds to me like there aren’t enough IPCs to make what you claim a reality. Even if there is, it doesn’t sound like to leans towards one side anyway.

I had this cool idea where there would be another type of factory called a Micro Complex. Its a step lower than even a Minor Complex. It can produce 1 unit per turn and costs 7 IPCs to produce. The only placement rule is that the territory you put it in must have a value of at least 1. You can upgrade a Micro to a Minor for 8 IPCs.

Moderator’s edit: Added tag [Global 1940] to title.

Thanks GHG for clearing it all up. It seems he’s right. To answer the question of where I live, well, I’d rather not.

I could not find a fitting place to discuss this so please point me to a better page if you find one. I apologize in advance

What’s up with HBG and their shipping prices lately? I was planning on buying some things from them (All 4 of Global’s board and the GW Manchukuo expansion to be specific) and it seems that their shipping prices have skyrocketed since I last bought from them. It was $28 for something that should’ve been $29.50, totaling to $57.95. Does anyone know why? I added other things in my cart and tried all sorts of combinations but its still $28. When I add a single infantry to my cart (Which is $0.75) it was $8.10 for shipping.

If I’m being honest, I’m against it, however I would like to see other people’s opinions on it as well

I must say, I am currently both shocked and extremely excited. I filed a complaint and instead of just giving me replacement boards, they went ahead and sent me another game! It looks like I have 2 copies of Anniversary now  8-)

Heya CWO Marc, thanks for giving me your perspective. I would say FotTC would fall into the first point you made, where at first the year 1900 is recognizable, but some year like 1990 would look drastically different.

I’d like to answer the main question. The ONLY way the game would follow the same path of our history is if all the game’s players manually decide to follow such a route. Just because its the year 1900, that doesn’t mean all consecutive wars that happened in our world will happen exactly, if at all. If the players explore the early 1900’s separate to how the countries really did in our timeline, wars can both be avoided and arise. WW1 will never happen unless the players choose to. WW1 could still happen, but whatever comes after can also be different based upon how player do it. It can also come in many different shapes and forms. The location, time frame, and participating powers can all vary from large to small. This game is meant to be purely customizable and unless you choose to go a certain route with your country, nothing will happen thats the same.

Yes, you are correct in saying that the world depicted at the start of the game would correspond to the world as it existed in 1900 in terms of its borders, in terms of the major and minor powers of the time, in terms (presumably) of its background rulers and politicians, and in terms of its military technology." The game will diverge from history if you choose to, and it will follow history if you choose to. This (in my opinion) is the fun of the game. Imaging “Hey what would happen if x country did y during z?” and being able to formulate some sort of idea. Even writing your own history by playing this game is fun. I understand that the main issue with following this route is both hard to relate, and difficult to imagine, however at the end of the day its just a fun board game. I prioritized how fun the game is over historical accuracy and believability. After all, by allowing any player to do what they want, I’ve already thrown all realism out the window.

I hope I both cleared up some questions, and clarified how I’m imagining it. I’d love for you to read my mind so that you get a full understanding of what I’m trying to say. If you’re still confused, I would be more than willing to continue explaining.

I guess I should elaborate a bit on the “Head of State” bit. Its borderline role-play. Lets say my name is John Smith. If I play as the U.S during WW1 (Or whatever war is created), I would be “John Smith POTUS” and not “Woodrow Wilson POTUS”. If I’m playing as Germany in WW1, I would be “Kaiser John Smith the I” and not “Kaiser Wilhelm II”. Its my fault for not explaining enough. Of course such a thing doesn’t make sense realistically as 1: A POTUS can only serve for 8 years and 2: Someone would likely not live that long, however its just a game, an expansive board game where you role play as the head of state.
I have plenty more of ideas that could clear up a few questions if you’d like to read. I’ve been meaning to bounce these ideas off of someone for a while.

Just a couple of questions I would DELIGHTED to answer.

-It was a new idea that sparked into my head not even a week ago.
-There is no map, as that would require weeks to create with stupid amounts tweaking a balancing
-There would be a maximum of as many countries that existed in the year 1900
-Its not clear how setting up and cleaning would work as I don’t have the slightest idea as to what the game would look like
-Yes while in OUR timeline many colonies became independent, this game doesn’t follow any historical path unless you manually choose to. Just because India is a country now, that doesn’t mean it HAS to be in FotTC. Nothing is required, it is not just a power you control. It is YOUR country. You aren’t Woodrow Wilson or FDR, you are the head of state.

I won’t go too in-depth with my idea, however I had a cool idea for a Global War 1936 sized Axis and Allies game.

I name it, “Fall of the 20th Century”.

What is it you may be wondering? Fall of the 20th Century would be an Axis and Allies like game that is NOT intended to be completed in a day, let alone a few hours. Fall of the 20th Century would encompass the entire 20th Century (Duh) and would begin in the year 1900. The game will last 200 turns until the year 2000 (1 year for every 2 turns) or until only 1 alliance is left. YOU shape how history crumbles. In turn 1, ALL independent countries that existed will be a political power. All alliances that existed will be an entire team, however you’re able to recruit powers into your team (or even make your own faction). Fall of the 20th Century (FotTC) will let you make even more decisions than even Global War 1936. If you have any questions, I would be MORE than willing to answer them.

This is NOT an actual game being in production, its just an idea.

@Argothair:

Hey ClassicDude,

We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

Cheers,
Argo

Yes I think that this is something we can agree on. However I am still willing to test out your ideas.