1939 Map

@Moffett:

Any idea when in 2019 one can one expect the new version of the map from HBG with the air/naval bases printed on the map?

Maybe! Hopefully?  :roll: I know HBG posted their video talking about printing starting setup bases on the map, but as you can see they are definitively not shipping them yet.

You want the 1936 map! It has the terrain printed on it, and as I understand it, you can use it for a 1939 set up. Really the maps have slight differences. I think the Global War is moving in the direction of the 1936 map. I am trying to justify buying it now. Real question is 36" x 72" (3 ft by 6 ft) or 48" X 72" (4 ft by 8 ft) 1936 map!!! From what I gather if you have the room and are using 3D sculpts for bases, you may want the larger map.  :roll:

@Erocco:

Based on the German Minor Set 1 tank destroyers stats are A-D-M-C 5-5-2-5 with target selection: 1-2 (armor class units). Does this seem a bit OP given medium tanks are A-D-M-C 6-5-2-6 w/ blitz ability.

Btw how many of you use the tank destroyer unit for all nations in your games?

This target selection is based on an over-amplified bias toward tactical combat scale.
At strategic level, a given division has to fight other units which are in a given TTy and cannot pick according to its taste.

And compared to a Tank, a 5 IPCs targeting unit with one small offense pip (on a 12-sides dice) less is clearly better.
Fortunately, blitz is for Tank.

You may think about lowering some combat values but add a combined factor with Tank, Mech Inf or even Self-Propelled Artillery.

You meant “the Turkish part” of the map right? :p

I agree with your point Narvik.  You think the designers have a reasonable chance to consider that revision?

I do have a quick question for the creators brought up while discussing the minor axis powers in another thread:

If the Germans build a naval base on Romania can the Romanians (who don’t need an IC) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units in their capital (not ships next to it)? Using the same principle, are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.

I believe this next part is still under review, any word yet?

This leads me to a 2nd question, say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also fill the requirement to allow for ships to be built from Germany’s Romanian IC adjacent to it? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?

Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements for shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Say the Italians take Holland and build a NB (sz 16). Would the Italian NB allow the Germans to drop ships into sz 16 from their adjacent major IC in W Germany?

Any update on this?

Make sure you go to historicalboardgaming.com to get the latest rule revisions. Feel free to suggest any problems with the game you may run across no matter how small. All feedback is welcomed.

Oh, I see you have a new thread about the new set up posted, nevermind. :lol: