1939 Map - Jeremy's Variant with Set-up Charts

A good movie is to invade the Middle East with USSR as soon as you can.

If you contact the company directly and speak with Doug. I am more then positive something can be worked out if you need the number its  #918-208-9573 mind you this is central time in the U.S. so call accordingly

Address your concerns and see what can be done Best Wishs!

Thanks! Lots of good ideas. HGB has a ton of options but we didn’t want to ‘go all out’ on pieces until playing it through at least once. Since they’ll be releasing a supplemental set, I may wait.

I like the place markers idea and already made some. After T1, Germany has 5 units on Luxembourg – it can’t fit half of one unit.

I should’ve bought the 4x8 map :cry:  Even so, I think the map still needs another rev. Squish all those empty USSR zones east and make some more room for Europe. Not accurate but…

@Rammstein:

Does ‘surface ship’ include transports? This is a big deal.

There is nothing to say you cant target transports. Even though the carriers were the high value targets, more troop transports were sunk due to Kamikaze attacks than any other type of ship.
So to answer your question….Yes.

Hi, Ben,

Yeah, Wikipedia plays a big part in my research.  But I stumble across other websites as I’m hunting for things also.  Sometimes I find declassified official documents from the time.  I also use other games in my collection, like War in Flames and Battlewagon, where the designers did the research, and came to their own conclusions about how to fudge things.  I used to be in Military Intelligence when I was active duty army.  I spent six years at NSA (“In God we trust.  All others we monitor”)  :wink:  So I developed the habit of confirming intelligence from multiple sources whenever possible.  I’m still in the National Guard, actually.  But I switched my MOS to MP so I didn’t have to drive so far for drills.

Midnight,

Good job on the research.  Every time I start to do it for land forces, I get distracted by all the different sources, and how they use different methods for listing things.  Yeah, with the way A&A works, where the infantry of one country is equal to the infantry of every other country (unless you are using the elite units in Global ’39), then you have to reflect differences in troop and equipment quality by using different ratios to represent one unit.

One idea I’ve toyed with is using the same ratio for everyone’s infantry, (like 1 for every three divisions) but then reflecting the differences in firepower by assigning different ratios for artillery.  For instance, at the start maybe Germany gets an artillery unit for every 2 infantry, and France gets one for every 5 infantry, or something along those lines.  The problem there, of course, is that the French (and Russians) really really liked artillery, and it made up a bigger percentage of their overall forces.  So it would not be entirely satisfying from a historical perspective.  For the same reasons, I am reluctant to just start them off with a bunch of SS units.  Although I suppose I could just not call them SS units.  But I’d know.  I’D KNOW, and it would bug me  :-D

Read the rules. Generally happy with what I see. Greatly simplified in the right places (e.g. no more US dud torpedoes) while some optional complexity is added in others (terrain rules).

One thing I really do miss, however, is the inability to retreat for the defender?? Was that decision made simply for reasons of added playing time?

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?

Who has what in the Philippines