6.1 RULE CLARIFICATIONS DATABASE

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.

billcallaway, I agree that on the surface they seem to be focusing too much energy on expansions and selling new sculpts then for getting the base game right. I think the original plan was to have these expansion sets and units come out a few months after the release of GW1936/1939 (as they have). The problem I believe is that the 1939 set-up got back up, and the rules needed an immediate update which threw the whole time table off.

I know how frustrating it is referring back-n-forth between the 63 page rule book, all the reference sheets, and the web site in an attempt to play the game as intended. I think they very well should have put out an official FAQ to high light the bulk of the changes while they were working on the rules update. Kinda like a transition reference sheet.

I however think that they are working diligently on a rules re-wright. As you know by going through the web site there is a lot of work to be done here. I guess I’m willing to be more patent so they get it right (surely don’t want multiple rules updates over the next couple years).

MY EXPECTATIONS are that the rules re-right will correspond with the very over due 1939 set-up release. It is also my understanding that the updated rules will work for both the 1936 and 1939 start dates.

I also hope that they put out a supplemental package of units and colored chips that don’t come with AAG40 so you can set-up GW1936/1939. Many people don’t have the units just laying around to even set it up.

All planes must take off and land in a zone that contains a friendly air base. So yes they cost 3 icp’s but don’t get the bonus move. Cheaper price is for all the air bases you will need to fly planes anywhere.

Other wise they cost 15 icp’s if you don’t use thee Optional rule.

I could see doing that on a larger map, but I’m concerned that the current map is too small for that. Then again, the game includes air bases, so maybe naval bases/ports aren’t exactly out of the question. Either way, I like the specifics of your suggestion.

@Patchman123:

Can you add the Italian Maiale submarines and the British Long Range Desert Group LRDG to the game? I originally proposed a World War II game with Maiale submarines from the Decima MAS flotilla with my hand-drawn map of World War II, but since I found out about Doug Friend’s map, I decided to add my ideas to it. I would like to see the Special Air Service (SAS) in the game, too.  I think that Italy should have the Maiale submarines and have a bonus point against any Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean. The Maiale submarines will only be allowed to operate in the Mediterranean and they will have bonus points and warships will not get to roll against them. It will sort of be like the Italian equivalent of the Japanese kamikaze tokens. The Italian player will of course be limited as to how many Maiale submarines that they will get to roll per turn.  The Maiale will be any Italian submarine and the infantry aboard the submarine will attack the Allied surface warship in the Med.

I am not sure how to even make it work within the game. I was proposing a game with Maiale submarines against any ANZAC, French or British surface warships in the Mediterranean.

I also propose adding the Ariete Division for Italian elite units and the Folgore Parachute Division as Italian elite units. The Italians also had volunteers from India and the Middle East in their armies. I have a book on Italian elite units of World War II from 1940-1943.

Italy not only had Bersaglieri, they also had the Ariete Division and the Folgore Division.  You could add paratroopers to the Italian player.

You could also add torpedo bombers to the Italians. The Italians used the Savoia Marchetti SM. 79 as a torpedo bomber in the Mediterranean. You could also add torpedo bombers to the Germany, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Japan and the United States weren’t the only nations to have torpedo bombers.

I have another suggestion.

You could also add a Bearn class aircraft carrier to France. France’s only aircraft carrier in World War II was the Bearn class aircraft carrier.

The Bearn was out in the Atlantic when France surrendered in 1940. You could add torpedo bombers to the Soviet Union, too. The Soviet Union had torpedo bombers in the Baltic and Black Seas.

You could also add a plastic P-40 painted in China’s paint color to simulate the Flying Tigers.  There is so much that you could add there.

Patchman123.
[/quote

See, everyone! It’s not so bad. There’s Historical Board Gaming for that.
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces–US-Exp--P-47-Thunderbolt-Fighter-x5_p_2090.html
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces--Allies--P40-Warhawk-Early-War-Fighter-x5_p_1168.html

If anyone’s interested.

i like the convoy zone optional rule, however i believe there should be a qualification that the axis still only gain the income on an actual roll of a 1.  this would represent the fact that subs can’t steal cargo, their sole goal was to destroy merchant ships not seize them.

Vichy Units can not attack…period.

Once Paris falls immediatly roll for Vichy. If the German player decisdes to roll for the battle of Paris last then fight all the other battles first…Just immediatly after paris falls roll for the Vichy then resume all other battles.

Thanks for the feedback man, it’s much appreciated!  I’ll be discussing this with the guys I play with.  Alot of the things you pointed out make sense, so I’ll definitely be rethinking them.

There’s a few points I disagree with though.

I figured the port in Santa Cruz for the Allies would actually be quite useless to them, in exception to the Commonwealth fleet fleeing the pacific, but that’s about it.  It’s faster to go through the Panama canal the vast majority of the time anyway.

Splitting sea zone 28 in half was done to make it realistic, because it’s just not practical in real terms.  I guess it just depends how you wanna balance gameplay and realism…  I’m pretty excited for that '36 map, we’ll see what they do with it :).

As for building in friendly territory, I can see your point with the Soviets.  I don’t see a problem however with places like Iran and Free French territories, vice versa for the Axis with their eligible territories.  Compromises can be made.  I’m aware that Germany can do this already with the minors.  At least it’s not like G40 where you can build anywhere (where there’s enough value in the territory).

I think the logistical issues with the way China produces is pretty much related to how the population itself fought with the military against the Japanese.  The population is scattered, yes, but why would a militia form up in force in western China when there’s no direct threat there, and then march their way over after?  Better to form up where you’re needed most, isn’t it, especially with the kind of transportation they had at the time?  The fight is in Eastern China, and that’s where the majority of the population is anyway, so more people can volunteer to fight close to the front lines, where it’s relevant.  Just send the supplies to where they’re needed.  Also in regards to C. China, the Russians are just too busy in my games to go there.  The C. Chinese collect little in the first place, so I figured it wouldn’t make that big of a deal.  F.E.C. doesn’t factor much into this for me, because they’re usually toppled within three turns when I play with my regulars.  I know it’s tough for the F.E.C., ANZAC and Americans later on otherwise in other peoples’ games though.  It just depends on what Japan does.  Giving them a major factory actually seems to balance out everything with the changes in that theatre I proposed.

I downgraded the factories in Karelia and Fukuoka and raised the value of Helsinki because the factories there in the official setup stand in contradiction to the rules.  For actual game mechanics in terms of how units work and what they’re allowed to do, I don’t agree with this sort of thing.  Raising/swapping the values in the territories can be done too, it doesn’t matter much, just as long as nothing contradicts the rules in that fashion.