6.1 RULE CLARIFICATIONS DATABASE

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.

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.

Hello all,

So my copy of 1939 got in yesterday and I had my first game today.  Well, by game I mean my buddies and I spent damn near 3 hours just to get through one round of turns.  We’re all seasoned G40 players but this is a whole new beast.

While we were playing, a few interesting questions came up, and to my knowledge they don’t seem to have clear answers in the 7.2 rulebook.  As far as I can tell, these rules are very comprehensive and clear to someone who has been following them from their inception, but alas I am a novice plunging straight into new rules and I feel like I’m missing some stuff.  Any answers/links to clarifications/things that will help are greatly appreciated!

Anyway…

1 - If Germany decides to make a Vichy French government and for a ship rolls a 1-2 (replace french ship with German ship), can that ship move on German noncombat move that very turn it was converted?

2 - When the rulebook says that the minor axis powers of Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania are only worth certain sums of money to Germany, does that mean that Germany collects this money once they activate them, while the countries themselves also collect and spend their small incomes?

3 - If a ship, say a Norwegian Battleship, lives past the German capture of Oslo and flees to join the nearest British fleet/Port, does Britain gain control of said ship, or does the ship simply stay in the SZ/Port that it went to indefinitely?

4 - If an allied power in the pacific walks into Dutch New Guinea, do they gain control of the Dutch fleet in the adjacent SZ along with the ground troops and IPC value of the territory? (Holland has fallen at this point)

(EDIT) 5 - If Germany attacks Riems from both Holland AND Western Germany, is the Fortress bonus ignored outright, does it apply to the German units attacking from West Germany, or some weird mix of these?

6 - Biggest one: If no clear ruling on any other rule exists in the 7.2 rulebook, is it safe to assume that said rule (generally governing unit movements/actions, weird idiosyncrasies with transports, etc…) is covered by Alpha 3+ rules of G40? Since (as far as my personal research has uncovered) Global War 1939 began as a mod of those rules, it seems that any holes would be covered by the old Alpha 3+ base rules, saying that no 7.2 rule supersedes it.

If any others crop up I’ll post em.  Again, your input is greatly appreciated  :-D

Hi have you got the setups for download cause I would really like to try this on map I’ve been working on
I took modern world map enlarge European contents(spelled wrong I know) then then broke every country into their administration division that I could.

Correct

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.

One in Crete?  Yikes! That’s pro-allied though!

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?