Rules 7.2 and 7.1

@Jinx1527:

Me and my play group have also done away with that rule a half dozen games ago, and found it was a great improvement.

Thanks Jinx, exactly what I was wondering. No ballace issues with a freelance Cominturn? Besides 2 different alliances possibly elliminating one together and turning on each other after.

We agree with you 100% Whitshadw!
Some of our early games had the crashing of last minute navies etc. for VC. But we value a cleaner, realistic victory and would play till 1960’s on the game calander again, to get one. Benefits of a covered playsurface allowing months of real time to complete a game. VC are only used if a restart is wanted or we declare a clear winner and figure out bragging rights.

Page 5 & 6 of Great Britain Reference Sheet. Army, Air and Navy.

I’m not sure if anyone is interested in this reference sheet. I suppose it will be these two pages that will stand out in peoples minds if anything.

These pages will probably be the most viewed in reference by me and my group, and even though the new units may leave one overwhelmed initially, I attest that players will become completely accustomed to them after a time. My earlier draft of my tweaks is not very fancy or full of artwork, and just a simple table with a few pencil notes added later, but we have played enough to enjoy the ins and outs of this version, and actually the Air War concept has been adopted by another small group of local G40 players (those that I couldn’t convert to GW36). I believe at least the Air War portion improves the game significantly, and I believe its natural concept will be eventually adopted by HBG. (Apologies if that seems arrogant, but the natural concept is not my original thought and often is found in many other ww2 boardgames)

These pages leap right into the tables.
I will not go into the specifics of every unit, but will again only passingly mention my mentality for the units still in development or unique.

Partisans.
Partisans will play an interesting aspect in the diplomatic prewar game. The concept is that a faction could potentially start a civil war in neutral nations using partisans.
Doing so would of push the nation away from the faction, but if the uprising would be successful and civil war would be won. The reformed nation would support the faction in return. Why would this matter? Well, because each nation will theoretically have a few war bonuses that could make it worth more to a faction then if they had annexed it.
Partisans would also be used to disrupt an occupied nation, and be a constant nuisance to the occupying force.

Commanders
Commanders (includes Admirals) are only found in the Infantry Class section, which may pose a problem, but because they cannot be purchased anyway, perhaps it may yet work out to have them placed there. Their description will be a bit vague for now. I’m considering SS’s version of having 1, 2, and 3 star generals who will allow 1, 2, and 3 rerolls respectively.
For those that want the combat round limits, commanders could help improve the situation, or negate the opposing commander. Or shut down a front entirely in the bad weather/winter + mountain/jungle/city + no opposing commander.

Poison Gas
This is quite a bit different in this game from HBG’s expansion and more attuned with an TripleA version.
Poison Gas is a suicide/ammo unit that bypasses enemy defenses and attacks in the pre-combat phase. Its cost is high enough that it is not always beneficial to use them unless the enemy is wedged in somewhere or is a high value target.
I found HBG’s version either boring, or a little too extreme (if I remember correctly; one doubled all casualties given that round).

Anti-Tank Gun
I have given anti-tank guns and tank destroyers an ability to first strike vs armor and mech and target select. Which makes Tank enthusiasts pause a little in their headlong rush.
I see I may need to change the wording on their first strike to “First Strike vs Armor and Vehicle”. As it currently is; perhaps a tank force would actually wish to keep a few light armor around to absorb those anti-tank hits if no Mech is present.

Mobile Infantry
I changed the name of Cavalry to Mobile Infantry.
It irritated me to no end to hear players comment on horses charging into battle and that the use of cavalry to this degree was ahistorical (someone will think of Poland), and pre-assume that therefore they shouldn’t be purchased.

The fact is that “Mobile Infantry” unit can actually be extremely useful if employed aggressively and I believed the name change would be more in line with the intent of the design and promote a psychological reciprocation into their being purchased.

Armored Cars
Armored Cars have received a few odd looks, but the fact they can blitz 3 territories may actually make them quite decent to have a few handy in the Russian Steppes or Africa. I may drop the price down to 3 though. Or even A1 D1 M3, C3.

I see the PDF version messed up the flag a bit in the first page.

Airforce

Yeah! So these units are going to be interesting. I don’t think I will explain them as I havn’t tweaked them in forever. (I did bump fighters and jets down by 1IPP, not sure if I should).
They’ve got a bit of stuff going. That’s for sure. This is where A&A players just about have a heart attack  :-P.

The Atomic Bomb is a bit crowded with info. But all the info is there somewhere.

We’ve changed Scramble and added Night Strategic Bombing (NSB may need to be tweaked, hasn’t been tested yet. Could be to much of a loophole or too strong or too weak)

Navy
Pretty easy stuff navy, nothing too strange except Raider/Sub Tenders, increased capacity for Carriers (due to the dynamic air war), and a good anti-air unit in Light Cruisers.

There are also good bombarding platforms in Pocket Battleships (I may tweak down their vs. Ship stat to 4. But mostly vestiges of WW1 and probably wont be purchased.

Super Battleships…may need to be tweaked. Due to their cost, not many players have tested them out. But from what I have seen, many players have countered a Super Battleship with a couple planes and done just as much damage or better. So I think its at a good value right now.

The most significant thing about the Navy is the Ship Operation Range. Which I have attempted to explain sufficiently.

Detaching Squadrons prevents blocking ships, (G40: no more will the mighty American/Japanese fleet see victory slip away at the sacrifice of only a destroyer.)
Man, that used to frustrate me. Why would a squadron of destroyers hold up a carrier and battleship fleet with hundreds of escorting ships? The admiral could just move past. Its a toss up between using Detach or Naval Blitz, which would work quite well too. But the reason I’m currently leaning towards Detach is because ships would have to be left behind to deal with the threat, reducing the strength of the attacking fleet anyway.

Well, and that concludes these pages.
Last pages are Technology, where I have it neatly laid out and simple.
Following that is only setup and a possible government cabinet expansion.

Cheers!

GW1936 Great Britian 2.3.2 - Page 5 & 6.pdf

Oops files to large

2016-08-21 10.59.06.jpg

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.

Crus, if your looking for these rules of Tigermans game they are at Board Game Geek.

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.

No map files.

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.