Global War, 2nd edition - due 1\. November 2015

@thrasher1 Our group plays China at War, Turkey at War, Fighting Railways, and Diplomacy. We have played others, but those 4 are our favorites. Diplomacy is starting to wear out it’s welcome a bit, as far as I’m concerned. It adds a lot of fun to the game, but it heavily favors the Allies. Some games it can really swing things.

@Rank:

Jinx

As for the highlight every time we get a new guy the charts are so busy this may help simplify the starting learning curve. If you can get a new to game tester for your charts it may assist on readability. I know that the standard charts were a bit of info overload. Suggestion to have starter units better separated from upgrades and researched units. Takes a bit of explaining that every time we get a new guy in. Example germany jumps strait into super heavy tanks skips the 6 regular heavies required first. And all new guys think they can build heavy tanks off the hop without research due to chart placing. A simple coloured highlight signifying reasearch required would eliminate this. Or maybe 3 charts first basic units, second tech and upgrades, final all units together. And get them more into the game faster rather than getting corrected constantly, increases the fun factor for the new guys.

Ah, that explains a few of your chart lines. Didn’t realize you had developed your own air combat rules. They sound interesting. Maybe a bit much for our group now though, lots of newer players. Still not fully grasping current rules without the odd reading.

What program are you using? this has me interested in tidying up our charts.

As for the switch from historical its not often I agree but a real Stalin in this position would. In current game as soviets I own South America and Middle East. And am neutral across the board nonagression pacts with axis.  Im ready to attack germany, italy,usa at panama canal,  india (fec), africa (uk), and japan at Tokyo, all at once. Germany has london, and japan focused on only us and owns San Francisco. But im not allowed to unless us attacks me first or berlin falls. All combatants are severely unit depleted due to fighting while im ready to go. Russia has largest navy on both oceans lol. In no way would Stalin really hesitate, Russia is a global power able to expand all over the globe.  But the rules have the Russians handcuffed. So im now forced to take berlin first and allow the rest to rebuild before i can take it all. Meaning allies must win first, so I can never actually attack allies until the game has already ended realistically.

John Brown

Welcome and thank you also. Ill look into those sets. Was more thinking if 1939 setup comes out. Chart changes adding their newer units would also be a help,  if all in one chart. Rather than add-on expansion charts or I’ll need a massive amount of paper on the walls. Don’t want it to become a legal style rules with endless exceptions and loopholes lol. Or nobody will want to play it.

Hehe, sometime our games turn out to be a lot like that. But we have a core of experienced players and a kind of forgiving system for mistakes in purchases and those that neglected to read the rules.
I’ve played full games of G36 over twenty times now, and I still keep the manual by my elbow and a bunch of online FAQ pages printed out. I’m generally the referee for our game and there is so much to remember and so much grey area that we find we often need to patch it up with house rules.

We have tried it out in past games. For instance, we allowed the Soviets to DOW against the Allies. The Soviets built a massive fleet presence. Though they did DOW against the Allies, the Soviets natural enemy is the Axis.
The fact that the Soviets could now DOW against Allies did not change the game in the slightest. The Soviets VP points are mostly gained from taking neutral nations which they gathered from the middle east. But they had no reason to come into conflict with any western powers except for India (which was taken by Japan) and Egypt, which was far off and did not matter. The Soviets played a great game of pacifism and won the game. Sure at one point they declared war against the Allies, but only because it made the Axis hope that they would come to blows and eased pressure from the German/Soviet border. Only one French Militia was lost in Syria to the Soviets.

My conclusion is that there is no reason for that rule, except for historical railroading (not meant in a derogatory way).
Theoretically the Soviets could build a large fleet (which they did) and marines (which they did) and invade…England (which they did: northern Ireland) or America. But they don’t need too, all the IPP they need can be found on the continent, and in our game, after the soviet fleet invaded Ireland. They trundled back home to the Baltic. It was a pretense to gain them time on the German/Soviet border to strengthen and achieve parity on the border. Earlier, Germany could have taken them, especially with their expenses into a large fleet. But by the time the Axis saw that the Soviets in England in any meaningful way was a pipe dream; it was too late.

No need for a Soviet limiting of DOW, at least in my opinion.

So in our current game. The French (according to designer rules of French DOW to Neutral nations) DOW against Republican Spain while they where in Civil War. They actually went so far as to lose Bordeaux and Marseilles to Republican Spain in Early 1938.
We thought about the rules a little, and said that for this game, we would let the Soviets be capable of DOW against allies, and begin their rearmament rolls because of being at war with a “Major” power. France will be collecting its Wartime Income.

It worked to some degree in Axis favor in the short term, because the French and Soviet fleets mutually decimated themselves, and the Spanish/French forces have cleared western Europe of troops. Perhaps the Soviets will continue to sink Lend Lease to Spain. Perhaps, and if nothing else, France has lost half of its land army because of its need to watch Germany.

In the long term it will bite Axis in the butt. But…perhaps a Chamberlain-Ribbentrop pact can be signed. Perhaps.

Anyways, its exciting. :-)

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.

@radar231:

Hi,

This one ? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUVqIVjaipY

J.  8-)

Yes, that is it! Thank you.

If someone could make a video, but longer, of their game, at least till all powers are at war, it would help.

It would help some of us that don’t have a regular play group to learn it faster.

I’m going to try to provide a place to set this game up at my house and learn it on my own, but any help, visually, would help as well. :-)

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?

@koba:

Definitely spray.

Good to know. Thanks.

Very nice!!!

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.