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

1.1.2 Defending Combat Air Patrol fighters in sea zones may intercept at 1D12@3 once each, or @4 once each with Jet technology.  Attacking/escorting fighters may roll 1D12@3
once each, or @4 once each with Jet technology, and all bomber aircraft types roll 1D12@2 once each versus defending aircraft units.  Casualties are removed immediately and
combat ceases after one round.

1.1.2 Defending fighters on airbases and/or aircraft carriers (both with the RADAR technology) may scramble to intercept and roll 1D12@3 once each or @4 once each with Jet
Technology. Attacking/escorting fighters may roll 1D12@3 once each, or @4 once each with Jet technology, and all attacking bomber aircraft types roll 1D12@2 once each versus
defending aircraft units.  Casualties are removed immediately and combat ceases after one interception round.

Sorry,
I don’t see what you mean by scrambling, and what the difference compared to Air Patrol?
An adjacent Air Base can scramble?
If there is no Air Base along the TT passed through, there is only AAA which can fire?

It is not clear…

HBG 1936/39

NICE TRY GREG, GFY!

We are playing again on Friday. Any chance it will be up Friday morning?

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

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?

Hi guys

With the rule update to 5.0 there are now new 2 scenarios possible
(Sealion in G1 or Barbaross in G1)
The setup charts are for the version 4.1 and should be updated to 5.0 to prevent that.

The scenarios:
Sealion in G1->land in London and Liverpool and the allies cant turn it back in their first impulse.
If the industrial complex is downgraded to a minor complex and not destroyed, the German is able to dug in in the UK. On G2 he can handle Poland and France.

Barbarossa in G1 �> This one is a little more tricky.
Ignore the Allies! First impulse land in Pskov and the Baltic state, capture Denmark, build  4 transporters and an airfield in Elbling, activate Romania and Hungary. On the second impulse attack Leningrad and western Russia, activate Finland and transport as much tanks and mechanized inf. as you can to Leningrad .
The Japanese player have to attack from the east and take as much IPC from the Soviet as he can.

In G2 open the second front in Romania and support the north with troops from Finland.
After you taken Karelia you can clan up the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Player have only 15 IPC for the defense in the first round and he have to fortify Moscow and Karelia. The only way for the Soviet player to survive is to hold Karelia and Moscow.

If the axis are not able to take Karelia and/or Moscow in the second round… well go in the next corner and cry, you will lose.

I think if the soviet get one or two more Infantries and  1 Tank in Leningrad and the UK player 1 inf. And 1 Tank in London this scenarios are much more risky for the German, and on the other side the soviet and the UK didn’t get to much offensive power. Alternative the french can get one additional  transporter in the SZ 24 together with the Canadian its allows a counterattack.

The pacific room is well balanced. At the beginning The Japanese player is very strong. But after  the US entered the War they have no chance if they aren�t big enough.
I would only add 3 national Chinese inf. in  Kweichow. These troops are not a big problem for the Japanese player if he concentrate his army to china, but they will slow him down.

Posted also on boardgamegeeks.com