[1936] New player quick index project.

Looking forward to seeing how you blend the 2 rule sets. Last g40 game we played my group was disappointed by some missing unit types but happy with the faster builds for factory and naval units. Tech in g40 is so broken we never got a guy willing to use it. Gw36 tech is always in play. Good luck its looking good!

D12 seems a bit daunting. But with the battle boards and the extra units its fairly easy to pick up.

When we started we modified the game to play with global40 rules if something was too complex for the group and switched to the full rules in stages.
Helped some people to transition from axis and allies better. Talk to the group first though.

And I didn’t realize that was a 1939 setup rule, so that is cleared for me as well!

Thanks for pointing out 9.20 as well. I’ll be sure to point that out to others, as they seemed misinformed on that front.

Overall, I definitely agree with you. This is probably a one time chance it works against an opponent. But, it may still alter the way the Soviets are played early on a bit!

@Royal:

See now this is interesting, because I’m playing Germany, and I don’t have nearly enough troops to get through Russia. It’s 1942, and I’m basically trying to hold onto the, what I call, “Leningrad line.” I built a lot of infantry, which in the end caused tons of problems because They simply can’t get to the front line fast enough. Don’t get me wrong, I make about 80 IPP’s, but I don’t have the mechanized power to keep the Russians at bay. What they have done is basically let me have everything, and stacked artillery and Militia in Moscow and Stalingrad, making them unreasonable to even try to attack. I don’t know what to do! America is just about to enter the war and throw roughly 10 transports at my door. Italy is doing well owning all of Africa, but Japan never did well and China and is basically 3 years behind the ballpark. I could start buying strategic bombers, but it seems like carpet bombing is a waste, even with heavy bombers.

That brings me to a question that I would like to have input on for everyone who is reading this Forum (Thanks by the way, I really needed some feedback like this!) Carpet bombing only hits on a 2 or less, which is like hitting on a 1 for a D6, but worse because there’s more sides. (I know statistics are the same but they still never seem to hit!) I was thinking about increasing carpet bombing to a 3 or less, to give them the real firepower they had. I know that they were really good at simply destroying cities, but the only concept that can show that is by destroying factories. What do you guys think? Would it be too strong, or do you think it would be okay?

I don’t think Germany should be able to “go through Russia”. Historically, it wasn’t the case. It is one of many of A&A legacies / fallacies. The Victory Points gives you a hint as to what territories are important to win the game. Germany wins nothing except a few IPPs by conquering Moscow. If the Russian player in your game has stacked Moscow & Stalingrad with slow units, he has lost the game.

Re Carpet bombing, I like the rules as they are (and so does everyone else in my group). Strategic bombers are meant for infrastructure. Historically, ‘carbet bombing’ armies were not effectively used in WW2.

Its a mater of marketing. If people could try or see it out at conventions and buy a complete boxed game there, im sure it would move into the market. But its a highly detailed large game with a time commitment. So its not ever going to sell like clue. And thats a ton of advertising

In case anyone is interested, I’ve also been working on some naval supply rules and like Narvik I settled on a naval movement/combat radius of 2 or 3 sea zones from friendly naval bases. Submarines and transports get a range of 5, since they operated at slower speeds which provided better endurance and range.

To go along with that I also am working on rules for oilers that would extend the range of naval units; right now I’m thinking that each oiler gives an additional 1-2 range. This would allow you to combine one or more oilers and a naval base into a long supply chain to your fleet, like the US and UK did in the Pacific. This also allows for interesting side-rules like German secret raiders who can act as oilers to supply the commerce raiding warships, or submarine oilers (the “Milchcow”).

If a fleet is suddenly rendered out of supply, either due to loss of oilers or naval bases, I say that they are not allowed to initiate combat, must retreat immediately if attacked (not sure yet if I’m happy with this), and must non-combat move towards the nearest friendly naval base on their turn until they are back in supply.

I have not yet been able to test any of these rules to verify they are fair and fun, but it seems like they should generally work.

Most WWII-era ships had a designed range of about 10,000 nmi at 10 to 15 knots (typical cruising speed). Bumping up to combat speed drastically reduced that range, down to about 2,500 nmi. I’ve done lots of calculations and in Global War 1936 each sea zone on the map is about 1000 nmi wide, so reducing the combat radius of ships to 2-3 sea zones from a naval base is actually fairly accurate if you assume a fleet at sea is doing a mix of cruising speed and combat speed and either being supplied by a local oiler at the naval base, or maybe the fleet is running back and forth between port and their assigned sea zone each turn. Then each oiler unit would represent a collection of oilers and supply ships able to carry supplies further out to sea.

@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.

You meant “the Turkish part” of the map right? :p

I agree with your point Narvik.  You think the designers have a reasonable chance to consider that revision?