GW36 Exploit - The Jeanne d'Arc Exploit -

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

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

Feel free to ignore my previous post. The move was predicated on the alignment of the balkan minors however their alignment is based on the taking of Paris only. The speed that they may be aligned increases if at war with USSR.

Ben.  Not sure about the 36 game but for the 39 game we aren’t going to change anything except for some small tweaks and other clarifications. I understand you want to use as many pieces as you can in your games, I do too.  There are smaller size games on the way that will utilize these other units more.

Is it just like G40 where you take over a territory with a major IC, it gets downgraded to a minor IC?  And also, is it against the rules to build a major on non original territories?

Just a thought. You could roll a die for automatic retreats. What I mean is if defender wants to retreat, then roll a die and that many can retreat. Bad die roll and he may have to leave a good piece behind. Also could force the attacker the same thing.

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?

MOD:  I suggest this be moved to new 1939 GLOBAL Forum