Global War 1940/41

I saw several of those expansions in their bins during the play-test weekend.  I would recommend contacting Mr. Friend about them.  I know for a fact that they have some Croatia and a few Winter War.  Didn’t really look into the others.

@Patchman123:

Can you add the Italian Maiale submarines and the British Long Range Desert Group LRDG to the game? I originally proposed a World War II game with Maiale submarines from the Decima MAS flotilla with my hand-drawn map of World War II, but since I found out about Doug Friend’s map, I decided to add my ideas to it. I would like to see the Special Air Service (SAS) in the game, too.  I think that Italy should have the Maiale submarines and have a bonus point against any Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean. The Maiale submarines will only be allowed to operate in the Mediterranean and they will have bonus points and warships will not get to roll against them. It will sort of be like the Italian equivalent of the Japanese kamikaze tokens. The Italian player will of course be limited as to how many Maiale submarines that they will get to roll per turn.  The Maiale will be any Italian submarine and the infantry aboard the submarine will attack the Allied surface warship in the Med.

I am not sure how to even make it work within the game. I was proposing a game with Maiale submarines against any ANZAC, French or British surface warships in the Mediterranean.

I also propose adding the Ariete Division for Italian elite units and the Folgore Parachute Division as Italian elite units. The Italians also had volunteers from India and the Middle East in their armies. I have a book on Italian elite units of World War II from 1940-1943.

Italy not only had Bersaglieri, they also had the Ariete Division and the Folgore Division.  You could add paratroopers to the Italian player.

You could also add torpedo bombers to the Italians. The Italians used the Savoia Marchetti SM. 79 as a torpedo bomber in the Mediterranean. You could also add torpedo bombers to the Germany, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Japan and the United States weren’t the only nations to have torpedo bombers.

I have another suggestion.

You could also add a Bearn class aircraft carrier to France. France’s only aircraft carrier in World War II was the Bearn class aircraft carrier.

The Bearn was out in the Atlantic when France surrendered in 1940. You could add torpedo bombers to the Soviet Union, too. The Soviet Union had torpedo bombers in the Baltic and Black Seas.

You could also add a plastic P-40 painted in China’s paint color to simulate the Flying Tigers.  There is so much that you could add there.

Patchman123.
[/quote

See, everyone! It’s not so bad. There’s Historical Board Gaming for that.
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces–US-Exp--P-47-Thunderbolt-Fighter-x5_p_2090.html
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces--Allies--P40-Warhawk-Early-War-Fighter-x5_p_1168.html

If anyone’s interested.

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

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?

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?

Thanks guys for answering all the questions for Wild Bill. From what I read you guys are correct on all fronts! I’ve not been able to get on the forum as much as I use too but hopefully that will change. I am glad you guys love the game!

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