Best posts made by Chris_Henry

Hey all!

Been away from the forums for a little while, life seems to get in the way :)

I’m getting that itch to finally paint my units, and am hoping for a bit of help here.

Does anyone have any good painting tutorials/tips/etc.? I’m asking anything from the specific brand and colors of paint to use for each army/unit, to different techniques to getting this done!

I’m hoping to get a lot painted. I’m talking all major powers, with some minor/neutral powers done too. Would love to have Canadian, South African, Greek, Finnish, etc. all looking awesome on the board. As well as desert, jungle, European, winter, etc. schemes for armies.

I suppose of biggest concern would be getting the right colors! If anyone has any tips on any of this, all would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Chris

@mrgoatcheese

Interesting though. I’ve long thought about similar rules for minor nations. Have a sliding scale of who would join what alliance. It’s not unlike HBG’s expansion rule for diplomacy, I’ve just thought about this for a couple years haha.

Yeah, have a scale, say 1-20. Strict neutrals start in the middle, others who may favor one side or the other start closer to who they favor (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary closer to the Axis at 20; Netherlands, Greece, etc. closer to the Allies at 0). Different factors cause nations to slide one way or the other. Money lent, other neutrals being attacked, etc.

What I thought would be fun was to do similar to what you’re discussing. Have one of the ways they slide be major battles. Let’s say Romania has joined the Axis. They can still slide back to neutral status if things go wrong. If the Romanian’s lose more than 8 units in a single battle, for example, that might be bad for morale on the home front, so they slide down one towards the neutral scale. Maybe the USSR gets closer to their border, it would slide down again, etc.

Interesting, you say all units will cost the same in V3? I kind of liked that some countries had advantages over others in different costs.

Hey all,

I’ve played AA for a long time and, as many others on here, find 1940 to be awesome. Most of our games almost always have consisted of my dad, brother, and myself over the years. The play is something that, I wouldn’t call predictable, but you of course don’t see as many different things happen with different/experienced players. While I usually win regardless of which side I am, that’s certainly more of a reason for a lack of diversity in players I am sure.

Point being, we haven’t ever done a whole ton of HR’s, though they are something I’ve always wanted to do, though my dad is a bit hesitant on change in these games. As I’ve read posts here over time and see that the general consensus is that the Axis is too strong. While I would love to add HR’s to add Canada (and South Africa), Axis minors, paratroopers, etc., there is certainly a lot of balancing to take into consideration. While it may work for my own HR’s (because of that lack of difference in playing styles I pointed out), I’m trying to think of ways to try and evenly balance everyone’s games in this community at large. One thought I have on that is adding Vichy France rules.

• When the France and Normandy/Bordeaux territories are overrun, the Vichy regime is set up. The territories of Southern France, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, and French Indo China become Vichy controlled, as well as the units on them and the naval forces in sea zone 93. The remaining French territories and units are considered Free French.

• Vichy France gets it’s small income of 9 IPC’s to produce units in Southern France, while a Free French government is set up in London, using the remaining 4 IPC’s of French territory. Germany is still allowed to build units in Southern France, but the combined German/Vichy French forces can still not exceed the production amount (this is to allow Germany to build a navy in the Mediterranean still if they chose without having to build a minor in Yugoslavia if they don’t want to).

• European Axis units are not allowed to enter Vichy French territories. They are only allowed to do so once an Allied invasion of North Africa happens (or we can just say once Allied units enter a Vichy French territory). Historically, the Vichy French government/cooperation with the Axis was very shaky, and Hitler did everything he could to make sure this wasn’t disrupted, for fear of the Vichy government turning on him. Mussolini wanted to take control of French North Africa, but Hitler would not allow it for fear of angering Vichy into war. It took a lot of diplomacy to get Vichy to agree to stage the Luftwaffe in Syria, which was only thwarted by a small, but difficult invasion by the Middle East Command.

• The Japanese are still allowed to invade French Indo China as they normally are without any political repercussions. Historically, Japan was feeling pretty big about their Axis partners defeating France and wanted to get their share of the pie. They waltzed right into French Indo China and staged units there, essentially saying they had no choice as a defeated power to Japan’s ally Germany. This ended up a huge and important staging ground for Japanese units in the invasion of Malaya and Burma later on.

• When the Allies attack, they roll a dice to see what the Vichy forces in that territory will do. On a role of 1-2 the Vichy forces will fight the Allied landing. On a 3-6 they refuse to fight and join the Allied side (this can be change to 1-3, and 4-6 if the odds don’t seem fair). Historically, neither side had much of an idea how Vichy units would react when Operation Torch (the American invasion of North Africa) commenced. Some were certain the French army would refuse to fight, but the French Navy was seen as more sympathetic to the Axis cause. Each time the Allies move into a Vichy territory this same sequence is done.

• After the Allied landings the Axis are free to move in as they please, though it will be an act of war against the Vichy government and would have to fight as they normally would against them. So the Axis has the choice of hoping the Vichy units will stay on their side and fight the Allies, or chose to not risk it and attack to keep the ground.

I feel that this generally will not help the Axis, and potentially balances out a bit. Germany and Italy loose out on the potential money of the Vichy French territories. Even though they don’t need to risk the units to kill the French, thus preserving some forces, they also don’t get that money and also don’t know for certain what the Vichy units will do once the Allies invade. They also won’t have the same kind of defenses set up to stop a Torch invasion because of it.

This also allows the extra 4 IPC’s of French money to be put to use for the Allies under the Free French government, instead of wasting in purgatory waiting for the Axis to take them or Paris to be liberated.

I understand this takes away an Italian NO in not allowing them to take control of the French North African territories. This either further balances the game against the Axis, or another NO can be featured for them. Perhaps +5 IPC’s for the Axis holding Malta, Crete, and Cyprus.

Again, I’m more just spouting ideas out to see if anyone thinks this will help with balance. Too much in favor of the Allies? Just trying to think of ways to not have to include a bid. Please let me know what you think, I’d love to see. Brutal honesty is appreciated if you just hate the idea.

Happy Gaming,

Chris

When it comes to planes in this game, I tend to want to lean more towards a bit more historical realism. By that I mean, high level bombing/carpet bombing in WW2 was, by and large, extremely ineffective. And I don’t think should be amplified in game.

Yes, I’m sure everyone can hunt and pick some select instances of successful high level bombing against military formations (as opposed to stagnant facilities/cities). But overall, this was an extremely low efficiency attack. There’s a reason dive bombers/tactical bombers came into existence and heavy use in WW2. For example, I believe at Midway and the Coral Sea, B-17’s were found to have hit 1% of their targets. They were quickly considered not very suitable for that type of warfare.

The problem with high level bombing against targets like this is/was because the targets move. It was extremely hard to actually hit a moving target from the altitudes these heavier bombers were flying at. Hell, it was really hard for them to hit facilities/cities as well from that high even, and they weren’t even moving! The wind that high up comes in to play as well.

I personally struggle to even allow heavy bombers to carpet bomb units in game, if I’m being honest. I know from a game-play perspective it’s more fun to give them more options, but in historical context, it was not the overall norm for a heavy bomber to try and target units as opposed to buildings. Again, I know there’s individual circumstances where this happened. But in the grand scheme of the war on a game of this scale, I struggle to see how that can be shown in game with how little effectiveness it actually had!

To me, having Tactical bombers have target select already simulates pretty perfectly the abilities of planes to hit specific targets, but that might just be me! I think allowing medium bombers something like this maybe would make more sense, but not anything larger than that!

@captainnapalm I guess to me this is the rule:

“Movement: All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules.”

That part of the movement section just says that it happens during movement, period, and doesn’t specify during combat movement. The sentence after that is just expounding on the fact that blitzing is a specific thing of it’s own and couldn’t be allowed either, but as a part to the wider rule of the terrain rule that encompasses all type of movement, combat or non-combat.

@generalhandgrenade I’m simply pointing out it’s understandable how this question was asked. It’s nothing to take personal, as I’m not attacking anyone’s knowledge of the game or anything. It’s not a secret to players that the rule book has a lot of questions that arise from it with assumptions and ambiguities written in, and HBG has said multiple times they appreciate feedback to be able to clarify the rules (as is evidenced by a running 9-page errata). I’ve seen rules way more clear cut than this get clarification errata’s haha. I won’t argue the point anymore here, as my goal isn’t to make back and forth arguments. A question was asked, and it’s a pretty simple assumption to make that the OP isn’t the only one asking the question as they play. I’m frankly surprised a simple clarification suggestion has been met with this much hostility. I would think a clarification would be welcome for players and not met combatively, but I guess not.

Anyways, on to other posts :)

@tank-nut Hey there!

So, there’s a bit more to it than that. There’s probably a lot of parts of the game that are related, but I’ll try and keep confined.

So in A&A, naval bases just increase movement. This has more than that.

There’s 3 types of naval bases. 1) Port, 2) Dockyard, 3) Shipyard.

1. Port.

Ports grant an extra movement for ships just like A&A. But they also are used as supply paths for Lend Lease. In GW36 you can lend lease to other nations, but they have to go through ports/undamaged railways, etc. So port can be very important for shipping lend lease supplies/units. You can send $3 worth of money or units through a minor port, and $5 worth through a major port. You can place these anywhere that has an ocean border. Also, it’s only a major port that grants the movement bonus, not a minor.

2. Dockyards

Dockyards can do the same things as ports, except while a minor dockyard can only support $3 worth of lend lease, a major dockyard can support unlimited amounts of lead-lease material. Dockyards can also be used to repair capital ships. Same as above, only major dockyards give movement bonuses.

3. Shipyards

Shipyards can do all the same things as ports and dockyards. The difference here is that they can also produce ships, 1 non-capital ship per turn for a minor dockyard, and 5 ships of any type for a major dockyard. Major dockyards can only be build in your home country too, you can’t build them in overseas and/or conquered territories, etc. Same as above, only major shipyards give movement bonuses.

Hope that helps! It’s a lot to keep in mind for sure!

I’ve looked at these so many times over the last couple years. Just had to finally post and say how incredibly awed I am at your guys’ work. The detail done. The color schemes, everything. Just incredible.

I’ve recently decided it’s high time I paint my own units. I’m going to be so incredibly happy with anything 10% as good as what you have here, so I can only fathom how you guys feel playing with these!

Just wanted to come here and say congrats and a huge thank you to @djensen! You’ve done so much to keep this site going, and I think we all know and appreciate that!

Just wanted to come here for an update. I just received my copy of the 1914 reprint this morning, and it looks fantastic. I’d signed up for the pre-order, but I think they’d initially given an August release date. So if I’m remembering correctly, they were ahead of the game there. Hopefully anyone who didn’t pre-order will get their games soon too! Came pretty well packaged, and everything looks great. I haven’t taken inventory yet, but the eye test makes me think there’s plenty of chips and German infantry (both key complaints from the original run, if I understood properly). Excited to get this one on the table to play!

I’m realizing there’s conflicting information for colonial troops for the UK and French. Hoping someone here has an answer!

Under the “Great Britain Special Abilities” section on their reference card, it states:

 Colonial Infantry: The British may build colonial units any of its Colonies (British starting
territories that are not part of the Home Country). These units are regular infantry and can
move and attack. No factory is required to build these units. Britain may build a total of two
infantry per turn. The zone they are built in must have a point value.

Bold added by me. This pretty clearly says they can build two per turn.

But then, under the “Specialist Inf” section of the reference card for Colonial Infantry, the Build limit section says:

Can be built without a factory and can move.
Build 1 per turn. Maximum 1 per territory.

Again, bold added by me. This clearly says 1 per turn.

Of note, the French reference sheet does not have this same discrepancy. Seems pretty clear on that one that it’s one per turn.

Anyone know what the superseding rule should be for colonials? One or two a turn?

Thanks,

Chris

Hey all,

A bit random here, as I don’t have a ton of interest in this game. But I’ve certainly seen people here unhappy about the status, so thought I’d share some potential news.

There’s a Facebook page called “Everything Axis and Allies” that I follow. A guy there just today posted that he received a message from the creator of the game. A few people commented with astonishment. The original poster then replied with this direct quote below. I’ll note that he says English isn’t his first language, so any typos I left as is for authenticity:

“Eric Harvey, write me last friday to tell me that they gonna start to print it in the mid august. but i tough the project was cancelled due to the time… haha that’s why i ask some of you if you already play the game ^^”.

So there’s that. I’m happy to report back here if anyone interested. A few people have asked him questions, so I’m curious to see if he responds. I suppose it could be nothing, but sounds like you all might want some hope (or are way past it!).

Sorry for replying to an older thread here! I just got a copy of 1914 with the Renegade Studios release, and we started and almost finished our first game just yesterday.

I’d first say I’ve really enjoyed the game! I’m a massive fan of the larger games (1940 and Global War), but it’s fun to have a game like this that can more or less be finished in a single day when there isn’t maybe time for the larger ones!

I too was struck immediately by Italy being a belligerent nation from the beginning of the game. Unless I’ve misunderstood at times, the general consensus is that it’s awfully hard for the Central Powers to win I think? That could give credence to a small change with Italy as well. I know I typically don’t like to make massive changes to rules and setups, so a delayed entry by Italy could be very intriguing.

I have a couple questions on your proposals though, and I’m curious how they’ve played out for you.

1. My initial thought is that waiting until turn 3 for Italy to join the game is far too late. My largest reasoning for saying that is because the US enters on turn 4. If your reasoning is historical, I don’t think a single turn is fairly representing the two years in between Italy and the US joining the war historically, when the preceding 3 turns encompass less than a year between the historic start of the war and Italy joining. So my real question is, what about delaying Italy only a single turn? Does that present any real changes you think?

2. My other big notice from what you said is not allowing Italy to purchase any units until such time as they enter the war. I get in some ways why this might be needed to avoid just having them be as strong as they might have otherwise. But how are you justifying allowing the USA to purchase units every turn until they join, while not allowing Italy to? Again, I mostly don’t like making too picky of nation-specific rules like that (i.e. if not allowing one neutral country to purchase units, then no neutral country should be allowed to purchase units, etc.).

Curious on your thoughts! Still learning this one of course, so I’m super curious!

@board-3659 I believe Doug’s Youtube update the other day on 7/30/21 said they were hoping for a Thanksgiving 2021 release date. I wouldn’t be surprised if that got pushed back, but that’s the current info that’s been given!

@cdatkins74 Ha I had not even noticed that one! I guess I’m unsure how that should be played. My assumption is that they should be given 3 IPP to start with. I say that because it is clearly written early on. I’m sure there was a typo in the chart. Plus, Canada only has +2 IPP’s of potential peace time income increases. That would only bring them to 4 IPP if they only start with 2 IPP. Meaning, they could never reach their full wartime income, and the ability to declare war, until the UK herself was attacked I would think.

Good call on #3. It appears I was oblivious to the fact that I’d accidentally scrolled down to the 1939 setup and saw the Infantry in Ottawa there. My mistake!

Yeah, like I said, it could be nothing at all. The fact that it’s August now and none of you contributors have heard anything makes me wonder on the accuracy of this statement. But thought I’d pass along!

There hasn’t been any new communication on that post since I posted here either. I’ll be happy to update you if there is anything more added.

@monsieurmurdoch Hello!

I’m not a definitive source on this, so don’t take what I say as absolute truth haha.

I thought I saw in one of their videos recently that the plan for the 2025 game was for later this year, or early next year. I will say, historically speaking, the dates HBG usually give for the rollout of something are typically a bit ambitious, and you usually end up waiting a few months longer. But you never know!

As for the game itself, I’ve understood it to be basically the same concept as the 1936 game. By that I mean, it’s not a boxed game. You’ll get the game map, battle board, tech chart, etc. in your purchase, but that’s about it. Everything else you need to buy yourself. So all units, facilities, dice, money, etc. are all things you need to buy. At least as it pertains to the 1936 game, I think it’s always been assumed that customers have previously existing A&A games, which can make up larger amounts of your forces needed for their game.

All that said, I know the units for the 2025 are modern day forces, and they don’t have a ton of that available on their page. So it’s maybe possible they do have units included in the game-price. Either that, or you’ll start seeing units available for purchase on their site!

So not a lot of concrete info here, but wanted to pass on what I believe I’ve heard re timing, and what my belief is of the game itself based on their previous 1936 game!

@cdatkins74 Thanks. Yeah, it seems like a lot of things slip past, even with multiple updates! I get things happen, would be nice to have them fixed/updated/clarified a bit more often though!

@barnee Haha yeah, I’ve looked in this part of the forum a few times in the past to see if you guys ever got your game! Such a bummer. Yeah, the guy hasn’t responded to other posters, but I’ve also seen him comment on other posts since then. So who knows. It’s probably nothing, but wanted to share with you all!

Alright, Covid-19 has me with nothing much to do, so thought I’d post something here for fun.

If you had to chose just one, what would be your favorite difference that was put into place for Global War from the traditional A&A games?

Terrain features being uses? Lend Lease? Special Abilities? Units (though this one seems loaded)? Expansions?

I think my biggest thing is the concept that this is a three way game. It’s definitely harder at times if you can’t get three to play a game of course, but I like that not everything is so “black and white” (or, Axis and Allies). It adds some levels of diplomacy at times, but also adds flavor to what you’re really trying to accomplish, which is to win the game, and not necessarily take Capitals.

What about you?