Best posts made by Chris_Henry

@vondox I’d agree with @bretters first and foremost, than one of Italy’s VP’s is not so easily achieved, for the reasons he stated. Yes, it’s possible to achieve it while neutral, but probably unlikely.

To historical realism, while I get your point, also realize the starting point of 1936. There was no guarantees at the time that Italy would join a future war. Italy wasn’t thrilled about fighting France and England, and were in fact on some what friendly terms to that point. England and France also were trying very hard to ensure Italian neutrality. So if we go off of the time frame, it’s not so unrealistic that Italy would stay neutral.

But I do get the point that it can make Italy boring. That’s somewhat a given if they stay neutral for sure. It’s probably hard to house rule something like that. I wouldn’t necessarily say it would “break the game”, but I think they designed it this way for a reason. I think in a perfect world it would be fun to have to “guarantee” Italian entry into the war, but that’s just not the case here!

I think your idea of penalizing the Allies is as close as you might get to finding a house rule that might work, though I think you need to make it a steep penalty. -10 IPP is what they suffer for attacking minor power neutrals. Attacking Italy would have to hurt more than that. You’d have to make it where the Allies are really desperate to want to do the thing that they are willing to pay the steep cost of doing so.

I think the biggest takeaway from the original expansion rule set would be that the rule states to “decrease the peacetime income increase any Allied power receives from an Axis attack on the USSR to 0”. That could potentially delay Allied entry into the war by 2 turns, maybe even 3 if your rolls are unlucky.

That’s probably the most glaring downside if you ask me.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Yup! I apparently decided to not take the word “control” in that sentence in the GW36 game sense of the word that time for whatever reason :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

@vondox You know, as I’m looking at the rules again too, I did forget that annexation is considered a combat move, but where no combat actually occurs. So, I could certainly see how the captured factory rule (i.e. reverting to a minor) could be interpreted here.

The fact that the German setup sheet for the 1939 setup has Bohemia as having a medium factory as well though is still what makes me think this was just an oversight. Bohemia is also not German Home Country in 1939 setup, but starts the game German and has a medium factory on it. By your reading of the rules, you’d just make that medium factory a minor the moment the game starts, right? To me, that doesn’t make sense!

I think by strict reading of the rules you guys are correct in the way this would be handled, but I do wonder if it was meant to stay a medium factory for purposes of annexation. But yeah, would love to get input from someone there, this might be a good errata question!

@david-06 That’s kind of my whole point, that seems a bit unfair to the Allies and Axis that the Comintern just kind of automatically gets two VP’s, doesn’t it? I get that they have to hold on the them still, but instead of forcing the Comintern to attack and potentially lose units, as well as devote resources to taking them in the first place, they now just automatically get them? I don’t know, it seems like a hard sell to me!

@trig Very good points on early reasons to taking Mongolia. I think forcing a stronger border on Japan and KMT needs to be considered more than I gave it, as I was looking at it solely from the USSR having to defend a longer border! And also a good point on a lend lease route to the CCP.

I definitely get wanting to maintain historical accuracy. But I also try and keep in mind that it’s still a game. If we’re dealing with historical accuracies, we shouldn’t even have the opportunities for neutral powers to be attacked by the Allies at all. I try and look at it as a historical fiction based on historical reality. All actual history gets thrown out the window the moment that first turn in 1936 happens!

@David-06 I guess the point I tried to make earlier was that I don’t necessarily think anything should change regarding this portion of the game concerning Mongolia. I get that this wasn’t historically plausible. But neither was an Allied attack of Belgium or the Netherlands, right? So should we take out the Allied ability in the game to attack them? The Republicans lost the SCW, should there even be a possibility of them winning by playing it out? To me, all historical reality is changed once the game starts, and it’s okay if things happen that probably never had a chance to in real life! I guess I think it’s okay that things happen in game that wouldn’t have historically speaking!

But I’d also agree with @TheVeteran that I wouldn’t make that trade off for VP’s either. Getting two VP’s for those territories is probably far more worth the 2 IPP’s you might get a turn!

@TheVeteran So interesting that our games don’t usually take Mongolia so early! I get there’s IPP’s on the board, which maybe we haven’t considered as much. I think it’s just been used as a buffer a lot until later in the game when it was less likely to be used to backdoor the USSR!

@theveteran Yeah, it’s definitely a good point. I think we’ve really just been overlooking the value of an easy lend-lease area for the CCP by doing this earlier in the game than has typically happened!

@didier_de_dax

First situation - Is territory “B” a mountain territory in this situation as well? If yes, then no you would not be able to attack territory “C” from territory “A” if you have to cross a mountainous territory “B”. If territory “B” is not mountains then yes, you could make the attack.

Second situation - I guess this gets wrapped into my questions for the first situation (sorry about that). The answer is no, you can’t move a second space if the first space you move to is a mountain territory.

Third situation - Similar to the first situation. If territories “B” and “C” are not mountainous then yes, your tank can attack to territory “C”. The fact that they start in a mountain territory doesn’t affect this movement as per 1.7:
The territory you are standing in does not count (assume you are standing right at the border).

I hope that helps! Point being, if you have to cross a mountain territory to reach your destination, you would not be able to move the two spaces to attack. This is also true in the event that you own territory “B” as well. It wouldn’t be a blitz attack since you own territory “B”, but if it is mountainous you still cannot move a second space through that territory to attack “C”.

Hmm I thought the rules were meant to apply during non-combat movement as well. I think, as seems to happen with many rules in this game, we’re reading the same thing differently as it’s a bit ambigous.

1.8 Mountains (Optional Rule):
Units are subject to Mountain rules on the first round of combat when crossing a mountain border and on all combat rounds in a mountain zone.

Combat: All Attacking land units have -1 Attack.

Movement: All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules. Units cannot blitz across an Enemy Mountain border or into Mountain terrain.

To me, the section on Movement is separate from that of Combat. Meaning, the Movement section applies to all forms of movement, be that combat or non-combat. But I think I see how you are reading the initial paragraph as the rule being specific to combat movement. But that also to me is just letting you know for how long the Mountain rules apply if attacking a Mountain border or full Mountain territory, not necessarily that that is the Mountain terrain rule, but that that is how you would apply the combat for the Mountain terrain rule.

Could obviously be wrong, but I’ve always played that terrain rules apply in combat and non-combat movements.

@panzerbaguette Vichy would not be able to perform escort duty for the Italian convoy line, for the reasons you stated. It’s a neutral minor power controlled by Germany, and it’s only fighting ability is against Free France!

I can’t imagine it just means moving to a contested zone. I think you’d have to have control over the territory adjacent to Iraq for that to happen!

@warwick I’d have to agree with @insaneHoshi here.

The Example of Romania on page 8 of the rulebook seems to address this too:

“If the roundel is not located in terrain, but you need to cross a terrain type in order to reach the roundel from the border of the land zone, you are subject to “border terrain” rules. Border terrain rules for that terrain type last one round”.

So while that specific example seems to be talking about combat, it does still mention that the terrain rules apply when crossing a mountain border. I just mention that one since it’s using an example just like what you asked, if you cross into a territory with a mountain border, but the roundel isn’t in the mountains.

But also with the rule just being “All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules”, I’d think you have to take that at face value to mean crossing a mountain border reduces movement to 1, even in non-combat movements.

Don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, but my immediate reaction to this was that it wouldn’t seem like you were taking defense into account as much as you should have! As the others said, the defense ability makes them very important in and of itself, if you ask me. That alone is worth it.

But if you’re in the north-central Pacific too, there isn’t as many chances for islands as you point out, so if you have two fleets going on, perhaps a northern one would need carriers more heavily than the south.

In terms of offensive capabilities, you do start out one space closer to whatever destination you might have if already on a carrier as opposed to land, and that can certainly make a difference at times also!

I was going to say the same thing as @insaneHoshi. Table 4-3 is pretty clear on this I think under the “Assigning Alignment and Control” section. All nations that become controlled/aligned by the Axis go to Germany, with the one exception being Siam going to Japan.

First, I still love A&A Global 1940. It’s the best A&A game in my opinion. As much as we play Global War mostly now, it’ll always have a place for me. Plus, the rules are much easier to follow for a more casual gamer who might join us!

I’ll start by saying I’ve never played the Global 1939 game. When I discovered HBG, the 1936 game was in the works, so I waited for the new map, as it appealed to me far more than the 1939 map.

With that said, I believe I’ve heard/read that one of the reasons Global 1936 came to be was to help “fix” shortcomings of the 1939 game. So I can’t speak to the balancing act of 1939, but I will say 1936 seems to have a good balance for me.

One of the main differences is that the 1936 game has three alliances now: The Allies, The Axis, The Comintern. So there’s some different flavor in terms of the USSR and it’s allies being a separate faction entirely from the Allies.

One thing I’ll say though to caution against saying a game is “broken”, is that sometimes that largely depends on who your opponents are. I’ve seen a lot of people over the years talk about how A&A 1940 is “broken” and that the Axis can’t possibly win, when in reality, a lot of experienced players will tell you the game is largely slanted to an Axis advantage. It can just depend on who your opponents are sometimes. If you have an inexperienced opponent, it’s going to seem really easy to beat them, no matter who you are!

But again, I can’t really speak to 1939 being “broken”, you may very well be correct there. But I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised with 1936 and it’s playability. The large variation of victory conditions/points, and the variability of a 1936 start really help make this a game where it’s hard to have the same outcome twice. Not to mention the myriad expansions that you can pick and chose from to add an extra flavor to your games you might like!

Hope you decide to dive in!

No worries my friend! Glad you went ahead and ordered it! It really is a next level of gaming! I think your play group looking for a more competitive game will be very happy with it! Definitely read the rules a number of times, there’s a lot in there!

No idea on delivery times, but I know HBG is still turning orders around, so I’m sure on their end they’ll process quickly for you.

Enjoy your game! Come here for any questions!

@insanehoshi “subject to”, by definition from Merriam-Webster, means:

“affected by or possibly affected by (something)”.

To me, that reference at 9.17 is just using “subject to” to mean if the defender has chosen to scramble interceptors.

I guess I obviously can’t guarantee any of this, but I doubt it was intended to allow defending fighters to be able to intercept and then also take part in a defense. I’d think they get one defensive action, and it’s up to the defender which one it is they’d like to do.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

@trig That’s strong evidence, and I cannot argue with the brightness of the roundel in Shensi. However, note Nanking. It is printed in red, is a city, and has a star indicating a major power capital. Shensi is a territory name, not a city name.

I could be misremembering here, but I don’t think the city names in being red necessarily actually mean any thing in-game. I think that’s just there stylistically. Constantinople is in red, for example, but that isn’t Turkey’s capital city/territory, and the Constantinople territory itself doesn’t have any special usage in-game either.

I guess to me, 1.3 Colors and Roundels covers this:

“All Nations on the map are identified by a color and a roundel. Nations that have more than one land zone have the brightest roundel located on their capital and muted roundels in other locations.”

That to me makes it pretty clear that Nanking serves as the KMT capital, and so would be subject to the KMT losing it’s IPP to the bank if taken.

It also makes me believe then Shensi would serve as the CCP capital since it’s the only territory they possess, and I would agree with @Trig that the roundel does look to be brighter like other single-territory countries.

However, to play devil’s advocate, the CCP and KMT reference sheets both list as Chinese Home Country “All starting KMT, CCP, and Warlord land zones, Formosa, Hong Kong, Rehe, Northern, Western and Eastern Manchuria”. When you look at that, it could give credence to a single capital for both factions being Nanking.

I ultimately think that Shensi serves as the CCP capital though, and if taken the CCP loses all IPP to the bank. But this is a very interesting topic that I’m certainly not certain on!

@linkler I don’t know how many real playable rules like this have been put out there.

I’ve long loved the idea of having like an “Axis Minors” sort of expansion idea, having Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland being separate playable powers. I personally like the look of having a ton of different nations shown on the map and not just absorbed by their major power overlords haha. It obviously can make the game take longer, but could be fun!

I’ve toyed with ideas for a while, but I’d say one of the biggest things is balancing the changes made (at least in the way I’ve viewed the possibility of them being separate powers).

Anyways, my general thoughts are somewhat broad right now. Romania would keep it’s own IPP of course, but there would be some kind of trade agreement with Germany too. This way the major power of Germany maybe doesn’t lose out on too much money, and the minor power Romania can have a bit more to supplement building units. Maybe something like Germany gets +2 IPP and Romania +1 IPP a turn for trade or something.

Romania would buy, move, attack, etc. on the same turn as Germany. Romania/Axis Minors can’t conquer territory (i.e. anything they might capture becomes German).

Germany can Lend-Lease to one Axis Minor power per turn. I feel like the potential of allowing Germany to Lend-Lease to all Minors every turn would become a big boost for them to get units on the front line quickly. Maybe limiting to one minor a turn would make them have to pick and choose where to put it.

The biggest thing here is rebalancing though. In what I’ve talked about, you’re giving the Axis more IPP via Germany-minor power trade, and the ability to build units directly on the Eastern Front lines more or less. To me, this most negatively affects the Comintern, so maybe you have to add X amount of militia/infantry/something to the Comintern starting units? Something like that, not really sure.

I’ve also thought about putting limits on each Axis minor too. For example, Finland won’t attack any farther than Leningrad. Historically speaking Finland wasn’t too enthused with major pushes into the USSR, so limiting them to Murmansk, Leningrad, Karelia, etc. would be interesting and sort of hamper the Axis that way. Same with the other minors. I think of Romania in terms of their oil fields a bunch, and needing to protect those. I’ve thought of a rule where if Turkey is non-neutral/non-Axis controlled/Aligned (i.e. it’s controlled/aligned by the Comintern or Allies) then Romanian units will not attack into the USSR until the Turkish threat is eliminated, and all units currently in the USSR would move back towards Romania each turn until Romania is safe again. Also, Romania units can’t move any further west than Yugoslavia, some things like that.

Again, nothing here is fully fleshed out, but all thoughts/ideas I’ve had!