Posts made by Chris_Henry

@cavestone
Thanks for that! I looked up Vallejo, and yeah, your’re right, they have whole sets devoted to different forces! Looks like they’re geared towards FoW and/or Bolt Action, but the schemes should largely still work the same, despite the smaller, less detailed units!

@Wildcat6305

Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking too. I think the defender should get to choose there.

This particular attack doesn’t give any bonuses/negative affects to any of the attackers, it’s purely the Maginot Line defensive bonus at play.

The issue was definitely raised though, and just not something I’d every really considered!

@Wildcat6305
Thanks for the reply! Yeah, I watched the video after I posted (dumb of me), and noticed the new cities, new islands in the pacific, etc.

I wasn’t too worried about the terrain features, if that was the only change. I could find some other way to represent jungle, dessert, tundra, etc. with my current map. But sounds like that won’t work.

Not going to lie, that’s highly disappointing. Really disappointing that they’d do that to your customers who already shelled out $150.00+ for the current map, just to make a new one making this obsolete. You essentially HAVE to buy the new one in order to get the rule fixes (which are desperately needed), otherwise they would not make sense with the old map, or would have to be further modified/house ruled by individual owners. Just upsetting, because we don’t all have $150.00 to throw around every 2 years when they decide to update the map.

Oh well, looks like I’ll have to think on it.

Hey all,

In playing our current game, something happened regarding the Maginot Line that I hadn’t really considered before, wasn’t sure how to answer, and couldn’t find in the rules.

The Germans had taken Picardia the turn before, and now were planning on attacking Lorraine from both Picardia and Munich.

Because Lorraine is being attacked from two territories, one where the Maginot Line defenses come into play (Munich), and another one where they do not (Picardia), how is the combat resolved?

How do you determine if the French get the bonuses from the Maginot Line on that first turn or not? I don’t really see this addressed in the rules.

My initial guess would be to treat similar to an amphibious assault situation, where if there are units attacking from the sea and land at the same territory, the amphibious attackers are taken as casualties first, then the units from land. As in, the first turn defenses rolls in Lorraine would be applied to the attackers from Munich first, and then to those on Picardia after, if nothing had survived from Munich?

Thanks for your thoughts on this!

Chris

Thanks for this!

I’ve been curious about this for a while, and am hoping for no complete disappointment to my below question.

How different is this new map going to be? Like, are we talking just cosmetic changes? Or are they changing things a lot?

Relatedly, if the map is drastically different, how is that going to affect the existing expansions? Are those of us with the current 1936 map just kind of screwed into no additional changes/fixes/expansions/etc. to the current map, with all focus on the new one? Or are the changes largely cosmetic to the point where the old map isn’t made obsolete?

Thanks!

Chris

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

@Munck:

We play the 1939 scenario.

Our top expansions:

Winter War, because it helps keeping USSR out of Scandinavia
DAK, because it gives Germany a chance to participate in Africa
Sunderland (seaplanes), because the Allies needs units with CAP range of 2 to effectively do something about German subs.

Thanks Munck! Good points for all. I don’t play the 1939 scenario really, but they obviously are the same concept regardless.

I like how all three have a direct impact on one of the three powers. Winter War effects USSR negatively. DAK effects Axis positively. And Sunderland effects Allies positively.

Good to round all that out.

@Munck:

There are some expansions that doesn’t work at all, but that is perhaps a topic for another thread  :mrgreen:

Haha that is a fact! There are definitely a few I’m not on board with, but you’re right, probably a different thread!

@Undercover:

Interested in this as well.  :?

It may just be my opinion, but I think it is a problem, contradictory rules, what comes with large rule sets (cough Table top RPGs. cough). Historical Board Gaming is probably play testing each expansions with the standard rules without expansions. It is also likely they just cannot remember everything while working on the next expansion.  :roll:

Totally agree. I think that’s exactly what happened at times. I think the “not meant to be played together” reasoning is just an excuse once the flaw(s) was pointed out in contradiction!

Regardless, they can all be house-ruled to make it work together.

But still curious on what people have found truly doesn’t work together though! Could range from just not meshing well in the same game, to spreading too far out. Again, this isn’t to see what you don’t like necessarily. You may enjoy playing every single expansion, but just not like a couple in the same game.

Another Expansions topic here.

What expansions have you found that do not work well together? Or maybe cannot work well together? I know in reading the rules for some of the expansions there are sometimes contradicting directions. I think this was more of an oversight in design than intentional, but I think no one here is surprised by that. I’ve asked those questions directly before, and the answers I’ve gotten essentially are “those two expansions are not meant to be played together”. Again, my guess is these are things they hadn’t noticed, and saying that is the easy way out. But the fact remains that contradictions happen and makes it hard for some to be used with others.

So what have you found doesn’t work together in the same game very well?

Hey all. Been gone and busy for a while. Hoping to jump back in here more vocally!

This, and a topic I will post next, are things I’ve been meaning to ask for a while. There might be other areas where discussed, but I’m not seeing. I love so many of the expansions, and I usually want to use basically all of them that I like, but I know that gets to be a lot to work with after a while. It also gets hard when not everyone knows the rules as well, and they forget what can/can’t be done, or have to have constant reminders (which slows game play down).

So my question is, what are your top three expansions you like to play with, and why?

Possibly a hard question to answer, but I’m curious how you all pair it down!

Beating a dead horse here, but yes, go with the bigger one if you can.

Yes, it’s very big. I find it hard to find somewhere to set it up! But as others have said, some boards on top of a table work just fine. I hope to one day have a table dedicated to this map, but that’s not now :)

My main reason for saying the larger map is because it’ll make your games look cleaner. There are so many units and buildings, it can certainly become cluttered, as I think we all know with AA40 in Western Europe. You’ll be happy with the extra space I’m sure. Even if it isn’t strictly “needed”, it’ll still help your games out.

Also, my usual default is “why would I NOT get the bigger and better version?!” :)

A little late to the game here. But I have to agree that it’s impossible to play this game with a D6 system. Just way too many units/abilities for it to be done.

Is it the D12 particularly that you don’t like? Or just anything that isn’t D6? You could MAYBE have a D8 system, but even that I think is too hard.

Hey Credulous! Sorry, didn’t log in for a few days. I’ll PM you Doug and Will’s emails now. I’ll also post your questions to the Global War page!

Hey Credulous,

To answer your Global War page question first. When you go to the website, go to the “Global FAQ” page. From there, if you scroll down the right hand side of the page, you’ll see a subsection called “Meta”. There you will see a “Log In” option. That’s where you can create your user name and password. I’m glad to copy and paste your question though if you can’t log in still.

To answer your Controlled Minor’s question, you move controlled minors at the same time as the controlling major powers turn. So I suppose it doesn’t really matter in what order you do it, so long as it’s within the controlling major powers turn order. And you’re correct re naval units. You’re free to move them around at your leisure if you so choose.

For the CAP questions, I guess I’ll preface by saying these are my understandings of the rule set. I guess I won’t sit here and say my understanding is 100% correct if there are any ambiguities.

I would agree with your understating of question #1. I think you have to land on the same carrier, though if it moves, you can still land. It just needs to continue to be one space away.

For question #2, I believe the rule was implied to mean if aircraft are in the territory/space (as in, I know it says aircraft carrier, but I think the implication was because it would have planes on it). My thought is the opposite of yours though, I’ve always treated like the A&A rule with subs (if a destroyer present, all units can attack), so if a plane present, all units can attack. Though I am not sure there, so is a good question for the creators, or anyone with more knowledge than I here!

For #3, if a plane is on CAP, you cannot move it differently in combat movement. So a sub would have to enter that CAP zone, your CAP plane cannot move to meet the submarine in another zone.

For #4, the convoy raiding sub would not fight a battle first if what they are doing is convoy raiding. The convoy raiding combat rules would take effect with any ships that were on convoy duty after the convoy raiding was done, but no regular combat would happen first. On the other nations turn they would be free to attack the sub on their combat movement turn, but in terms of convoy raiding they would have no effect unless on convoy duty.

All good questions to have creators clarify though! Let me know if you would like me to copy over.

Hey all!

Been gone for a while. Out of town for work for about a month (I’m a paralegal and was in trial).

Have been wondering about this for a while, and curious on people’s thoughts for balance. Simple house-rule (on its face at least): allow all Allies/Axis/ComIntern to have full access to each of their allies’ bases. Airbases, naval bases, scrambling ability, naval movement, etc. I should maybe clarify “full access” to mean anything other than the creation of new units from said bases.

Basic question I have is, how do you think this might affect balance? Is this something that is overwhelmingly an advantage for the Allies, giving the USA the ability to utilize forward bases and assist more quickly on the front lines? Or do you see this as something that makes no big difference? I see the ComIntern having the least amount of advantage gained by this ability.

Realistically speaking, allies using each others’ bases in this game context is a thing that really happened. By that I mean, true, maybe USA and UK aircraft didn’t stay at the same airbases, but both would have had airbases available to them in the UK, for example.

The other solution to this might be to allow allies to build bases on territories they do not own. So you might have a UK and a USA airbase on the same territory, for example, allowing both nations to scramble fighters and utilize base for movement advantages. You could still limit the amount of scrambling aircraft of course, but this would allow allied planes the chance to help defend more properly.

Thoughts on balance issues?

That’s an incredible looking table Northman!

@Munck:

@Chris_Henry:

Good point Munck! I wasn’t even thinking about Lend lease when posting, but that’s very valid! Agreed, I always lend lease every turn if possible. Interesting about Iran, how do you lend lease to a neutral country? I thought you had to be controlled or aligned to lend lease?

As soon as a neutral nation is attacked, all major nations can send Lend Lease.

Got it, you meant once the country is controlled then. By neutral I thought you meant literally that no one had bothered it in any way yet. Thanks!

Good point Munck! I wasn’t even thinking about Lend lease when posting, but that’s very valid! Agreed, I always lend lease every turn if possible. Interesting about Iran, how do you lend lease to a neutral country? I thought you had to be controlled or aligned to lend lease?

Lend leasing is probably the one true consistent thing to do early on as the US I’m thinking.

@Munck:

@thenorthman:

So just seems strange then for Elite Marines and SNFL Marines to ALSO have it stated in their specific build notes that only can build two of them per turn. Because it�s redundant if they were only able to have two built per turn in the first place.

Yes, I agree. The manual and reference charts are full of these “written curiosities”, that scream at you after reading a sentence for the 43rd time. It happens to me too  :wink:

I actually emailed them about this. Will seemed glad to have any suggestions, edits, etc. come his way, but maybe that’s just lip service!

The scope of my email was to point out the large amount of continuity errors. By that I mean, have every single reference sheet/set up chart be identical in every way to others where the descriptions should be. One example was for infantry. Some reference sheets mention the 1:1 pairing with artillery, but others do not. Every one should have the exact same information!

Same goes for your issue above. The repetitiveness of some rules in some areas and not others makes to confuse. I agree, reading that for SNLF and Marines would be largely confusing each time.

I love everything they do here, but I wish they’d truly take a small break from all the expansions/units/other games, and really focus and getting the rule set here cleaned up 100%. Then they could just be done with it!

Hey all!

Just wanting to start more conversations really. Curious, what do any of you do as a standard USA strategy? Or do you have one?

Up to this point, I wouldn’t necessarily say I’ve had a USA strategy “written in stone”. Given the 1936 start date, I feel there’s a lot that happens before the USA gets into it, so a lot of what needs to be done is reactionary based game to game. If Argentina has been Axis activated, Spain becomes Comintern or Axis, how China is doing, etc.

Because of all the different factors, do you play each game “by ear”, or do you still go in with a firm plan as the USA no matter the circumstances when they enter the war?