Posts made by Dafyd

Calvinhobbesliker, Yes.  Bombers still attack at a four (4) during the SBR but defend at a one (1) during the escort/interceptor phase of the SBR.

ghr2, exactly.  We have learned to prepare for an SBR because the interceptor responce threat is very real.  As a defender, you want to make sure that you have at least one interceptor available as a deterent to an opponent making an SBR on your territory.  As the attacker, you have to plan to make the run.  Bombers can out distance their escorts so now you have to make sure that you have a secured landing facility near you targets if you want escorts to go with your bombers.  The intercepter threat is very real when it defends at a four (4).  I have not taken the time to calculate the odds as Baron is so good at but in our actual game trials, the battles have gone both ways but generally for the defender.  The SRB is still viable but must be planned for.

I have tried Narvik’s strategy before a couple of times.  It really messes with the German player.  It gives the allies a free landing space besides the economic pressure it puts on Germany.  I have found that continually moving forces to position for the counter attack is the best way to defend the motherland.  I will pull my ffront line forces back one territory along the front leaving one infintry to as a blocker.  I will make sure that I build Infintry, artillery and tanks with the occasional fighter.  If you want to insult the german player, buy a bomber.  (ok that is maybe just an inside joke for our group) You may not have the funds or defensive ability to protect it but a transport at the Lenningrad naval base can "project a threat and if the Greman player does not pay attention, can be a great source of when you land Russian troops in an undefended Berlin (I couldn’t hold it but the look on the experienced German players face when he handed me Germany’s bank was priceless) Moscow finally fell in round 28 of that game.  Direct and misdirect.  Lead the dance.  Don’t let the German or Japanese players dictate how you play the game.  Make them react to what you are doing and hold on for the other allies to hit them from behind.

I have brought this up once before but our play group are testing a change to the escort vs interceptor rule.  The air combat is still one round but we have left the attack and defend values at the normal oob levels.  Three (3) for the escorting fighters and four (4) for the defending interceptors.  Scrambling fighters defend at a four (4), why not the intercepting fighters?  I never saw the logic in lowering the attack/defend levels of the these units in this particular type of battle.  It makes the SRB a bit more challenging when you want to hit a territory with and air base and protecting fighters.  We also kept the bombers defense shot at a one (1).  Bombers did shoot or tear up some fighters through the coarse of the war.  So far, we have not run into any shifts of power because of the house rule.  SPR’s are not an after thought any more.  Now we plan to make these attacks and prepare for these battles.

Spitfire; truly amazing work.  I have painted some small sacle models before but this is …well…truly amazing work.  I am curious, how do you prep the pieces to be painted?  Do you use Kylon Fusion paint to hold the colors to the polypropolene plastic or do you use the acrylic paints and then clear coat them so the paint won’t come off from handling them?  Your roundels; are they paonted or are those a micro decal?  I don’t mean for you to give your sevrets away, but I was just wondering with admiration and trying to figure out how you did it.

I’m not sure this is a good idea.  If Germany plays it right and captures Paris and Normandy (+6) and Paris’ doubled bank (38IPC’s) you looking at Germany spending 80 - 90 IPC’s on round two.  OUCH!

Hello Robson.
The Caroline Islands naval base would do the same thing for the Japanese as building one on Palau.  If the allies capture the Carolines, you now have a series of naval bases (harbours) that will quikly move you across the pacific.  The Hawaian naval base gives you three sea zones to the Caroline naval base.  The Caroline naval base gives you three sea zones to Japan (sz 6), three to the Philipines, or three to Australia.  Very handy naval base which ever side has it. 
The naval base in Bazil would be very handy in shuffling resources to South Africa.  It would also help to get a shuttle of transports going back and forth to the sea zone just inside the Mediteranean. 
I have not used a Panama naval base in Global 40 yet but in Global 39 it needs to be an early purchase for the US if you want to land in Gibraltar in one turn.

Our group has played with India and UK as seperate parts of the Commonwealth (Global 39 has the FEC {Far East Command} and the uk seperate}).  The allies have to work together and nt compete against each other.  The ANZAC player already has to share the DEI with India if either of them are going to have any real income to work with.  India and UK can work together as seperate players.

AS for the thread, build destroyers in Canada to hunt subs to work on your NO (no German Uboats in the Atlantic).  Also, bomg Germany in West Germany, Paris, Normandy…where ever you can hit them.  You may not be able to ivade effectively by yourself but you can harrass the German player enough that he has to pay attention to the Uk as well as smash the Soviets.  Landings in Norway and fortifying it takes away from Germany and opens another route to aid the Soviets.  Securing the Northern flank can help Leningrad or if need be retake it for the Soviets.  Zhukov44 was right.  Don’t lose Cairo.  Trops build in South Africa of tanks and mechs can help hold Cairo and even destroy the North African Italian army.  A IC build in Cairo, once secured will help limmit Italy and secure a route for US troops the attack the soft underside of Europe (usually not that well defended by the axis).  One last thing is hold Gibraltor if possible.  Building and air base there and sending some fighters can make US entry into the med so much easier.  It also  allows allied ships into the med to keep the Italians from their Med naval NO if the British med navy didn’t fare so well.

Personally, I like the way that the technology chart is set up and done in Global 39.  3ipc’s a dice every turn and the count is cumulative(spelling?) Say radar for the United Kingdom takes a score of “8” (the British did discover it and so they have the lowest required score).  The UK player wants to develop radar so he pays 3ipc’s for a dice roll.  The UK rolls a 5 and notes the score on the development chart.  On the next turn, the UK player pays another 3ips for the tech dice and rolls a 2.  Now the Uk player has a score of 7 (along with a relly bad attitude that he hasn’t been gettting a good dice roll).  On the third round, he pays 3ipc’s a third time and rolls a 4 thus scoring “11”.  The UK has surpassed the “8” points needed to develop radar for the Brits and now has that technology.  In the Global 39 rules, a nation at war can roll up to three dice on three seperate technologies a turn.  (3ipc’s per dice…one dice per technology break through).  Nations still nuetral can only roll on one tech until they come into the war.  The US and Soviets start off nuetral so can only develop one tech at a time until they have entered the war.  Most of the technologies in Global 39 are the same as in Global 40 but the list can be adjusted to anything.  One just has to make the point value for each technology appropriate to each nations ability to develop it.  Heavy bomber tech was easier for the German’s, UK, and US to develop than it was for the Italians or Japanese.  The scores would reflect that ie. the US and Germany need a score of 45 while the UK needs a 50 and the Italians need a score of 60.  I know that the UK actually had bombers with a heavier payload capacity at the begining of the war but the US did develop a bomber designed to carry really heavy loads (B-29) which design proved so good the Soviets stole the design and are still flying their version of it around today. Point is that the scores are not equal but appropriate to a particular nation’s weaknesses and strengthes.

In the GLOBAL 39 game that Tigerman developed, submarines and destroyers do pair off.  Now the combat is still at the same time and “extra” subs do get to proceed through the sea zone unimpeded.  The subs are unseen unless there is a corresponding destroyer. For instance,  if the German has 6 subs and is passing through a sea zone with four destroyers, four of the subs must stop and fight the four destroyers while the remaining two may pass through the sea zone or stay in the sea zone and have a sneak attack on any additional naval units in the sea zone.  They are unseen without a destroyer.  In Global 39, aircraft can attack a sub if a destroyer is present to see it.  The destroyer is able to direct aircraft and fight the sub if you will just like the OOB rules.  It makes the opposing forces develope destroyers to at least match any subs that are built.

As a newer layer I find the list a bit different from the more experienced players.
1. UK - you get pummeled from all directions and it is hard to keep from getting overwhelmed.  South Africa is your only source of supply in Africa and until Perssia is taken or Cairo secured, those forces are your only life line.  Your fleets are annialated and your airforce scarce but with some good play, you can hold on and actually gain some foot holds in anticipation of the USA landing reinforcements.
2. Germany - you lead the dance and you have alot of decisions to determine the course of the war.  You get the lion share of the attention which allows japan to gobble up victory cities if played correctly.
3. Soviet Union - you are on the defensive the majority of the game.  You must know when to turtle and when to counter-attack.  What forces you are willing to sacrifice to redirect the axis players and what is precious to the defence of Moscow.
4. Italy - you are the junior partner with little income to begin with.  You get to be the can opener as well as the defense of the European theater and try to gain ground of your own in Africa and the Middle East in order to get the IPC’s to do What the Germans need you to do.
5. The USA - All of the Allies look to the US to save them. You have to fight a war on two fronts against two enemies that each can be making almost as much as you are.  You have to anticipate what the enemy is going to do three to four turns before they do it so that you can buy the material needed to counter them.
6. China - you are on you own against a heavily gunned enemy.  You have little to no weaponry (American artillery if the road is open) and 1 lone fighter.  You fight a war of attrrition hoping to delay the superior enemy while the Pac-UK and ANZAC’s can get enough materiel together to fight off the Japanese as well.
7. ANZAC - you start with little money and have to share the only real source of increasing your income with the PAC-UK because they need it to survive as well.  Once you get going though, you can make a difference against the Japanese.  You becoem a can opener for the USA at times but they bcome yours as well.

These are all great posts.  I havn’t played a tremendous number of games but I have played the US quite abit in the games that I have played. I too like to go heavy on the European side with loaded transports, destroyers, and cruisers for for bombadment.  I like to include fighters and tacs that can be moved onto Gibraltor or Moracco.  I like to help the UK out in North Africa which weakens the Italians.  Once I get the transport shuttles going back and forth from Gibraltor/Moracco to the EUS, you can threaten the Med. Normandy, or Norway.  Landing in Norway and building a naval base and minor I/C really plays havoc with the Germans.  Alot of options available from Norway.  From the Med, you have all of the under belly of Axis Europe.  Americans in Greece have a better chance of not being pushed out immediately and diverts alot of axis resourses away from Moscow and Normandy.

On the Pacific side, destroyers to block, subs to reak havoc and fighters scattered across the islands with airbases makes for a thorn in the Japaneses side.  A few loaded transports with the existing pacific fleet can help defend Manila and take Iwo Jima.  An airbase on Iwo Jima makes SBR’s on Japan a war of attrition very costly to the Axis.  If the DEI has fallen to the Japanese, take them back for the US income if the ANZAC’s or Pac-UK are unable to liberate them. The US definately wants the ANZAC’s mounting a good naval and air presence.  Encourage them to take the Carolines and the US will have a naval/air base in the heart of the Pacific.  Iwo Jima and Japan are one move away.

becoming a distraction to the axis player; making them move to counter you can take them out of their plan long enough for the other allies to recover from the early advantage the Axis has.  The longer the US can prolong the war, the greater chance for an Allied victory.

That is a big question.  I have played a number of games now and I know that there are far more skilled players out there than me but I have looked through the forum and there are several schools of thought.  Initial buys are going to be different than buys midway or later in the game.  You need to think of the objectives and strategy you are going to take for each faction.  US buys are going to be different than Soviet buys.  The Italians and Germans will have different objectives yet work closely together.  US is navy heavy.  The US has to cover the globe by water but you need ground troops to defeat the enemy.  Don’t forget the power of the bomber in helping the UK and Soviets.  The Germans don’t need a huge navy.  U-bouts are great for them until you are ready to invade London.  The ground units (tanks and mechs) and air power are Germany’s strength.  The Soviets need infantry and artillery with the occassional tank and fighter in order to defend and then counter-attack.  The UK PAC needs infantry and artillery with aircraft and occassional destroyer and transport.  The ANZACs need navy and air with a few infantry and artillery.  The conditions and ebb and flow of the game will determine what you buy and when.  Determine what you want to accomplish and buy what it takes to get it done.

Great work Young Grasshopper.  I like this because we will spend alot of time debating who may have actually won when we have to stop.  I do have the luxury of being able to leave a game set up but it is hard to get the people back.  Being able to count objectives achieved is great.  One question though…can you lose that token once gained?  If the allies land in North Africa or liberate one of the captured victory cities before the round ends, does the Axis player then give the token back or do you calculate what tokens have been obtained at the end of the round?  Just clarification for my thinking.  I think it would be nice to put the token in my hand when achieved and really nice to see the enemy have to surrender any token that they may have one.  Sadistic…maybe but still satisfying.

We actually had a game of Global 40 where the two frenchman in UK were killed and the fighter fought and died gloriously but the destroyer off of Madagascar survived the game by circumnavigating the southern hemisphere.  It saw some limited action but the guy playing  france wanted to keep atleast one french unit on the board.

I know that this thread has been overlooked for a while but we have been playing with this house rule for a while in the Global 39 game.  We have the cost of the mech inf at the regular 4ipc and the mech can blitz with the tanks while towing the artilery.  It is a nice little force but it has not proven to be overwhelming.  The attack values in Global 39 make tanks still the biggest bang for the buck but the added bumps in values make the combonation of inf+mech+art+tank quite a powerful little force.  In the global 40 game, I still think that tanks will prove to be useful, especially in defense.  I like the agility in movement that comes with having a mechanized attack force.  To add to it, we have added transport trucks that carry one infintry and it too moves with the tanks and mech+art force.  The tranport truck has no attack value but does have a defense of 1 (the driver would have a side arm atleast).  This combo has added some “shock” value to the game but has not proven to be unbalanced or  overwhelming (as I said before).  Try it, you’ll likeit.

OOPS…I missed the detail about capitol ships.  I think what KOBA’s question was concerned with is whether an industrial complex would need to be present for the two ship yards in question.  I expanded the question because of the mising detail.  Foe the more learned amungst us: would the ship yards need an industrial complex or do they qualify as the industrial complex?

Would that mean that once western Europe falls to teh Axis that the Brits could liberate the Belgian Congo?

I just read the rules that you were talking about and though the other cities/territorries mentioned all have industrial complexes, I believe that the rules imply that the ship yard is the complex.  It only builds ships but that the ship yard is the complex while a naval base is strictly a launching/supply facility.  Marseilles nor Leningrad have the territorial value to support a major complex so I would imagine that the intent of the rule is to consider the shipyard as a minor industrial complex and thus limiting the number of units produced.  I don’t see the reasoning in having the home nations have to build an I/C in order to make the shipyard worth anything.  Though the Soviets could build an I/C in Leningrad, the Germans nor Italians could build in occupied southern France. 
The question I have about the rule is, do you build only in shipyards as the rule implies and if so, what ablout the ANZACs, FEC, Canadians, and South Africans?  The get the game play behind the rule but it is a little vague the way it is written.  You may have to clarify it for your own play.

I do appologize for causing the confusion it appears that I have caused.  My way of thinking about SBR’s on a territory that you are about to attack is not intended to have so many strategic bombers launched at one territory.  The ipc value hinders production of 10 bombers.  You have to have the ground units.  I believe that AAA would be more widly used in this game play.  I also think that if the strategic bombers are going to “fly” over an enemy territory that has an air base and intercepters available and radar tech (for those that play with tech), then they should be able to scramble.  I agree that there were massive waves of strategic bombers used but for game play, I was suggesting limiting it to one pass just as you have one pass at any other SBR.

As a side note, our gaming group has house ruled that intercepters and escorts attack and defend at their normal attack/defense values.  Still only one pass in the air combat but it didn’t make sence to deminish the fighter’s or tactical bomber’s capabilities because they are escorting or intercepting.  It has made SBR’s more challenging.  As for the SBR on a territory that your about to attack, it is a suggestion to consider.  One last thing, if your bombers are close enough to hit an enemy target like was suggested by Shadow Hawk, they may be close enough to have the enemy’s strategic bombers repay the favor.  I will have to play this rule and see what kind of difference it makes.

After reading all of the comments I beleive that the Strategic bomber should be just that.  It was designed to deliver a heavy payload on a designated target.  It was not flown like a fighter and you did not use it in a dive bombing manuever.  It flew level and high.  Let the escorts and intercepters fight it out and give the bombers a defence of one.  The B17 did shoot enemy intercepters down.  Leave the D6 roll as its damage value and their cost at 12ipc’s.  The only thing I would change is its mission peramiters.  The strategic bomber was used in industrial targets, rail stations, air and naval bases.  Tactical bombers like the Stuka and the P47 did not attack air and naval bases like and SBR but they attacked the planes, ships, and trains.  Stragegic bombers would carpet bomb a battlefield but this manuever was done prior to launching an attack and was one pass over the field.  It did not stay and engage in the battle.  If you use a strategic bomber on  a battlefield it should be limited to one pass over the field prior to the combat phase and the D6 total applied to the damage to the units in the field.  Say a stragegic bomber is going to be used in Western Ukraine.  The German player would launch all of his SBR’s to hit London’s I/C and air base and one to Western Ukraine.  All of the SBR’s are done prior to any combat rolls.  The Western Ukaraine bomber rolls a 5,  if the Soviet player has 4 infantry, 2 artillery, and two tanks; 5 points of damage would be inflicted on the Soviet’s forces.  One tank and one infantry (defense of 3 & defense of 2) would need to be taken as casualties (or any combination that would equal the amout the bomber inflicted).  Unless there is AAA in that territory, the bomber flies away unscathed.  The ground forces involved are not going to shoot a stargegic bomber down.  The casualties would be removed and the ground combat phase would begin.  I don’t think the Stategic bomber should continue dropping fours in a ground or naval battle.  This just wasn’t their function.  My humble opinion only.