Posts made by HBG GW Enthusiast

@chris_henry said in What if Abyssinia Survives?:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Not quite.

Italy and Free France would have to go to war with each other in order for Abyssinia to become aligned with Free France instead of just controlled. If Italy and Free France don’t go to war, Abyssinia would continue to only be controlled, not aligned.

Likewise, Abyssinia does not need to win the war to become Free French. They simply need Free France and Abyssinia to be at war with the same major power.

Good point about guaranteeing it becomes Free French. I neglected to add “when France surrenders.” I’ll edit my post above!

Just for clarity, by “control of Abyssinia transfers to Free France,” I mean that Free France controls Abyssinia. Control does not equal alignment. Abyssinia remains a controlled minor power, but it is now controlled by Free France (whereas before it was controlled by France). Make sense?

Is The Northeast adjacent to Ottawa?

It’s now clear that Abyssinia must win (capture Eritrea) to guarantee it becomes Free French when France surrenders. If I understand correctly, if Abyssinia is still battling Italy when France surrenders, the war goes on. I would assume control of Abyssinia transfers to Free France when France surrenders.

@insanehoshi Oh sure! That makes total sense and I don’t want to jeopardize HBG’s business in any way. I have a friend who is going to come visit for a weekend and he has played A&A, but not Global War. He wanted to see the map and I did a video review of the map.

Does anyone have a high quality/high resolution Global War '36 v3 Map? Asking for a friend (literally!) 8 )

The situation is it is July 1939 and France just surrendered to Germany. Italy hasn’t taken Abyssinia, but Abyssinia hasn’t captured Eritrea.

Palious13 wrote, “Abyssinia can’t become French unless it wins the war. page 58 of rulebook If Abyssinia wins, they align to France when France is at war with a major power. If France is subsequently captured, Abyssinia becomes Free French. Abyssinia has not won therefore do not align or become Free French. They have to conquer Eritrea to win.”

Fighting Irish responded, “I was thinking that France surrendered. Abyssinia became Free French regardless if the war with Italy is still going on. I took the line France is subsequently captured, Abyssinia becomes Free French. I took it as the war was now over with the Italian as well.”

I wrote, “This is a tricky situation. Abyssinia is Controlled by France at the start of the game (Page 58, 13.2 Italian Campaign in Abyssinia). Palious13 is correct that Under Resolution, “If Abyssinians win, Abyssinia Aligns to France as soon as France is at war with a Major Power. If France is subsequently defeated Abyssinia becomes Free France.” But what if Abyssinia has not yet won the war? Then Abyssinia is NOT Aligned and is only Controlled. This might make Palious13 feel that Abyssinia isn’t going to necessarily go Free French. However, Fighting Irish is correct that on the Vichy France Quick Reference Sheet it states, “All French Controlled/Aligned Minor Powers (e.g. Abyssinia) become Aligned to Free French.” So that is definitive. Abyssinia does NOT have to win the war to guarantee it will become Free French. All Abyssinia need do is fight to a tie. You have played it correctly, Fighting Irish. 8 )”

Adalwolf wrote, “So two points here. 1) Italy needs to try to defeat Abyssinia before France falls or Abyssinia becomes controlled by the Free French. 2) Is Italy now at war automatically with the Free French? Or technically the war is over with Abyssinia and now if Italy wants Abyssinia it must DOW on the Free French? What is the repercussions of Italy doing so?”

I responded, "Excellent questions, Adalwolf! Here’s the way I think about it (and I’m not an official source, just an enthusiast): Once France surrenders, Abyssinia is “absorbed” by the Free French. They basically have loyalty to the French for supporting them and they see that politically, by joining the Free French, they will put the Italians in a strange position. Remember that when a minor country goes from controlled to aligned, you replace the units, so the Abyssinian units are removed from the board and replaced with Free French. If the Italians want to try and take Abyssinia, they will have to declare war on the Free French. Abyssinia has basically ceased to exist.

Italy is not yet at war with the Free French. The Free French National Reference Sheet states that Free France is at war with all nations France was at war with. Vichy France wanted to stay out of the war, but Free France wanted to continue fighting the Germans. This means Free France is part of the Allies’ alliance. If Italy declares war on Free France, they are then going to war with Great Britain."

Adalwolf suggested others might benefit from this discussion…

@vondox On the National Reference Sheet for Great Britain, you will find that GB can only lend-lease after it is at war with a major power. There are many rules in this game that are only found on the National Reference Sheets.

There are two good things about lend-leasing to France, though. The first is that France goes immediately after GB, so there is no chance the IPP’s GB sent can be captured by Germany when France falls. The second is as you were suggesting, GB can essentially purchase and teleport militia for France through lend-lease. Note that GB can send up to half of France’s current income (not counting bonus income) via lend-lease. This incentivizes Germany to use their Blitzkrieg special ability to take out France swiftly. If Germany takes out France the same turn it declares war, GB will never have the opportunity to lend-lease.

@trig said in The FAQ Thread:

I see Free France as a stage of France, and the surrender/surrender as the way it moves between those stages. Thus, it is the same power the whole time, but with varying levels of power. That’s certainly how De Gaulle saw it!

Excellent description, Trig!

@gen-manstein Fair enough, Gen! I too have removed my post.

@trig The realism side of me agree with you, but the gameplay side of me thinks if playtesting shows it to be balanced, I’d be okay with it. I think the way the rules are currently written, you could do it in peacetime.

@gen-manstein said in The FAQ Thread:

If I have this right if 1-2’fleets pass through this sz with gun and out then gets 2 shots. So just put a token next to each fleet to keep track of what gun gets a shot at.

I’m not sure if you have that correct, but it’s interesting. Let’s say one fleet passes across narrow crossing and the coastal artillery fires three shots. Then another fleet crosses across same narrow crossing. I think the coastal artillery is limited to a total of three shots per turn because of the clause, “(up to a maximum of three shots per turn)”.

@captainnapalm said in The FAQ Thread:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast You said, “To hit Normandy, the continuing fleet has to pass across the dotted lines. If London contained coastal artillery, they would get to shoot.”

This is not the rule, as described by General Hand Grenade, in the original post.

GHG said, “The only time the Coastal Artillery gets shots is if enemy ships pass through the sea zone (enters one side and exits other side of the sea zone, even if that is on a subsequent turn).”

You have to exit the Sea zone, in order to be shot at.

You are correct, Napalm! I will edit my post to correct. 8 )

@gen-manstein said in The FAQ Thread:

So what is the coastal gun rule ?

Page 56, 12.9 Coastal Artillery:
“At narrow crossings, Coastal Artillery may shoot at each enemy surface ship at “3” that passes through (up to a maximum of three shots per turn). To shoot, players have to move the ships across the dotted line on the map.”

How it works in SZ 25 is if you have a fleet in one half of SZ 26 and an enemy fleet moves into the other half of SZ 25, then the two fleets fight without any of the surface ships facing any coastal artillery.

Let’s say the attacking player entered from SZ 13, wins a screening battle in SZ 25, and wants to move to SZ 24 with his continuing forces. To do so, the continuing fleet has to pass across the dotted lines. If London contained coastal artillery, they would get to shoot. [Edited, thanks to CaptainNapalm!]

@trig Good points. I would think “fortifications” includes rail and coastal guns. I would think “own” would be territories that were owned since the start of the turn (and not limited to home or starting territories). Not sure about that though and you are right that it could be clearer. I have seen videos where the USSR cut rails, so I think that’s settled law. In fact, cutting rails might be the most frequently used scorched earth facility.

I don’t think you would destroy a fortification because the first time a territory is captured, fortifications are automatically destroyed, so you might as well get your 2 shots at “5”, add +2 to defenders, and limit blitzing before it is destroyed. I suppose if you are Germany and built the Atlantic Wall, and wanted to entice the Allies into attacking so you could counterattack, you might want to voluntarily destroy a fortification, or if you were using this as a negotiation in your diplomacy (“I’ll destroy this fortification as a gesture of my good intent”), you might want to. Ha! You’ve talked me into it, Trig! I think you could destroy a fortification!

There is a lot of talk about what we’d like to see in v4. I’d like to start a thread focused just on map improvements.

@insanehoshi said in Version 4?:

• Is Iraq Connected to the Ocean?
• Is Burma Connected to China (via passable terrain)
• Is Western Australia Mountainous from the sea (Rondel to Rondel terrain tracing doesn’t work for amphibious assaults).
• Do we really need minor ports?
• Updated Rondels
• Here would be my dream, built in battle boards on the north and south sides of the map. Get their image for the battleboard, set the opacity to 50% and set it to the bottom and top.

Here are some of my requests:
Transparent Ship and Facility Production Chart (one in the corner East of New Zealand, one in the corner above District of Keewatin).
Terrain Legend
Greater clarity of fortifications (Maginot, Gibraltar, Tobruk, Leningrad, etc.)
Totally agree with InsaneHoshi = Simplification of Minor Ports (just eliminate them and rewrite the rules ever so slightly!)

@gen-manstein said in Does the Global War 1936-1945 board game (third edition) actually exist? How can I buy one?:

What were the Plan Z ships ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Z

@trig said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
My suggestion would be to have that sub moving through Suez wait to enter 83, and then raid in it. That would show you can seperate moves, and don’t have to do them sequentially.
Also, what was the point of the transport in 85? I didn’t see where that came up.

I was going to have the Japanese use their Surprise Attack ability to grant that submarine one more movement to go after the transport in 85. Maybe I’ll make the transport in 85 two naked CV’s instead.

You should probably also mention scrambling and maybe something with MAP, do cover all the bases. Maybe there is a plane on MAP in 82 or something to do with that in another spot? Just to show how this also applies during wartime moves after the DOW.
Overall, looks good! I would also probably mention some other possibilities, if say, GB does DOW and how that would work with screening forces.

Great ideas!

I really like the use of this system for all moves, and will definitely “house rule” it in.

I believe in the game designers and hope that with time, this system will be officially adopted! Other than the two GHG videos, this is how I would have thought the rules work as written.

@trig I appreciate the support, Trig! I think you are more brilliant that I am, and you have the greater, more intricate comprehension of the rules. I need to understand it at a simple level to get it. Then, because I understand it like a child, I can explain it more easily! 8 )

I am taking a break from changing my garbage disposal, otherwise I’d work on a video to explain Clarifying Ordering Effects. Maybe tonight or later this week.

Here’s the scenario I’m thinking about (and I’d like to get your input to make it a better scenario).

1. Japan is neutral, but has attacked a minor power (to allow GB the opportunity to declare war). What minor should it be? I’m thinking of Siam - totally ridiculous, but makes it easy.
2. Japan has moved a submarine through the Suez canal to sea zone 81 on prior moves.
3. Japan has a big navy with transports in Formosa. GB has naval units in sea zones 88 and 87, and a lone transport in sea zone 85.
4. Japan requests to move its submarine through the Suez canal. GB declines to declare war and prevent this.
5. Japan moves its submarine from sea zone 82 to sea zone 83. There are no enemy units so it doesn’t need to announce anything because there’s nothing the defending player can do to stop it after it is through the canal.
6. Japan picks up infantry on transports from Formosa and moves it’s large fleet to sea zone 87, announcing the intention to move to sea zone 122. If GB declares war, Japan won’t be able to make it to Calcutta. GB declines to declare war.
7. Japan doesn’t need to announce anything in sea zone 122 (it’s empty).
8. Japan moves its large fleet from sea zone 122 to sea zone 87. Since Japan is the Attacking player, he has to announce intention upon entering the sea zone and declares war, invoking the Surprise Attack ability, deciding on a screening force with a separate amphibious invasion force against Calcutta.

How can I make the example better for the video? Is there anything I have wrong? This shows that you can use the Surprise Attack, don’t have to declare war at the start of the combat phase, can waltz through enemy fleets (daring them to declare war), and creates amazing dilemmas for the GB player. The system works great!

@didier_de_dax I totally agree. And I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t critical of you, Didier! Online communication is so difficult because people can’t hear tone of voice or see our facial expressions. 8 )

I’m not criticizing the game designers or their work either, my friend. We’re on the same page and this very forum is the perfect place for us to have these discussions.