Posts made by koba

I tend to agree with Bill, though I still believe an Axis victory is possible –-and, again, I didn’t think an allies victory was impossible in 6.1—.

The cutting the Axis down was one thing, but adding more Allied units was another.

The N. Africa /Mediterranean scene, for instance, is a s###show in my opinion :-P

The N. Atlantic would be worse if you took away 5 IPC German subs. As it is, with the testosterone injected UK air force, it’s a dog fight but it was a dog fight back then so, OK. This being said, the U-boat threat was all too real and 6.1 did a better job of reflecting it. Personally, I want the boats back. (yes, I know, “you can’t always get what you want” but, like my kids, it doesn’t stop me whining for it).

I’d like to see German transports as merchant raiders as well. Maybe a rule like no more than two on the board at any time, 2/1/1, able to slip through Allied navies on non-combat, can carry one infantry. One deployed in S. Atlantic and one in Indian Ocean in set up. It would be easy to do and would give all those Commonwealth destroyers and planes something to do rather than terrorizing at leisure.

I know the Germans get the 52 IPC boost + two impulses at the beginning. That 52 looks like a big number but, honestly, there is a big job to do in a very short time and with the materiel losses and Allied gains, it has actually shrunk.

Italy needs something too. Another battleship might fit the bill --am I nuts??–. After all, she had a strong fleet.

The paratrooper in Berlin, again, was a nice touch. It didn’t help the Germans a ton but it was the thought that counted.

Now that is a good question.

Here is my feeble attempt to answer it; though I’m sure you are aware.

Many of these countries did not have ship building facilities of their own capable of building warships. The work was contracted out to shipyards in England for instance.

This being said, it doesn’t mean they didn’t have ports/facilities/bases capable of supporting their navies.

Which gets me back to your question. Why don’t neutrals such as Turkey, Spain, Argentina, Brazil have naval bases?

I did notice that the Global '36 pictures on HBG’s Facebook page showed some in these places. Also noticed the shipyard markers.

And, on another note, I was happy to see the Falkland Islands/los Malvinas as well.

Agreed on the strat bombing. It’s too easy/damaging.

I see HBG has underground factory markers. This may be an option for those of us who “mod” our games.

Even if we reduce the amount of damage which the bombers can deal. I understand strategic bombing is a realistic dynamic as a rule but having no ready means of defence in a major industrial centre such as W. Germany makes no sense. Airfields are costly to build and it’s hard to believe none existed in that part of Germany from day one of the war. Strategic bombing was costly for the Allies as well. They were quickly disavowed of the belief that this method of warfare could end the war on it’s own. Rates if attrition in the bomber forces were high.

Of course, Germany can retaliate (and has!!!) but it’s like adding expense to expense buying all those bombers and necessary fighter escorts. Once the UK player begins they’re bombing campaign, from relative safety I may add, Germany really has not choice but to invest an onerous amount of IPCs into defence/retaliation. If U.S. bombers show up….

Worse yet, with the U-boats being cut down, the option of going for the convoy zones off the bad has been largely neutered. The boats are generally almost all eaten up by the early battles with the UK fleet.

Again, it’s not that strat bombing is bad in essence, it’s just that it, or air defence, could use some tweeking.

I’m really just brainstorming here but it’s nice to be able to bounce this off of you guys.

A tank busting Stuka with 37 mm guns would be cool too.

Oh, and the U.S. player stated that they should be able to intervene in S. America before being at war. Monroe doctrine, banana wars and all that… hard to argue.

we’re playing again this weekend :-D

And Bill,

As for bad Axis rolls early on. Don’t worry, it will happen again. And that is the rub. If the Axis blow it in the first few turns and don’t break out, they are toast. All the Allies have to do is tie them up in the early game. It’s like a striker vs. a grappler early on.

Bill,

Thank you for the report.

We played this weekend too. The Axis won but it was not easy. If Calcutta had not fallen fairly early, due to an oversight by the FEC/ANZAC player, the Axis would have lost. By turn 8, Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad were all in Soviet hands. U.S. Lend lease amounted to at least 100 IPCs to Commonwealth and Russians. Money well spent. Guards and 2 forts in Stalingrad and a stack of Commonwealth fighters in Karelia/leningrad.

Strategic bombing was the bane of Germany’s existence. I think W. Germany should have an airfield. Better there than Czech or Bavaria. For the record, I loathe strat bombing, see it as a major expense and PITA, and believe better AA weapons should be available to counter it or less damage should accrue. Just my opinion, as I was the victim of a major strat bombing campaign. Fighting back while trying to fight Russia and support the now anemic Italians in Africa almost broke the Germans.

By the way, the Axis cannot get the Dutch fleet. It goes to ANZAC or whichever allies occupies Dutch New Guinea.

I honestly don’t think the Allies need more. Some tweeks in terms of bases, industrial capacity, different units etc. are always useful but we are in the balance/Axis handicap zone. Good Allied players can and will beat the Axis in 7.1. and beat them hardcore.

PS,

I know I lobbied for the cruiser in the S. Atlantic but maybe a U boat down there would help too better still a naval port in S France.

SU series SP guns

Sturmovik

T 34/85

Maxim 1910 gunner

Zis anti tank gun

Infantry with flamethrower (especially for Stalingrad)

Will play this out in two weeks.

Not sure on the whole Spain change but most changes I’ve seen so far are for the best. Maybe a “blue division–like one infantry added in Berlin  when Germany declares war on Russia to represent Spanish fascists sent by Spain” is needed to assuage the hardship caused by this new requirement to get Franco to commit?

More crazy stuff: how about SS pz gren added I per france / Belgium (Charlemagne) and Holland when they are captured???

Maybe Mongolia goes pro Russia if Japan declares war on Russian unprovoked?

Crazier still: Japan gets Greater Axis co-prosperity sphere NO of 5IPC if DEI, Hong Kong, Philippines, Siam, Singapore and Burma taken? Or 1 infantry to represent Indian National Army if Burma is taken?

Thanks for the set up changes.

Will submit results during play.

Some ships and cargoes were taken as prizes.

We use Soviet gains toward their income but they are kept separate from the rolls in terms of declaration of war.

Yes, the Russia situation looks good.

Nice compromise on the fortification rules.

We may be playing this weekend so perhaps there’ll be a chance to try them out sooner rather than later.

Thanks again.

Man, these look awesome!

Hi Tigerman,

I hope the observations and critiques posted here helped.

In terms of Russia, it may be a good change to give them a 3 IPC NO simulating German machine tools and finished goods before war breaks out. 15 IPC starting cash, roll for income and declaration of war plus the NO. If the Allies are made too strong, playing the Axis will be less than desirable. I remember A and A 1984 when Russia could jump on Germany on turn one, the U.S. could build and IC in China, Britain in India/South Africa etc. It was a really hard go for the Axis, almost too hard. I’d hate to see global '39 or '36 head that route. Judging by the pics posted on HBG’s Facebook page, it doesn’t look too good for the Axis there either.

I know in 6.1 the Allies could tie Germany up in Europe and create trouble for Japan until the U.S. entered the game. If the Axis weren’t on their way to Moscow/Stalingrad by the time Uncle Sam came on it was goodnight Irene. That dynamic hasn’t changed in 7.0. In fact, it’s been enhanced. If the Allies play it right, Cairo will not fall, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Poland will be terrorist PITAs for the Germans and Japan will be busy trying to beat off Russia while fighting the Chinese, FEC and ANZAC.

Regardless, I’m confident you’ll do what needs doing.

Rohr,

Yes, I have seen the rules you are referring to. We played using/purchasing rail stations and individual rails. We use the newer rules as you mentioned in terms of the 3 unit limit in Europe, 1 unit east of Urals (Siberian Railroad), the British in Africa and the N. American allowance. It’s easier (and cheaper!!!). You are permitted to augment this with new rail purchases I believe, but we never do.

I recommend just using the allowances for simplicity’s sake and bringing in more detail if/when you decide to introduce trains. HBG has markers for engines, cars, rail guns etc. but I’d really like to see 3D models.

Have fun with the game. Ours is over with a hard fought Axis win.

Bill,

I suppose we could have played without the extras but we have been using the custom rules for months now and didnt  really see the difference in terms of balance. More enhancement than anything else and there’s no sense in testing the rules without them as they are a (growing) part of our game.

We’ve played 6.1 at least ten times and yes, the balance was a bit off a bit, but it was not impossible for the allies to win. I’ve been playing global 39 for a about three years now (A and A for thirty plus) and ,like you, I could see that 7.0/.1 in their entirety would be imbalanced.

I’m eager to see how this plays out with others.

Also, I have the sneaking suspicion that the next incarnation of the game will feature many, if not all, of the HBG custom rules we use now as well as others yet to be seen. So we may as well incorporate them and see how well they integrate.  So, we can say we’re not just play testing 4.1, 5.0, 6.1, 7.0 or whatever, we’re play testing everything HBG is bringing to the plate. We have the pieces and rules so why not?

Rohr,

All resources/rails were placed from word go. Refer to the HBG custom rules on their website for the placement and mechanics. You will see, for example, that Europe has a rail movement of 3 (this includes european russia) so we placed rail markers to display that infrastructure. I am short on rail pieces and need more. The stations in this game  are mainly props but there are rules for them as well. Eventually, we will have trains and railguns.

We use the custom rules from HBG. The resources boost the incomes of nations which hold them or provide special bonuses to production. The railways expedite the movement of units across large distances. For example, Russia’s rail east of the Urals allows them to move one unit per turn anywhere along the southern most Russian territories.

The resources and rail pick things up quite a bit as incomes and movements are enhanced. They also give the players something else to fight over.

You are both very welcome. It was my/our pleasure.

That’s right John,

We used the set up and most of the 7.1 rules but hung on to some of the 6.1 such as Russian income and fortifications.

Though our game is not over (we’ve made a commitment to put in a couple of hours tonight), here are some general observations.

The rule amendments have shifted the balance making things easier for the Allies in terms of staying power and options. Axis gains in this weekend’s game had more to do with good dice rolls, focused play, and weak Allied coordination than any balance issues.

If we had used the 80 IPC starting cash, or 48 IPC income from word go for Russia, a chimp could’ve played them successfully. As it was, increased Soviet forces caused a slowdown on Japan’s and Germany’s push. If the Russian player had been more aggressive, especially against Japan….

The UK fleet is harder to sink now. It can be done, but luck and a willingness to accept higher German air and naval casualties --with possibly no payoff-- are needed. More UK planes make things rougher for the Germans.

15 IPCs starting cash for Italy is a bit low but “manageable”.

No further reduction to Axis forces should take place.

6 IPC German tanks are a boon to the Russians and made for more diverse purchasing and tactical choices for the German player.

Germany should start with a paratroop unit and an air transport.

We liked the old fortification rules better but it seems the new ones, or some variation thereof, will be the case.

We’d like to see the U.S. start out with a Marine or two somewhere (even if they cannot build more before war breaks out). Japan starts with SNLF. The Americans should have Marines as they existed well before the war started (so went the argument).

We’re not satisfied with Vichy yet. For instance, having a Vichy transport in the Med which can’t even transport Vichy units is frustrating.

Communist China’s reinforcements are a PITA for Japan. The new Chinese placement allowance is too. If you wanted to make things tougher for Japan, pat yourselves on the back; a Japanese player won’t  :wink:.

Japan’s sneak attack is ok but the old two-impulse one from the Xeno days was better (in my opinion :-D).

Tangential stuff:

Engineers would be cool  :mrgreen:.

We recommend Global '39 players try playing with resource markers. They add a new dimension and depth to the game.

The consensus is we cannot wait for '36, the expansions (especially amphibious warfare) and new pieces.

Thanks for reading, considering our/my findings, and following our game this weekend.

I’ll post more pics later,

Koba

Eastern Russia, China. FEC/Japan fight on.