Posts made by Trig

@bretters
Here is y thought.
As referenced above, victory points for italy are all about spreading their influence and becommign at great power aginan. ITaly didn’t want to fight a war. Mussolini only joined when it looked like the allies would be a pushover.
Thus, it makes sense that a neutral Italy could achieve all their VPs. This game is not just about the war. Some nations can work better through peace and posturing.

Also, other nations can get all of their VPs at peace.
France, UK, US, USSR, I think even Japan. Italy is not an exception.

@chris_henry
@GEN-MANSTEIN
I understand your point.
However, I think that putting war crimes in the game, things like terror bombing, unrestricted sub warfare, concentrations camps, etc. is a very risky thing. When one puts such a tactic into that game, you are confirming it as a viable tactic, something we should try to avoid. Sinking ships without warning, or bombing civilians are not things that we want to promote or confirm, even unintentionally.
My little brother (under 10) plays with me sometimes. I don’t want him think that because we can something in game means we can do it in real life. I find that staying away from such things is the best course. This is a similar reason I don’t use swastika markers in my game. Adding such a feature is easily seen as condoning it.
I understand that all sides committed crimes. I do not support any such behavior, and hope that someday, it will all cease and the antagonists held accountable. The perpetrator of a crime has no effect on its horror, and no bearing on this situation.
This is not a simulation. We can have noble leaders in game who do not chose to go down that vicious path.
Let us not repeat the mistakes of our predecessors.

@gen-manstein B/C that is terror bombing of civilians, considered a war crime. We don’t deal with war crimes in these games. It is just not tasteful.

@timothy-gengarella
To expand upon what @Linkler said, tech is not retroactive.
Most techs grant you the ability to build a new, more powerful unit, such as jets, rockets, advanced mech etc…
Other like Wartime economy grant you a bonus, but that does not apply to units.
The only techs that have a retroactive effect are Long Range Aircraft, Imp. Factories, and Imp. Construction.
LRG gives all planes a bonus in movement.
Imp. Factories upgrades all facoties,
and Imp. Construction upgrades all shipyards.

@insanehoshi True…
I forgot that.

@imperious-leader Really? Not needed.

@ghetty If you don’t mind the cost, HBG has a decent array of 3D printed seaplanes.
They also have calvary, which come in several colors. (Or you can use risk calvary if you are cheep.)
As for Gurkhas, you can use chips, or use 1/72 infantry or HBG’s Mountain troops.

@vondox
So, the way air superiority works is actually rather simple if you figure it out.
It is not really an extra step, but can be separated out for ease.
Basically, any hits fighters or jets get on the first round of combat must be applied to planes. That is it. Just make sure you keep track of your fighter’s hits so you can dole them out separately.
So, fighters don’t get to shoot twice, other planes can shot at other things, and superiority is NEVER first strike. It is just a weird form of target select.

I hope that helps.

Is anyone else somewhat dissatisfied with carpet bombing?
I am ok with the numbers, but believe that it should be extended to ships.
Historically, B-17s and Lancasters (strategic bombers) did conduct high altitude carpet bombing raids and ASW work. (The battle of the Bismarck sea and Tirpitz being two major examples.)
I think that applying carpet bombing to ships would allow for interesting raids, as well as some limited sub hunting.
If thought too powerful to hit a large cruiser and sink it without reply, then one could take the dice down -1.
Also, fighters on carriers can intercept.

Thoguhts?

@david-06 I agree with this idea.
My thought is that you restrict this to bombers. (Tac, Medium…) and not fighters, as fighter strafing wasn’t that useful in this regard.
Also, I would have the attack at 1/2 their normal value. Just to keep it from being to OP.

@david-06 Cool idea!
I might give it a range of one. That allows for it to move some, without taking precious rail assets.
What is its interception value?

So, anyone have thoughts on the Bigger 2025?
I had heard about it a few years ago, but can’t find the posting.
What are you looking for?
I’d like to see things such as more expanded nation options. Nations like India or Japan. Another thing could be a more flexible alliance structure, so allowing solo players, like India or the Caliphate.
For units, I’d like more options (obviously) but also things like patrol craft or corvettes, as well as a good array of planes and helicopters. A insurgency is also a good idea, so is diplomacy.

What are you looking forward to or want?
Also, any news on this?

I suggest moving this to the 2025 section.

@jan-aerts
@Noneshallpass
@insaneHoshi
To me, the use of the word “scramble” implies that scrambling is the mechanic used. Since scramble needs an airbase, I would assume that when scrambling for interception combat, one would need an airbase. This includes the same or adjacent territories.
That is my reasoning. I do think an FAQ would be useful.

@aldrahill
Here is what I’ll say.
I am in a similar boat (I have G40, 41, Risk and D-Day) and I think my way works.
I use a form of RC’s chip method, marking pieces with chips to designate their function. This eliminates huge numbers of sculpts.
I use risk pieces as militia, calvary and coastal guns, and then I made clay fortifications. any other bases I use other clay pieces, or G40 markers.
For the CCP, I use Russian pieces, and the KMT French. If the bigger power comes, I would pull out more roundels to mark. Similarly for Spain. (that time USSR and Italy)
For Vichy, I just use vichy roundels under the ships and on the territories, and it saves you from getting another set.
For the neutrals, I have a few neutral infantry from when they were cheep, but I mostly leave the off board until needed. Then they are aligned, or if controlled, just use an upside down roundel and the controlling powers pieces.

As for a bundle, I know that HBG used to do a buddle for their original 1939 game, but stopped because not many people got it. Either the high price or imperfect nature of what was in it, etc, drove the awway. I am sure if HBG did do one for v3, then they would have tons or pieces, but even then, not they don’t have everything. Some things you would need to paint or outsource, and it would be prohibitively expensive.

Also, here is GHG’s list of needed pieces. Some errors I know of are a need for more light cruisers for the US/Japan, or more seaplanes (6-8?) for the Commonwealth. Also, France and Anzac could use some tech units.
Note: This is ideal. Not needed. IF you have less, you can probably still play the game.
https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/assets/images/HBG/GW1936v3/Accessories/Needed Units for Global War 36V31.pdf

I hope that helps.

@david-06
The base land unit in GW36 represents a Corp sized unit. (50,000 men or so) This includes Infantry, Mountain Inf, Armor, Mechs, etc. Airborne and Calvary are divisional level and contain around 25,000-35,00 troops.
The importance of this is that in most cases, anti-tank support, small artillery, AA batteries etc are contained within a unit. (Artillery class units [to me] represent larger than usual concentrations of such, as artillery was a support unit and not concentrated in high level formations. A ratio of one artillery piece to every 3 infantry corp or so.) Thus the mixed corp is already in the game, but differentiated based on the base unit, whether that be tanks, mechanized infantry, or light infantry.
As for living off the land, by the 1940s, this was no longer an option, as the larger numbers of troops and the specialized supplies needed (ammo, uniforms, rations, fuel, spare parts) could not be adequately sustained without a supply train. The only nations I know of that used that sort of tactic was Japan/China, but I believe that was for smaller units. Also, scorched earth tactics in many places sort of impacted that.
I think that for a 19th century game, these corp would work well, but by the 1940s, they are another outdated tactic. (like marching in straight lines. :) )

I’m going to put my two cents in here.

I think you can have the best of different types of players. For instance, though Panzer King is not the best tactician or strategist, he is defiantly top of the list for customizations and being a all-around nice guy. GHG is a strong player and decent guy, though not that tacitly interesting, and then you have Jinx, who is great at the strategic element of the game. Those are just some I have seen, and feel free to put in others.

@chris_henry correct

@david-06 I agree. If you say that 33km is to far, what about the other territories that are far larger? I think that Rome historically, and practically is a coastal city. For instance, the Roman metropolitan area extends to the port of Ostia, which sits at the coast. I don’t like the idea of putting it inland. Also, the Allies landed at Anzio in Jan and were in Rome by June, which is one turn. It just doesn’t make sense to me. The reason the allies never attacked was due to the mountains and heavy defense, two things that are shown in game. Not due to it distance from the coast.

@insanehoshi That would be my thoughts. Something like this:
A: 2
D : 2
M: 1 (may move without transport up to 2 spaces)
C : 3 (or 4)
may attack one ship in an adjacent sea zone per turn. No other combat movement allowed. Roll a d12. 1-2, sunk, 3-8 damaged, 7-9, no effect, 10-12, attacking returns to home country.
If Damaged, a ship must be repaired by normal means (dockyard or shipyard) and cannot combat move or conduct combat. If attacked, it defends at 1.