Hello!
I am completely redesigning the reference sheets for my own customized 1936 Global War game.
Great Britain is the template design and each reference sheet will be unique in artwork, units, and emblems. I’ve imitated the rules of other games and incorporated them into this game. Struggle of Europe and Asia, as well as the political side of Hearts of Iron 3, and certain games in TripleA.
I’ve only included the units pages because I consider them nearly finished apart from bug fixes and tweaks. I have most of the rest of the page done as well, I just need to pretty it up a little bit.
Keep in mind that the units marked in Yellow are nation specific units, with a more detailed explanation of their function on a separate previous page I have not included (but I suppose I can add).
I would love any feedback on this work and any thoughts you have on what I should include and what needs to be clarified further. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. Specifically on the new units and potential problems with them. Thank you.
Here is the Industrial side of things.
Lastly, I decided to add the current page in development; the national bonus/alliances page. Its pretty untidy and needs a lot of work. But I wanted to get some thoughts on the Wartime Bonuses and to ask for advice on what other historical and potentially plausible wartime bonuses you could think of.
I tried to make them all historically plausible. Like the Cape to Cairo railway. Yet I also wanted to add some that would potentially tempt allies to attack their own allies for the sake of furthering the war.
Apart from the last one, the Thirteen Colonies, I view them all as very plausible events, with historical precedents. The French and British both had conflicting interests in Africa. Ireland was staunchly neutral, but their ports where highly desirable for protecting convoys. The Persian corridor was mainly established to assist Russia. The Iraq oilfields where desirable to the British. All the rest are standard.
Anyways! Any thoughts you have would be amazing, and if you have a brilliant idea for a national wartime objective please let me know!
Cheers!
Jinx, just curious.
I have this game, but haven’t played it yet.
Are you making your own rules, because you don’t like the rules that come with it?
If, so are you trying to make it easier or the reverse?
In other words are you trying to have a more complex game or just adding additional things to make the game, more exciting?
Again, just curious, because I haven’t got to play mine, yet.
I noticed you asked a lot of questions on the Global War website, and this is what prompted me to ask you this, out of curiosity.
Thanks. :-)
John
Hello John,
That’s a shame you havn’t played it yet! It’s a fantastic game, honestly the hardest part is finding like minded individuals to play with.
I like the rules, but there are aspects of the game that I wouldn’t have designed, yet where part of the evolution of the game. I’m just realigning it to a game I would enjoy much more.
In the board game Risk, there was only one type of unit. A&A introduced a range of units, each filling a purpose, but allowing a weakness so that other unit types could fill.
My version makes the game more complex and more exciting, yet in a way that makes it more historically accurate, and opens the door to many many more possibilities. That’s why I wanted to design a very thorough reference card, so that the player can quickly skim down and find the unit he needs to do the job.
You can build poison gas and wipe out those pesky Nationalist bastards in Spain, but you unlock a wave of gas warfare in the world and suffer a 2VP points that may lose you the war.
Soviet Russia can build anti-tank guns that knock out a German tank heavy invasion force, decimating their panzergruppe.
The USA is forced to island hop to reach Japan.
Germany can build Partisans in Turkey, breaking the country into civil war and putting a pro-fascist government in power.
Italy can bunker down in Africa, becoming a terrible pest to route out.
Britain can break its alliance with France suffering a penalty, capturing its African territory and raking in up to 15 more IPP.
It just becomes so much more interesting John. More exciting for me, giving many more options to achieve victory.
Hehe, thanks for asking.
Cheers!
Jinx
Yes, there is no one in my region that has the patience to learn, like I’m willing to do, so when I finally will sit down and play, I will have to play each nation by my self, which will be tough. I will probably have to make my own random charts to see what each nation is going to do to not be biased for any one country.
I’m always interested when someone. like yourself comes up with better ways to play, because it only helps me, since I’m on my own.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, because I possibly will use them to, if they work for you.
Cheers! :-D
John
Hello John,
That’s a shame! Players are hard to find, I slowly tempted players in from A&A at a local board game cafe. It will be tough playing all sides of the game, very tough.
I’ve actually incorporated these rules in my current game, and aspects of the rules, specifically the Air Unit rules) in about a 4 games previously.
They work fine! Better then fine! A real air supremacy war happens over Britain and West Germany, with the loser having his factories constantly wrecked. I really like it.
It also forced USA to island hop at least twice, from Hawaii to Marshall Islands, to Philippines, before he could get within Japanese home waters. It lent a historical pattern to the game, and made infrastructure more important.
Anyway, thanks for writing.
Cheers!
No problem, but everything you described I may incorporate in to my game, because I like the air war you mentioned over the English Channel, and it would be fun for the US to island hop.
It also is more historically accurate, like you said.
Anyway, thanks for this awesome work.
Cheers!
John
Being able to scramble into any adjacent territory would apply only into combatted zones. But the fact that you can scramble everything means that the air war does take place, and by adjusting their costs down, it makes the air war a lively active war. Every turn it seems appropriate for a few fighters to replenish losses.
What do you think of Gas Warfare.
I copied the idea from TripleA 1915. It could have great utility in gassing out a stack of infantry in tough places like mountains, where it would be cost effective. But in the plains, perhaps.
Should there be a limit of…3 gas bombard per battle? Or should it be only one gas allowed per battle.
Being able to scramble into any adjacent territory would apply only into combatted zones. But the fact that you can scramble everything means that the air war does take place, and by adjusting their costs down, it makes the air war a lively active war. Every turn it seems appropriate for a few fighters to replenish losses.
What do you think of Gas Warfare.
I copied the idea from TripleA 1915. It could have great utility in gassing out a stack of infantry in tough places like mountains, where it would be cost effective. But in the plains, perhaps.
Should there be a limit of…3 gas bombard per battle? Or should it be only one gas allowed per battle.
Being that I haven’t played this yet, just from my perspective. I like it, but wouldn’t want it to be too powerful, so I would allow one per battle, just for balance sake.
Do you agree or not?
In your version are you going to have all units that are available from HBG that are not in the '36 game?
Also, it would be cool too add the radar pieces from HBG to demonstrate Britains technology as well as the German radar piece.
Do you have those?
They are actually cool looking, but there are no rules for them.
This would be great for the air war.
What do you think?
John brown. I have played the game. Under tech in rules there is a defined way to use those radar pieces either on a land zone or the shore of a sea zone. You just need to research the tech first. Believe on a shore radar grants unlimited number of scrambled planes rather than 3 to that sea zone great for def of Normandy or England.
Jinx. Like what you have done to these charts. The national objective to own eastern usa for Britain is the one aspect that is missing from original game. Its still handcuffed all players to stay on a side from start. Just like ana 1940. Realistically any nation will turn on its allies under the right conditions. The game should allow for that. Was thinking this would work if any player capital is captured besides Paris, any nation should be allowed to attack any other regardless of alliance with a monetary penalty to the bank.
Also like the incorporated extra sculpt/unit types into the chart. Surprisingly HBG hasn’t gotten around to it. Would help them sell the units.
Keep the yellow highlights on the charts. Helps associate specific answers to the unit. May consider dif colours for dif units etc. Or Different colour for interception and carpet bombing, As an example .
@Rank:
John brown. I have played the game. Under tech in rules there is a defined way to use those radar pieces either on a land zone or the shore of a sea zone. You just need to research the tech first. Believe on a shore radar grants unlimited number of scrambled planes rather than 3 to that sea zone great for def of Normandy or England.
Jinx. Like what you have done to these charts. The national objective to own eastern usa for Britain is the one aspect that is missing from original game. Its still handcuffed all players to stay on a side from start. Just like ana 1940. Realistically any nation will turn on its allies under the right conditions. The game should allow for that. Was thinking this would work if any player capital is captured besides Paris, any nation should be allowed to attack any other regardless of alliance with a monetary penalty to the bank.
Also like the incorporated extra sculpt/unit types into the chart. Surprisingly HBG hasn’t gotten around to it. Would help them sell the units.
Keep the yellow highlights on the charts. Helps associate specific answers to the unit. May consider dif colours for dif units etc. Or Different colour for interception and carpet bombing, As an example .
Thanks Rank for pointing the radar tech to me. I appreciate it, because I wanted to use these pieces, because I have had them for so long.
Just to let you know, HBG has started to make the pieces they have been selling for a long time, useable for the '36 game, I just haven’t got to play it yet. If you go to where the units are sold, go to the unit rules, which are a couple links down from the units.
They have done the current US SET, the Marine set, the UK set and the Axis Minor set. They haven’t done any of the others yet, but hopefully, they get them as well, soon.
Thanks for help. :-)
John
@Rank:
Jinx. Like what you have done to these charts. The national objective to own eastern usa for Britain is the one aspect that is missing from original game. Its still handcuffed all players to stay on a side from start. Just like ana 1940. Realistically any nation will turn on its allies under the right conditions. The game should allow for that. Was thinking this would work if any player capital is captured besides Paris, any nation should be allowed to attack any other regardless of alliance with a monetary penalty to the bank.
Also like the incorporated extra sculpt/unit types into the chart. Surprisingly HBG hasn’t gotten around to it. Would help them sell the units.
Keep the yellow highlights on the charts. Helps associate specific answers to the unit. May consider dif colours for dif units etc. Or Different colour for interception and carpet bombing, As an example .
Thank for your input Rank Carcass! The National Objective for Eastern USA got me some flak from one of my usual players. But I think it gives an element of caution in moving everything from the Eastern USA coast. Not that it would ever happen, but there is always that slight minuscule chance it might possibly happen. Any nation can turn on its ally, however unhistorical it may be, if it is to the advantage of its enemy.
Also thanks for the nod towards the yellow highlight. From an aesthetically perspective I wast sure if I should do it. But it makes it more comprehensive to rapidly look up what gives the greatest….Anti-Aircraft value (A-A).
On that note, there is no longer an interception value or carpet bombing value. For Aircraft, there is a Anti-Aircraft attack/defense value, and a Bombing attack/defense value.
I should also explain how aircraft fight.
Every round, the Aircraft roll an “Air Battle Pre-Round”.
Every Aircraft can only do one of the following, choosing one option forgoes the other options.
A. Attack\Defend in an Air vs. Air Combat Round using their A-A value. All casualties are taken from the entire air force, regardless of participation in Air Combat.
B. Reserve Roll. It carries over to the Ground Combat using Bombing Value (Applicable both for Attack and Defense).
B.1. Just before Ground Bombing; Anti-Aircraft Guns fire. Casualties are taken from the Bombing Airplanes.
B.2. Ground units using their A-A value, must state that they are targeting Air Units before Rolling. Casualties are taken from Bombing planes. If unstated, no Aircraft can be taken as casualties even if desired to be done so by the owner of the aircraft.
C. Attempt to Retreat (Both Attacker and Defender). Air Units may forgoe die rolling to retreat from battle. These units must survive A-A attacks to escape the battle completely.
C.1. My opponent favors an exception to this rule. Which I find works quite well. If fleeing aircraft is taken as a casualty, they may make a desperate defense roll vs only air units. Another way of saying this is that Retreating units who become casualties may retroactively roll in the Air vs. Air battle.
We have played with this system both in A&A1940 as well as GW1936. It works really well and I recommend it.
Jinx
As for the highlight every time we get a new guy the charts are so busy this may help simplify the starting learning curve. If you can get a new to game tester for your charts it may assist on readability. I know that the standard charts were a bit of info overload. Suggestion to have starter units better separated from upgrades and researched units. Takes a bit of explaining that every time we get a new guy in. Example germany jumps strait into super heavy tanks skips the 6 regular heavies required first. And all new guys think they can build heavy tanks off the hop without research due to chart placing. A simple coloured highlight signifying reasearch required would eliminate this. Or maybe 3 charts first basic units, second tech and upgrades, final all units together. And get them more into the game faster rather than getting corrected constantly, increases the fun factor for the new guys.
Ah, that explains a few of your chart lines. Didn’t realize you had developed your own air combat rules. They sound interesting. Maybe a bit much for our group now though, lots of newer players. Still not fully grasping current rules without the odd reading.
What program are you using? this has me interested in tidying up our charts.
As for the switch from historical its not often I agree but a real Stalin in this position would. In current game as soviets I own South America and Middle East. And am neutral across the board nonagression pacts with axis. Im ready to attack germany, italy,usa at panama canal, india (fec), africa (uk), and japan at Tokyo, all at once. Germany has london, and japan focused on only us and owns San Francisco. But im not allowed to unless us attacks me first or berlin falls. All combatants are severely unit depleted due to fighting while im ready to go. Russia has largest navy on both oceans lol. In no way would Stalin really hesitate, Russia is a global power able to expand all over the globe. But the rules have the Russians handcuffed. So im now forced to take berlin first and allow the rest to rebuild before i can take it all. Meaning allies must win first, so I can never actually attack allies until the game has already ended realistically.
John Brown
Welcome and thank you also. Ill look into those sets. Was more thinking if 1939 setup comes out. Chart changes adding their newer units would also be a help, if all in one chart. Rather than add-on expansion charts or I’ll need a massive amount of paper on the walls. Don’t want it to become a legal style rules with endless exceptions and loopholes lol. Or nobody will want to play it.
I fully agree with you about how hard the rules are for newer players, because I’m in that category, playing by myself, and having to figure all this out on my own. It is very difficult.
That is why I like how people are gifted, like Jinx, who sometimes make things easier to read and understand.
Plus the new concepts that other players come up with is always fascinating.
Cheers! :-)
John
@Rank:
Jinx
As for the highlight every time we get a new guy the charts are so busy this may help simplify the starting learning curve. If you can get a new to game tester for your charts it may assist on readability. I know that the standard charts were a bit of info overload. Suggestion to have starter units better separated from upgrades and researched units. Takes a bit of explaining that every time we get a new guy in. Example germany jumps strait into super heavy tanks skips the 6 regular heavies required first. And all new guys think they can build heavy tanks off the hop without research due to chart placing. A simple coloured highlight signifying reasearch required would eliminate this. Or maybe 3 charts first basic units, second tech and upgrades, final all units together. And get them more into the game faster rather than getting corrected constantly, increases the fun factor for the new guys.
Ah, that explains a few of your chart lines. Didn’t realize you had developed your own air combat rules. They sound interesting. Maybe a bit much for our group now though, lots of newer players. Still not fully grasping current rules without the odd reading.
What program are you using? this has me interested in tidying up our charts.
As for the switch from historical its not often I agree but a real Stalin in this position would. In current game as soviets I own South America and Middle East. And am neutral across the board nonagression pacts with axis. Im ready to attack germany, italy,usa at panama canal, india (fec), africa (uk), and japan at Tokyo, all at once. Germany has london, and japan focused on only us and owns San Francisco. But im not allowed to unless us attacks me first or berlin falls. All combatants are severely unit depleted due to fighting while im ready to go. Russia has largest navy on both oceans lol. In no way would Stalin really hesitate, Russia is a global power able to expand all over the globe. But the rules have the Russians handcuffed. So im now forced to take berlin first and allow the rest to rebuild before i can take it all. Meaning allies must win first, so I can never actually attack allies until the game has already ended realistically.
John Brown
Welcome and thank you also. Ill look into those sets. Was more thinking if 1939 setup comes out. Chart changes adding their newer units would also be a help, if all in one chart. Rather than add-on expansion charts or I’ll need a massive amount of paper on the walls. Don’t want it to become a legal style rules with endless exceptions and loopholes lol. Or nobody will want to play it.
Hehe, sometime our games turn out to be a lot like that. But we have a core of experienced players and a kind of forgiving system for mistakes in purchases and those that neglected to read the rules.
I’ve played full games of G36 over twenty times now, and I still keep the manual by my elbow and a bunch of online FAQ pages printed out. I’m generally the referee for our game and there is so much to remember and so much grey area that we find we often need to patch it up with house rules.
We have tried it out in past games. For instance, we allowed the Soviets to DOW against the Allies. The Soviets built a massive fleet presence. Though they did DOW against the Allies, the Soviets natural enemy is the Axis.
The fact that the Soviets could now DOW against Allies did not change the game in the slightest. The Soviets VP points are mostly gained from taking neutral nations which they gathered from the middle east. But they had no reason to come into conflict with any western powers except for India (which was taken by Japan) and Egypt, which was far off and did not matter. The Soviets played a great game of pacifism and won the game. Sure at one point they declared war against the Allies, but only because it made the Axis hope that they would come to blows and eased pressure from the German/Soviet border. Only one French Militia was lost in Syria to the Soviets.
My conclusion is that there is no reason for that rule, except for historical railroading (not meant in a derogatory way).
Theoretically the Soviets could build a large fleet (which they did) and marines (which they did) and invade…England (which they did: northern Ireland) or America. But they don’t need too, all the IPP they need can be found on the continent, and in our game, after the soviet fleet invaded Ireland. They trundled back home to the Baltic. It was a pretense to gain them time on the German/Soviet border to strengthen and achieve parity on the border. Earlier, Germany could have taken them, especially with their expenses into a large fleet. But by the time the Axis saw that the Soviets in England in any meaningful way was a pipe dream; it was too late.
No need for a Soviet limiting of DOW, at least in my opinion.
So in our current game. The French (according to designer rules of French DOW to Neutral nations) DOW against Republican Spain while they where in Civil War. They actually went so far as to lose Bordeaux and Marseilles to Republican Spain in Early 1938.
We thought about the rules a little, and said that for this game, we would let the Soviets be capable of DOW against allies, and begin their rearmament rolls because of being at war with a “Major” power. France will be collecting its Wartime Income.
It worked to some degree in Axis favor in the short term, because the French and Soviet fleets mutually decimated themselves, and the Spanish/French forces have cleared western Europe of troops. Perhaps the Soviets will continue to sink Lend Lease to Spain. Perhaps, and if nothing else, France has lost half of its land army because of its need to watch Germany.
In the long term it will bite Axis in the butt. But…perhaps a Chamberlain-Ribbentrop pact can be signed. Perhaps.
Anyways, its exciting. :-)
