Review of my first played Global War 1936 V. 3 game

[Chris_Henry]

@bretters I suppose that’s the thing about the expansions, and probably why they are just that, expansion! I agree, they certainly slow the game down. But from our perspective it’s this: This game already takes sooooo long to play, what’s a little more time with some detail :) haha.

But I get what you’re saying, if you’re not really into the expansions, then they just aren’t for you! I like a lot of them to try and put more focus on different aspects. The ones I like to roll out are:

Latin America at War
China at War
Turkey at War
Netherlands at War
Canada at War
Partisans
Winter War
Spanish Civil War
Afrika Korps
Manchukuo
Croatia at War

I like these ones because, to me, these ones are the least likely to add a ton of special units, but can enhance game play in areas. That might just be my opinion though. I also love to add the other nations to the game (thus the Canada, Netherlands, and Turkey expansions).

I don’t like the ordinance ones, for example, because they add a ton of specific units that you might have one of each on the map at a time.

I like the idea of the elite units expansions, but haven’t quite yet stomached the idea of having to look at a chart before almost every single battle to see what specialized unit does what!

[TheVeteran]

@chris_henry

Latin America at War - we have played with this a few times: it really doesn’t actually add a lot of action to Latin America. oh - i rolled about convoying the US convoy line and don’t have any subs convoying there big whoop… or i rolled and Japan got a sub, ok. the only dice that really matter are the Axis coup (only happens on a roll of a 1 on your D12) or the allied coup that happens with the roll of a 2 on a D12) … honestly this expansion is just extra and for almost no reason. it distracts from the fun to be had elsewhere.

China at War: i like this one, but the rules do still have to be checked on it every game for us and we chose not to play it next game - but we have played it for a few of our games.

Turkey at war - we like it with a couple house rules we made for it.

Netherlands at war: never played this but not interested in it either.

Canada at War: kind of pointlessly makes the game too complicated giving canada its own income and gives Canada something like 6-7 unique units that no player has stats memorized for and every time we want to build them or move them or attack them or defend with you have to look up and it just takes extra time… i dont care you have the queens own rifles of Canada unit… whatever lets just fight.

Partisans: we played this one a couple times and it was very easy to forget partisan rolls this expansion is just very tedious and time confusing and not fun.

Winter war: never played but I know brings extra units that would be hard to remember stats for.

SCW: have played with since the beginning basically: Don’t actually like the regular expansion as the rewards for winning the war are horrible for the republican victory! Also the random events arent great and neither is American influence in the war… Admiral edition is ok but we played with the optional rules that included the extra units and that was dumb… took up extra time and was confusing. Next game we will just go with not playing this and playing OOB.

Afrika Corp: i dont know enough about

Manchukuo: We are currently playing with this but it doesn’t add enough to the game and instead means Japan has to garrison each territory in manchuria just to collect the money. Manchukuo isnt even treated as a separate entity, its still just played as its Japan. silly expansion honestly.

Croatia at war: never played it

Diplomacy: a strong expansion and i believe most people play this one

your very last point. that is exactly what i am saying in regards to mostly Canada at war:

[Chris_Henry]

@bretters Yeah, there’s definitely different wants from different players for these!

I like Latin America because basically nothing will ever happen there otherwise. It’s certainly a sideshow, but I think one that adds flavor somewhere where there wouldn’t be an otherwise. Gives the Comintern some possibilities their too.

China at War I like so that the CCP has more fun too.

Netherlands I like for what I said above, I enjoy getting another smaller playable power in there!

Canada you make a good point on the added units. I’ve contemplated house ruling some of that a bit. But same as the Netherlands, I just like having the playable Commonwealth nation on the board!

Partisans definitely adds time, but so does every expansion if you use it! That was to my earlier point too. The game already takes forever to play, may as well add some more spice haha.

I like the Winter War because it lets the Allies get involved a bit as well. I like to see things where all three alliances can try and influence the play in the area. But I tend to not use the aerosani unit, just seems extra for no reason to me as well.

SCW I like because from what I’ve seen from others, the OOB vastly favors the Axis, but the Expansion vastly favors the Comintern. I haven’t played Admiral just yet, but it sounds like it helps to balance out the two. But kind of like the Winter War, I just like that the Allies can get involved to influence if they so chose!

Afrika Korps is really basic. To me it’s just a fun boost to get some Germany units in Africa when I think without it you wouldn’t see it a ton.

I like Manchukuo since it allows the CCP to potentially do more. I like that Mongolia can get involved too. But I don’t tend to use the patrol boat unit.

I liked Croatia because it divvy’s Yugoslavia into more territories in the game. This expansion also came out before Partisans expansion did, so I was really intrigued by the partisan units in that expansion at the time too haha.

I’m actually only so-so on the Diplomacy expansion personally. True, it adds possibilities for all the neutral powers to be influenced. But for me, I like what some other expansions do for more of these. I like the Latin America Expansion rules more than I like the Diplomacy rules for that area. I like the Turkey at War Expansion more than the Diplomacy ones too. That just leaves the European countries and Siam. Siam, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary are all going Axis anyways. And from there I just think the Axis might prefer to take Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece whenever they can as opposed to trying to influence them. To me, this one adds a lot of time to do when you already know the outcome of a lot of them later on. But that might just be my thoughts.

All reasons why I actually tend to like the Expansion concept though! Everyone can make their games unique to their personal desires!

[TheVeteran]

@chris_henry more to come but a quick comment here: I feel like I’d rather focus on the meat of the war rather than worry about any “spice” that may be available in Latin America . Playing the expansion haven’t really ever seen the Comintern invest in Latin America, it seems really not worth it. So I think sticking with the “meat” of the game is better. And your spice is more like “fat” that needs to be trimmed! Ha

[Chris_Henry]

@bretters Haha fair enough! I just like to have something happen down there rather than nothing!

I actually have yet to be the Comintern in any of our games, but I would love to try some of these things with them when I get the chance!

[TheVeteran]

@chris_henry
If a 1 or 2 isn’t rolled for LAW (these rolls only happen once a year btw) no action is happening , expansion or not lol.

[TheVeteran]

@chris_henry yea you gotta get a chance to play as every nation for sure!

[Chris_Henry]

@bretters

If a 1 or 2 isn’t rolled for LAW (these rolls only happen once a year btw) no action is happening , expansion or not lol.

Haha while very true, to me it’s better than no possibilities of anything happening!

@chris_henry yea you gotta get a chance to play as every nation for sure!

I really have been wanting to play them! The general consensus from these boards have been to have your weakest/slowest learning player play as the Comintern for a while until they are comfortable. So that’s what we’ve been doing haha. We typically play with my dad and my brother and myself. So my brother and I have basically flipped between being the Axis or the Allies, and have left our dad to be the Comintern until he gets it down a bit better. But I just think it would be a lot of fun to be the Comintern and try some things!

[TheVeteran]

@chris_henry @chris_henry yea the Comintern is fun because you can play either side / stay neutral (potentially) . My highlight with the Comintern was hitting a neutral Romania in July ‘39 and then yugo the next turn and northern Italy and Rome in the subsequent turns!

[Chris_Henry]

@bretters Hitting Romania in that way is definitely something I was wanting to do as well! I know it’s not an uncommon thing to do, but I think it still catches the Axis a bit off guard when it’s done haha.

[TheVeteran]

@chris_henry I’ve been the only person to hit Romania in our group of 5 …

[Chris_Henry]

@bretters That surprises me a bit! I think when I first got the game I would have balked at making that move. But the more we’ve played, and I’ve read strategies on the boards here, I think it’s a very viable option. Maybe not necessarily a guarantee you have to do it every game in order to do well, but I think it’s one that should totally be on the table by anyone playing them!

[TheVeteran]

@chris_henry yea next game I play at the Comintern I do want to prioritize attacking Romania in July 39 (if not aligned to Germany yet) and to attack other neutrals adjacent to me so as to not invoke the possibility (justification) for the allies to declare war on me (like I did before when I attacked Italy after going through Romania) and if war erupts between Germany and I , at least I will have taken Romania from them ($9 swing) -$3 NO for Germany $3 territory and don’t forget about the units Romania gets if they align the country … .

[Chris_Henry]

@bretters Totally agree! It’s something I would need to debate in game if I want to risk however many troops it might take to defeat Romania. But just as you said though, taking it at the very least robs Germany of those units to do with as he pleases, and it does give a small economic boon for a while there!

[TheVeteran]

@chris_henry russia can put its whole force or most of its force against Romania in July '39 its not a big risk to attack it based on the combat against the neutral troops alone.

[Chris_Henry]

@bretters Very true. I just meant if like maybe the Soviets had already attacked Finland or something, and lost too many troops and were now worried about the Germans. Something like that. But yeah, I think there’s a lot of instances where attacking a neutral Romania early on can make a ton of sense!

[TheVeteran]

@chris_henry July ‘39 is the first turn Russia can make an attack …. So it’s not a question of if you have attacked Finland or not … you decide how you attack on your first opportunity…. And you need to attack Romania while it’s neutral before it turns German, so if you aren’t attacking in July ‘39 I don’t see it happening.

[Chris_Henry]

@bretters Oh true! Sorry, wasn’t thinking about that part of it!