Has anyone developed a ww1 setup for the 36 map or any others?
I’d like to have a go at something like that!
Some of the best games are developed by the community on here.
I’ve been waiting for a while for some of these HBG variants…
HBG's Global War 1939 FAQ
-
Cool, I have seen the pictures you have posted, and game reports. The detailed paint job you have done with your units must give your games more depth. It looks like a lot of fun to add more units to your collection, and rules to go with them.
-
-
Are both Chinese powers allowed to occupy the same territory?
-
Red China and Russia are allowed to take over Nat Chinese territories if they are left empty, or they capture them from axis (income goes to Red China). If Szechuan (Nat Chinese capital) is left empty, but still owned by the Nat Chinese and the Red Chinese move in to claim it for the 1 IPC, do they also get the Nat Chinese bankroll? Is the income transferred to Pingliang (Red Chinese capital)? If not would it be returned to the bank because they lost their capital. Could it actually be an allied strat so Japan doesn’t end up with it?
2nd question
Japan can only sneak attack someone they are not at war with right. So if they attack the Philippines in one turn, they can’t do a sneak attack on the US later.Under the Japanese sneak attack, it says “IF NOT AT WAR WITH JAPAN, MAY NOT RETURN FIRE etc…” in the middle of the sentence. The US rules also says the first time attacked I believe (don’t have the rules in front of me). In our game the Japanese declared war on both the US & UK (and Anz by default I guess) took Hong Kong, Singapore, and Manila w/o a sneak attack, so I don’t believe they can use their sneak attack now, because they are at war with everyone, but I’m not sure?
-
-
Quick suggestion about the Russian war production.
The secret protocol of the Ribbentrop and Molotov pact put both East Poland, and Baltic States in the Russian sphere of influence. The rules allow for the Russian to go to full production and declare war if the Germans capture E Poland G1, but does nothing about Baltic States (which Germany could easily take G1). Just thought that a breach of this deal just struck would have flared tensions.
Maybe +10 (or +15) to Russian production if the Germans capture Baltic States G1?
I was actually thinking that Russia probably wouldn’t be ready to declare war right away if Hitler broke the deal by taking E Poland, but would have been on high alert and kicked up to war time production.
Maybe +30 to Russian production if the Germans capture East Poland G1
Maybe +15 to Russian production if the Germans capture Baltic States G1or something in between?
It would allow Russia more income if the Germans break the pact, but they would still have to rely on the production dice to go to war which would show how unprepared they were (delay at least 1 turn). Maybe even allow them to fight in Poland/Baltic States like they do in Finland w/o an official DOW if Germany breaks the pact by capturing either one G1?
-
- Are both Chinese powers allowed to occupy the same territory?
Though ot specifically mentioned in the rules, I expect no, they can not. Historically, it seems the two Chinese factions spent almost as much time fighting each other as they did the Japanese.
- Red China and Russia are allowed to take over Nat Chinese territories if they are left empty, or they capture them from axis (income goes to Red China). If Szechuan (Nat Chinese capital) is left empty, but still owned by the Nat Chinese and the Red Chinese move in to claim it for the 1 IPC, do they also get the Nat Chinese bankroll? Is the income transferred to Pingliang (Red Chinese capital)? If not would it be returned to the bank because they lost their capital. Could it actually be an allied strat so Japan doesn’t end up with it?
I don’t see the Red Chinese being able to do this. There is no mention of the actual IPCs being transferred in the rules. Only Communist Chinese being able to take over un-occupied Nationalist Chinese territories. It would be a good strat though if it were possible.
2nd question
Japan can only sneak attack someone they are not at war with right. So if they attack the Philippines in one turn, they can’t do a sneak attack on the US later.Under the Japanese sneak attack, it says “IF NOT AT WAR WITH JAPAN, MAY NOT RETURN FIRE etc…” in the middle of the sentence. The US rules also says the first time attacked I believe (don’t have the rules in front of me). In our game the Japanese declared war on both the US & UK (and Anz by default I guess) took Hong Kong, Singapore, and Manila w/o a sneak attack, so I don’t believe they can use their sneak attack now, because they are at war with everyone, but I’m not sure?
That’s right. Page 17, under Japan’s special rules part 3.
-
Quick suggestion about the Russian war production.
The secret protocol of the Ribbentrop and Molotov pact put both East Poland, and Baltic States in the Russian sphere of influence. The rules allow for the Russian to go to full production and declare war if the Germans capture E Poland G1, but does nothing about Baltic States (which Germany could easily take G1). Just thought that a breach of this deal just struck would have flared tensions.
Maybe +10 (or +15) to Russian production if the Germans capture Baltic States G1?
I was actually thinking that Russia probably wouldn’t be ready to declare war right away if Hitler broke the deal by taking E Poland, but would have been on high alert and kicked up to war time production.
Maybe +30 to Russian production if the Germans capture East Poland G1
Maybe +15 to Russian production if the Germans capture Baltic States G1or something in between?
It would allow Russia more income if the Germans break the pact, but they would still have to rely on the production dice to go to war which would show how unprepared they were (delay at least 1 turn). Maybe even allow them to fight in Poland/Baltic States like they do in Finland w/o an official DOW if Germany breaks the pact by capturing either one G1?
Not sure about this one. Seems to me that the USSR was keen to not reply to provocations as buying time to prepare for the inevitable war with Germany was more important and the ultimate goal of the so-called pact. If anything, if the USSR takes the Baltic states, Germany should get a free infantry or something, say, in Chezchoslovakia or in Western Poland–if its under German occupation. Hitler was super upset with the USSR’s moves into the Baltic States and part of Romania. In fact, the condradiction here is that the Soviets, while not wanting to respond to German provocations, were busy setting up a buffer zone between themselves and said Germans. They were, in fact, getting ready for war and not as “un-prepared” as we are often led to believe. Incidentally, one rule I really like is Germany’s bonus for not being at war with the USSR. This reflects the Soviets “buying time” with resources.
-
Koba, I agree that Russia was buying time, with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (10 year non-aggression pact, with the division of Eastern Europe), so was Germany. It gave the Russians both the time, and buffer states they wanted (although both parties knew it wouldn’t last that long). The first secrete protocol divided Poland, and assigned eastern Poland, parts of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, to the Soviet sphere of influence. Most of Lithuania was originally in the German sphere (next to Prussia), but was placed under the Soviets influence in the second secrete protocol the following month from what I’ve recently read. The Germans steam rolled Poland, and the Russians came crashing through a couple weeks later to claim their part (East Poland in game terms). The countries of the Baltic States were forced into treaties of mutual assistance with Russia so they could establish military bases and a military presence.
From the maps I’ve seen of the intent of “the spheres of influence”, and what Russia actually gained afterwords in Eastern Europe, it looks like the Soviets got more then they bargained for. The Germans didn’t go to war with Russia for claiming more territory then agreed upon at the time, although they were probably PO about it. They were planning an invasion of France, and couldn’t sustain a two front war. The Russians wouldn’t have DOW either if Germany would have moved into the Soviet zones, because they were in a wait and see how far the Germans would go vs Western allies. Both parties had an agenda, and neither wanted to go to war with each other at that time.
All I was saying is that the game allows for the Russians to go to full production, and declare war (very drastic) if the Germans conquer East Poland G1 (a blatant breach of the secrete protocol). I’m not too sure that the Russians were willing to do that (and it doesn’t sound like you do either), and there is nothing stopping the Germans from claiming the Baltic states G1 which was also in the Soviet sphere of influence (move up the war production slightly, but defiantly not DOW because of it). I was simply looking at ratcheting up the Russians war production if either of these territories were taken G1 (East Poland being more valuable on that scale), rather then an all out war if the Germans take East Poland.
-
Yep, agreed.
I do think the Soviet declaration of war over East Poland is a bit much and I’d agree with the Baltic States scenario you describe for turn 1 (only).
This is one of the things I love about this game (and AandA in general) it gets people talking about history.
-
Yep, the power of Google LOL
-
Hey was on board game geek yesterday and the new set-up is posted (6.1), still no units in South America :cry:
Looks like they added to the tech system (haven’t played w/tech yet) There are also some new rules included too, but the complete new rules booklet isn’t due out sometime in October from what I’ve heard.
-
The 6.1 rules you see on BGG are not from us. That seems to be someone’s house rule changes to the game. Official rules changes from us will be noted as 5.1, and will be posted by Coach (HBGcom) or myself (Blkstook). Sorry for any confusion. Let us know if you like any of the house rule changes he has made.
-
The 6.1 rules you see on BGG are not from us. That seems to be someone’s house rule changes to the game. Official rules changes from us will be noted as 5.1, and will be posted by Coach (HBGcom) or myself (Blkstook). Sorry for any confusion. Let us know if you like any of the house rule changes he has made.
Imposters :evil:
Ok, glad you have cleared that up. I will let you know once I’ve had time to read through it.
In this bogus 6.1 rule set there are some slight tweaks to the set-up, and the NO as well. Some costs of units were changed (like Japan tanks -1 cost 8 IPC), and they played around with some of the attack/defense values a bit too.
It doesn’t say but I think AAA guns perform like they do in Alpha+3 (many have been added to the set-up, and -1 in cost), and that is something that interests me. Also if Moscow, or England is taken you keep 1/2 your income and transfer it to your new capital.
I think I like the two cost structure of a fort (major or minor?). I think his costs are off though. I also think that there should be a max of inf that get a +2 bonus (thinking Moscow here), maybe tied to their costs? Some territories are susceptible to attacks from the sea, others are not, but have multiple borders. Maybe allow a 10 IPC fort (minor) to def from one direction or from the sea (must be told when built), it boosts up to 10 inf and rolls 2 dice at 5 in defense (first round of battle). If you place a second fort in that territory (2 forts=major=20 IPCs), then you are protected from all directions (including paratroopers) and can boost up to 20 inf+2, and get to roll 4 dice at 5 (first round of battle). You would need to go through the original forts in the game to determine if they are a 1 fort minor (protect from one direction), or 2 fort majors (protect from all directions). Not sure about how he allows you to move a fort for 1-2 IPCs (Atlantic wall)?. Maybe for 1/2 the cost (5 IPCs) you can move an existing fort up to 2 territories if on land (not islands). I say 1/2 (5 IPCs) because you could probably move the big guns, but the concrete and infrastructure?
The Japanese surprise attack is interesting. We have messed that up in both games we’ve played though and not been able to pull it off. The last game the Japanese player just didn’t realize once you were at war with that power you couldn’t sneak attack them (at least that’s how we took it). Japan took Phil, and Hong Kong not realizing that they couldn’t use their sneak attack against powers they were at war with (rendering it useless). We’re also not sure if your allowed to share a sea zone with your potential enemy, be in a sz next to a territory of your potential enemy, or how close your allowed to get to the US coast line. I know there are no restrictions now, but we have experimented/played as if there are (thinking that there will be a change here later). So can they block you out with multiple destroyers (say from India) then you basically have to kill the blocker in one turn (which puts you at war with that power), so you can’t sneak attack them on your next turn once your in position. Much will be decided in the new rulings.
If the Japanese were given a double attack like the Germans then that would allow them to kill off blockers and then make a second attack (if they can’t share SZ’s). I think the double NCM is very important to them though too, so they can hit & run.
In HBG version the German blitzkrieg allowing for second attacks at sea is kinda strange to me, but because of set-up I know it is needed to cripple the Royal Navy. Being able to use your newly built units is also kinda weird, we normally build a couple bombers to insure more damage to the UK fleet (it’s all good).
Just seems like if both the Germans and the Japanese had the same basic rule when attacking an enemy for the first time it might be more streamline. A 1st turn must for Germany vs UK, France & Poland, and any time for the Japanese before turn 8 (or before US enters war vs US?). Maybe even reduce the Germans starting IPCs from 52 to 17, and allow for them to also get a one time bonus of say 35 IPC (like the Japanese do). It really doesn’t change anything (Germans would still get 52 IPCs), just keeps the rules the same for both axis powers. You could also say that only the units built w/bonus income can be used in the second attack, units from the normal/starting income are placed at the end of the compete turn as normal?
I don’t think I like how he forces the US to keep 2 capital ships at Hawaii (kinda gamey to me). Like I said we haven’t successfully done a sneak attack to see how it plays out, very interested to see what happens w/US ships having -2 after they don’t get to fire at all in the first round. He has nerfed that, so he must have thought it to be too powerful I guess.
-
During our testing last weekend, many changes came to light including the sneak attacks. I am still in the process of writing it all up and the group would like to test a few changes again at the beginning of November. We feel many improvements were made. Keep playing stuff out though and let us know your input on anything you feel needs to be addressed. I can tell you we addressed ALL the items in this thread and the stuff from BGG during our game. I think you’ll like the changes!
-
Good to hear. If you get a chance maybe you could post or high light some of the changes you’re considering (unofficial).
-
Great news about the changes to come.
This past weekend a question came up regarding the Japanese IC on Siam. Can it be upgraded to a major?
It was also debated (again) regarding the necessity of owning Gibraltar in order to pass through the strait.
We are also wondering if flak towers will be added to the new marker rule set.
Hope you all had a good time playing last weekend (we certainly did!).
-
Great news about the changes to come.
This past weekend a question came up regarding the Japanese IC on Siam. Can it be upgraded to a major?
We actually tried this and it became a game breaker. The current revision to the Siam rules are: Siam can be activated anytime. 1 free infantry per turn. Minor IC ONLY may be built on or after turn 3.
We found a major pumping out 10 units per turn was impossible to hold off down there.
It was also debated (again) regarding the necessity of owning Gibraltar in order to pass through the strait.
Yes, we debated this too. With the Italian navy so strong, we found it better to say yes to requiring Gibraltar and having the Turkish straights closed.
We are also wondering if flak towers will be added to the new marker rule set. Good idea!
Hope you all had a good time playing last weekend (we certainly did!).
-
@WILD:
Good to hear. If you get a chance maybe you could post or high light some of the changes you’re considering (unofficial).
As mentioned, Siam held to Minor IC on turn 3 and after.
Small changes to Japan’s sneak attack.
Help for UK Sea Lion defense
Minor additions of facilities
Neutral armies a bit smaller and new rules for capturing their capitols
Many rule clarifications thanks to you all! -
@WILD:
Good to hear. If you get a chance maybe you could post or high light some of the changes you’re considering (unofficial).
As mentioned, Siam held to Minor IC on turn 3 and after.
Small changes to Japan’s sneak attack.
Help for UK Sea Lion defense
Minor additions of facilities
Neutral armies a bit smaller and new rules for capturing their capitols
Many rule clarifications thanks to you all!Yeah, Japan built a major for Siam in one of our games too, it was not good. With that in mind, Germany normally builds a major in Romania G2 too. Would that also follow a similar ruling of no major IC on an axis minor power territory? Russia also has a tough time against the Germans, and Romania to Moscow is only 3 spaces (same as Siam to Calcutta). Germany gets to build 5 IPC tanks, and even art can move faster in this game (unstoppable?). With Romanian units in the mix, the Germans can get 11-12 units built there each turn plus more units from Bulgaria/Hungary (if they save/build right).
-
Great news about the changes to come.
This past weekend a question came up regarding the Japanese IC on Siam. Can it be upgraded to a major?
We actually tried this and it became a game breaker. The current revision to the Siam rules are: Siam can be activated anytime. 1 free infantry per turn. Minor IC ONLY may be built on or after turn 3.
We found a major pumping out 10 units per turn was impossible to hold off down there.
It was also debated (again) regarding the necessity of owning Gibraltar in order to pass through the strait.
Yes, we debated this too. With the Italian navy so strong, we found it better to say yes to requiring Gibraltar and having the Turkish straights closed.
We are also wondering if flak towers will be added to the new marker rule set. Good idea!
Hope you all had a good time playing last weekend (we certainly did!).
One thing I forgot to mention on Gibraltar. Undetected enemy subs may pass at anytime.
-
I just want to make sure I am reading the rules right. I have the 2nd gen map and a copy of the 5.0 rules. Page 32/33 regarding subs. I understand the destroyer/sub detection. What throws me a little is page 33 the first line second paragraph which states “Undetected subs can only be fired upon by enemy submarines”. In reading into this if a sub were to attack/defend against a battleship/cruiser the battleship/cruiser is removed from the board like an unescorted transport since the battleship/cruiser can not fire back/hit the sub.
-
The way the 5.0 rules are written, defending BBs and CAs would be destroyed as you say. Attacking BBs and CAs would have to retreat. We are looking into revising this rule. Figure on either: all surface ships can return fire after first strike. Or you may have to buy lots of DDs! Give us a few days on this one. What’s your opinion on how it should work?
Suggested Topics
