So if it doesn’t use a first strike ability… it can’t be hit? wtf.
Pretty Much, it makes sense for game balance, but not so much for realism.
7.0 Clarification
-
The allies will be landing in Europe quite soon methinks.
Japan is going to feel the heat as well. The Chinese will be able to place six units per territory, Soviets hugely strengthened in the east, ANZAC and FEC permitted major ICs on Sydney and Calcutta. Nowhere will be safe for the Axis.
I’m up to bad this time as Germany and Japan (got a puppet running Italy). I’m going to run through this and start working out my strategy this week before I get home from work. I don’t think just sitting down and figuring this out on the fly will work out.
The boys have worked out a doozie for us to figure out that’s for sure.
What dya think SS? Get building those Tigers and SS units ASAP? I’m seeing lot’s of SS panzergrenadiers/arty combos as well as SS infantry a la HBG rules.
Japan will be sticking to big navy and infantry builds.
Italy, um, well, we’ll see.
-
We cant play until we have the official fixes on 7.0. When do the special units arrive? When does Japan have to use their sneak attack? etc. Sheets say one thing, rules say another.
Are you going to fix these again?
-
Can the axis land lease :x LOL Buy all SS units. Why do I like the sound of that.
Germany going to need alot of Vichy and hope Russia and US have very low die rolls for income.They get high rolls early they can also land lease.
Funny, last game we played the last 4 tries for land lease ( 20 icp’s each turn ) was destroyed. We got are A$$es kicked.Cairo got more support.
The upgrade to major factories in Anzac and India has to do with The Halifax rule maybe.
I’d upgrade those on first turn.I just scanned rules but it looks like a new rule for allies victory at end of turn 10. Maybe these rule upgrades are for a shorter game for Allies victory.
Sorry just blabbin.
-
Yeah, the lend lease thing never works out for me either. I just gave up on it and put the money toward building a big US fleet with marines and armour.
The more I’m looking at this, the more I’m thinking the Axis player will have the opportunity to replay all those “glorious” fighting retreat (Germans) and (mass) death with honour (Japanese) battles we’ve read about. And if the rolls go as you’ve said, those battles will happen sooner rather than later.
80 IPC USSR starting IPC!!! Can you say “Gotterdammerung”?
I’m strongly considering foregoing the sneak attack in favour of keeping the US out just a little longer. The 35 IPC boost may not be worth it. We’ll see.
You know, since I’ve been playing this game I’ve never used a kamikaze. It’s looking like that is going to change.
How am I going to subdue China, deal with the commonwealth and a USSR on steroids? Used to be, even in old school A and A, if one Axis country was weak the other would be strong enough to help out. Now it’s looking like they’ll all be fighting for their lives very soon.
This is going to require a significant rethink.
-
I think we need them to fix the mistakes on 7.0 before we can make any judgments. At this point it’s hard to make any conclusions. They just got pressured into hurrying to post the new rules without proofreading. It’s partially all of our faults for pushing them to fix the rules.
-
Yep, I hear ya Bill. I just hope they have it clarified by time I get home to play. As it stands I’m preparing for the worst case Axis scenario.
-
Well, for what it’s worth, the Axis were overpowered in 6.1. I pretty much always saw axis victory. 7.0 does, however, look like it needs more fine tuning. I can’t say for sure though. I can’t ever get a good game going… I like alot of the changes, but not all of them, obviously. I could see the Russians starting with about 35 IPC’s and starting from 0 (like it is right now) for their income progression. No complaints about the setup, but again, I can’t test it.
-
Yes, the balance was a bit off. Now we wait and see if the pendulum has swung too far the other way. The others in the group I play with are already reviewing the rules and plotting. I hope the Russia 80 IPC start is a mistake. If not….
-
Yes, the balance was a bit off. Now we wait and see if the pendulum has swung too far the other way. The others in the group I play with are already reviewing the rules and plotting. I hope the Russia 80 IPC start is a mistake. If not….
80 ipcs?
-
Nvm, I just saw the new setup
-
I have a question. with Russia and the U.S having a start amount and then having to roll two dice each round til they reach full production or attacked. Do they only get that amount to spend til they are at war ? or do you only collect what you roll and have for you production amount at the end of each round adding to whatever if any starting IPC?
-
As per the example on page 26 of the v7.0 rules each nation rolls each turn adding the results together.
To repeat the example
Turn 1 - Russia roll an 8 off 2d12. Collects 8 IPC for turn 1
Turn 2 - Russia rolls a 10. Collects 18 IPC. (8 from turn 1 + 10)
Turn 3 - Russia rolls a 5. Collects 23 (8 + 10 + 5)If the Russian did not spend any of these IPC he would have 49 IPC to spend on turn 4.
I would like to point out a flaw in the wording of this rule though.
“Starting on Turn 1, Russia will roll 2D12 at the end of each turn to determine its income level…” - v7.0 Global War pg 26
This should read (in my opinion)
“Starting on Turn 1, Russia will roll 2D12 at the start of the Collect Income phase to determine its income level…”
The example makes clear when to do the roll and can be inferred from the original wording but the second seems more clear. (Again in my opinion)
-
sorry didn’t noticed the example in the rules til you point it out thanks.
-
As you probably seen US starts at 0 and rolls 2 d12’s also on first turn.
-
Other observations from the wording of v7.0 rules…
Naval Base - First sentence contains the word “adjacent” I believe this should be dropped. Naval bases should only effect the sea zone they are in.
Further the first sentence should be changed from “… the movement allowance of sea units …” to “… the movement allowance of friendly sea units …”
Having the Japanese navy gain the benefit of the Singapore base while invading Java and Singapore occupied by UK troops seems just wrong to me :)
Also the rules as they are written allows an enemy navy occupying the sea zone covered by a naval base to fight off attacking air units using the naval bases AA regardless of actual ownership of the naval base.
Fortification - This section also has a phrase that I believe needs review, “….for every Infantry defending covered by the Fortress (up to 10) the attacking units get a -2 to attack.” This phrase would result in a -2 per Infantry to all attackers. So if 3 Infantry defend all attackers get a -6. This is not what is intended and the example in the rules clears this up. I would suggest the following language “…for every Infantry defending covered by the Fortress (up to 10) an attacking unit get a -2 to attack.”
Also I think focus is lost over when a Fortress works or not. Singapore was famously captured by the Japanese via a land assault from the jungle bypassing Singapore’s fortifications. However strictly interpreting the rules if Japan assaulted Singapore from the land only the extra 2D12 the fortification provides would be nullified. The -2 per infantry effect would remain. Specifically I am looking at this wording…
“Any hits scored by the fortress must be assigned to eligible attackers. For instance, if the Fortress only defends from the sea zones, a unit amphibious assaulting must be chosen.”
This addresses the extra dice the fortress generates but says nothing regarding the -2 Infantry effect. I believe both benefits are intended to be restricted to those attacks the fortress defends against.
Lastly, no mentioned is made of the effects of fortifications built within the game. I assume all of these are of the “defends against any attack” type of fortress but a clarification the rules would be nice.
EDIT Actually one more thing … I think there is benefit to introducing unit types. In the rules only infantry benefit from the -2 a fort produces, however infantry is a type of military unit as well as a specific piece that can be placed on the board. In the case of forts I believe the rules mean infantry as a type rather than a A&A piece. Therefore, Marines, Airborne, Berg. Guards, and Commandos can all gain the benefit of forts. Again a clarification would be beneficial.
Thank you
-
Warwick - you should definitely offer to help fine tune the rules! Excellent wording. I basically try to follow what I sense/believe what the designers intentions are, but the problem is that is always open to interpretation.
To Whom It May Concern - CAN YOU PLEASE FIX THE RULES FOR 7.0? I would call them discrepancies at this point from the differences between the setup sheets vs. the rules. We want to play and are driving 2 hours this weekend to sit down for 16 hours and play.
Still not sure you truly meant 80 IPC’s for Russia and BEFORE turn 3 for Japan - but if that’s what the rules say then we have to accept that. Those 2 factors seem to break the game automatically but we need to see first.
-
For what it is worth I tend to go off the set-up sheets.
If we interpret the 15 turn limit to reflect the length of the war then each turn is about 5 or 6 months in length. Pearl Harbor would then occur on the 5th or 6th turn of the game. Further given the US entry function (2D12 a turn) the US will be neutral until the 7th turn of the game. If you factor in +5 for an attack on France and a +10 attack on Russia US entry aligns along a turn 5 or 6 as well. Therefore I think the turn 8 is the clear choice. The extra turns allowing Japan to surprise counter-attack into 1942.
Given the heavy nature of the edits on the Russia set-up sheet the 80 IPCs seems correct. Implied in the number of edits is the revelation that Russia was getting prison-raped in their play-testing sessions. I have never played Global 1939, in fact the map and pieces are in the mail right now. As soon as I have them I will try a session using the set-up sheets “as is” with a focus on a strong Barbarossa. If Russia can trivially brush it off then I will think there is a problem. If Russia and Germany become involved in a brutal slug fest that could break either way then I will think it is perfect. :)
-
@ Warwick. My point is you shouldn’t have wonder which paper to use to see how the game is played. The rules on the setup sheet should match the rules on the paper. And the new Japanese needing to sneak attack before turn 3 doesn’t add up at all in any way whatsoever. I would suggest waiting for an official ruling. I never saw Russia as needing an extra $140 IPC’s worth of units and IPC’s in any game we’ve played. Now that the Germany/Italy navy is weakened coupled with the German navy only being able to attack on the first impulse there is no way Russia was intended to be that strong.
-
Hey guys. Ive been out of commission the past week with some medical issues and just got on to catch up.
Sorry for the typos from the rules to the setups.
Also alot of these changes came from a test group other than HBG. So please play with the 7.0 rules and see how your game goes. I will have a 7.1ready with fixed typos and more clarifications too.
I have been swamped with other projects and did rush these out, but thats no excuse. Help me make this an even better game by sending me errors and a little feedback from your games.
-
Sounds good. I won’t be playing until next weekend anyway so the clarifications will most likely be out before that.
I send feedback when we are done. Maybe some pics too.
Suggested Topics
