Hey Credulous! Sorry, didn’t log in for a few days. I’ll PM you Doug and Will’s emails now. I’ll also post your questions to the Global War page!
7.0 Clarification
-
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.
-
Sorry about your medical issues! When will 7.1 be out? In the next couple days?
We not going to play simply because we not sure about the clarifications (especially when special units can be bought?, Japan sneak attack BEFORE turn 3?, 80 IPC Russia?, etc.).
I don’t think the Axis stand a chance now and no one we play with wants to play them but that is not really that important. Clarifications/cleanup are all that matter at this point.
-
Did anyone else notice that the UK starts out with 3 more infantry, 3 more fighters, and 3 more destroyers? Was this playtested with the no Germany 2nd naval attack impulse also? I feel like I’m missing something.
Thanks,
Bill -
Germany can no longer take Norway and get their bonus because they can’t use their navy to attack for the 2nd impulse. They possibly could do it, but they would have to destroy the Denmark navy 1st impulse instead of letting it roll after the Denmark falls.
The Russian 6 ipc national advantage is still in play? Was any of these new rules playtested at all or is it just ideas thrown onto paper?
-
Sorry, my last remark was a bit harsh.
-
Bill, yes I did notice extra UK pieces plus the minor factory can be up graded to a major factor in India.
We have a game in 2 weeks so be nice to see correctionMaybe give Germanys naval back to attack on 2nd impulse.
Take 80 icp’s away from Russia but let them keep all new pieces on setup.
Let Japan have sneak attack but has to use before turn 6.
In our games Japan doesn’t attack until anywhere from turn 3 to turn 6. -
I noticed the UK re-reinforcements as well. As Germany I generally do not invade Norway by sea anyway and do not end up with the bonus until after declaring war on the USSR and going into Norway via Finland. Regardless, I am with you SS regarding the changes you mentioned.
Saying that, it looks like they want us to play it out as presented. We’ll give it a whirl the weekend of the 20/21st and see how it shakes down.
-
Be Great to get your imput before our game on the 27th.
-
All these were play tested. The group that tested had issues with the Axis being way too strong. I now know that I cant please everyone. Lol. Ill make necessary corrections and clarifications and will have a 7.1 by sat morning. It wont be perfect and im sure we will have a 10.0 in a few years but I think thats what makes this game and forum really cool.
-
8-)
-
Germany can no longer take Norway and get their bonus because they can’t use their navy to attack for the 2nd impulse.
How often do you attempt take norway turn 1?
-
Not sure if these were excluded due to balance issues however Italy and Japan both fielded paratroopers.
In fact, Italy was the first nation to perform a paradrop in 1927. They deployed the Folgore Division which was similar in size to the German paratrooper wing.
The Japanese deploy 3 battalions (1 regiment) which is 1/3rd to 1/6th of other axis force sizes. They were restricted to the SNLF and conducted drops in support of amphibious actions at Menado and West Timor. Given there small size and their poor equipment they may exist below the scale of Global War, however given the number or troopers other nations can deploy the Japanese would be able to deploy at least 1 paratrooper. The poor equipment was due to Japan’s poor understanding of doctrine regarding paratroopers, at the time they were formed no one had conducted a combat drop. They were thought to need very light weapons for more a more garrison style role rather than machine guns and mortars for heavy action.
Suggested Topics
