HBG's Global War 1939 FAQ

@Whitshadw:

Don’t forget to donate next year to help keep this forum going. Help us keep HBG questions here where they belong.

Piss Off  El Cheapo !!!

[Much of this was posted as a reply in the Refusing the Dragon thread. I thought it appropriate to post separately for any follow-up.]

In my first game as Japan, I decided to go ‘all out’ against China and was quite successful. In a nod to Jinx1527, I call this the “Swallowing the Dragon” strategy.

It starts before Japan’s first move by getting the USSR to agree to the Japanese-Soviet Non-aggression Pact. That kills any possible USSR lend-lease to the KMT. It also eliminates the worry over border clashes and building up of troops in the north. Thus, the units in Manchuria are freed up to go south.

The CCP is hurting for money, so it seemed logical to go after the KMT first, especially the Burma Road to make sure they couldn’t buy artillery. I mobilized every available land unit and the entire Japanese air force against the KMT. I was able to take the remaining three ‘bonus’ territories (Peking, Zhejiang, Guangxi) and also Yunan by T2. That effectively ended any immediate KMT threat.

Although they are hurting for money, the CCP starts with 11 units plus they get a recruitment roll. After fighting the KMT, I still needed to reinforce my position against them. Initially, aircraft were used. In following turns, armor would be forthcoming from the two minor ICs, one in Henan and one in Zhejiang, placed at the end of T2. (These ICs will also be used to prepare for an overland invasion of the FEC.) With four additional infantry to be transported from Tokyo, there was really nothing the CCP could do so they stayed huddled in their two territories. Attack Communist China on T3. Note that we were also using the Fighting Railways expansion which gives Japan an armored railcar (8 movement) for transporting one unit into battle. Getting that extra unit around was very helpful…

From an IPC standpoint, Japan gets an additional 11 IPCs per turn by the end of T2 – that’s the same amount as all of the DEI without the hassles of being at war with the BC and France. Japan will get 2 more per turn for Communist China by the end of turn 3. This income will provide Japan a big boost in setting up for its next step, be it the DEI, FEC, Anzac, or Russia.

From a political standpoint, starting with this strategy has no significant consequences. Neither the British Commonwealth (BC) nor the US can declare war on Japan until Japan declares war “on another nation during the game”. So Japan can beat up on China all day with no worries. France is the only exception. While it can declare against Japan, it’s not realistic because France would have to pay 10 IPCs to do so. That’s half of its per turn income. It wouldn’t matter anyway because France cannot threaten Japan. It only has 2 land units and its navy is certainly no match for Japan’s. Other strategies, like Refusing the Dragon (see that thread for more), do have significant consequences.

Overall, Swallowing the Dragon gives Japan a good, solid, conservative start and it is very easy to implement.

For those interested i’ve posted some information about my new Global War table here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37864.0

@Patchman123:

Can you add the Italian Maiale submarines and the British Long Range Desert Group LRDG to the game? I originally proposed a World War II game with Maiale submarines from the Decima MAS flotilla with my hand-drawn map of World War II, but since I found out about Doug Friend’s map, I decided to add my ideas to it. I would like to see the Special Air Service (SAS) in the game, too.  I think that Italy should have the Maiale submarines and have a bonus point against any Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean. The Maiale submarines will only be allowed to operate in the Mediterranean and they will have bonus points and warships will not get to roll against them. It will sort of be like the Italian equivalent of the Japanese kamikaze tokens. The Italian player will of course be limited as to how many Maiale submarines that they will get to roll per turn.  The Maiale will be any Italian submarine and the infantry aboard the submarine will attack the Allied surface warship in the Med.

I am not sure how to even make it work within the game. I was proposing a game with Maiale submarines against any ANZAC, French or British surface warships in the Mediterranean.

I also propose adding the Ariete Division for Italian elite units and the Folgore Parachute Division as Italian elite units. The Italians also had volunteers from India and the Middle East in their armies. I have a book on Italian elite units of World War II from 1940-1943.

Italy not only had Bersaglieri, they also had the Ariete Division and the Folgore Division.  You could add paratroopers to the Italian player.

You could also add torpedo bombers to the Italians. The Italians used the Savoia Marchetti SM. 79 as a torpedo bomber in the Mediterranean. You could also add torpedo bombers to the Germany, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Japan and the United States weren’t the only nations to have torpedo bombers.

I have another suggestion.

You could also add a Bearn class aircraft carrier to France. France’s only aircraft carrier in World War II was the Bearn class aircraft carrier.

The Bearn was out in the Atlantic when France surrendered in 1940. You could add torpedo bombers to the Soviet Union, too. The Soviet Union had torpedo bombers in the Baltic and Black Seas.

You could also add a plastic P-40 painted in China’s paint color to simulate the Flying Tigers.  There is so much that you could add there.

Patchman123.
[/quote

See, everyone! It’s not so bad. There’s Historical Board Gaming for that.
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces–US-Exp--P-47-Thunderbolt-Fighter-x5_p_2090.html
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces--Allies--P40-Warhawk-Early-War-Fighter-x5_p_1168.html

If anyone’s interested.

Anzac defender,

I would wait until HBG’s newest map comes out.  It’s far more aesthetically pleasing than the current version, and the rules will also be more encompassing.  It’s the 1936 map as far as I know name-wise.  They might call it something else when they release it.  I will mention too though that you might wait for a little while if you go for that one, because progress on development is still on-going.

I do have a quick question for the creators brought up while discussing the minor axis powers in another thread:

If the Germans build a naval base on Romania can the Romanians (who don’t need an IC) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units in their capital (not ships next to it)? Using the same principle, are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.

I believe this next part is still under review, any word yet?

This leads me to a 2nd question, say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also fill the requirement to allow for ships to be built from Germany’s Romanian IC adjacent to it? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?

Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements for shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Say the Italians take Holland and build a NB (sz 16). Would the Italian NB allow the Germans to drop ships into sz 16 from their adjacent major IC in W Germany?

I do not think you understand, U.S. is now at war and Japan is not ready or secured enough money or built their Army. I am pretty sure Japan has lost because of this move.

Oh, I see you have a new thread about the new set up posted, nevermind. :lol: