If that is the case, I would like to confirm it.
7.0 turn 1 pics and report
-
Koba (and his team),
––I just wanted to say THANK YOU to you and your group for your ‘play-testing’ of the different rules. Your analysis is inspiring, and the game report was exciting on it’s own merits. Thanks again as IMHO this GW-39 and it’s soon to be released 1936 version are most definately the FUTURE of A&A gaming.
Tall Paul
p.s.-It looks like my investment in Mitsubishi stock will pay off bigtime! :-D -
That’s right John,
We used the set up and most of the 7.1 rules but hung on to some of the 6.1 such as Russian income and fortifications.
Good to know. Thank you so much. :-)
-
You are both very welcome. It was my/our pleasure.
-
How do resources and rail tokens play out in your games Koba?
-
We use the custom rules from HBG. The resources boost the incomes of nations which hold them or provide special bonuses to production. The railways expedite the movement of units across large distances. For example, Russia’s rail east of the Urals allows them to move one unit per turn anywhere along the southern most Russian territories.
The resources and rail pick things up quite a bit as incomes and movements are enhanced. They also give the players something else to fight over.
-
did you have players start with rails and railstations? and if so how did you place them? or did every player have to start from scratch?
-
@ Koba - shouldn’t you play with the rules as they being rewritten so you can tell if the game is balanced before you include resources, rails, etc?
How many times did you play 6.1?
I knew as soon as I read 7.0 that it wouldn’t work, but I’m not sure why the changes were so big? Any ideas? The 7.1 is good except the 2 items we have already agreed upon. We played 5 - 10 games of 6.1 and the Axis won 6 out of 10…but we never usually played turns 14 and 15 because surrenders already took place. Once we figured out the strategy it was pretty clear that Russia was easy to beat in 6.1.
I can’t help but wonder if we misreading the rules in 7.0 and 7.1 because they seem to think Russia is much weaker than what we are finding.
-
Bill,
I suppose we could have played without the extras but we have been using the custom rules for months now and didnt really see the difference in terms of balance. More enhancement than anything else and there’s no sense in testing the rules without them as they are a (growing) part of our game.
We’ve played 6.1 at least ten times and yes, the balance was a bit off a bit, but it was not impossible for the allies to win. I’ve been playing global 39 for a about three years now (A and A for thirty plus) and ,like you, I could see that 7.0/.1 in their entirety would be imbalanced.
I’m eager to see how this plays out with others.
Also, I have the sneaking suspicion that the next incarnation of the game will feature many, if not all, of the HBG custom rules we use now as well as others yet to be seen. So we may as well incorporate them and see how well they integrate. So, we can say we’re not just play testing 4.1, 5.0, 6.1, 7.0 or whatever, we’re play testing everything HBG is bringing to the plate. We have the pieces and rules so why not?
Rohr,
All resources/rails were placed from word go. Refer to the HBG custom rules on their website for the placement and mechanics. You will see, for example, that Europe has a rail movement of 3 (this includes european russia) so we placed rail markers to display that infrastructure. I am short on rail pieces and need more. The stations in this game are mainly props but there are rules for them as well. Eventually, we will have trains and railguns.
-
i’m having a tough time understanding the rail rules. i was hoping you could clarify them based on how you play, because i’m starting a game this afternoon.
As far as setup every territory in europe begins with a rail, and the cities listed have rail stations. as far as africa, every british territory has rails through it.
with movement, in Europe you can move 3 units per turn as far as you want so long as there is a functioning railway. every other continent is one unit per turn.
I remember finding a hbg rule set for rails that was different from http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/assets/images/HBG/HBGMarkers/00Marker Rules/Railways.pdf
it had more rule variations for rails, my favorite of which was as follows.Rail moves per turn are equivalent to the number of rail stations under your control up to 6. a move is from one rail station to another. rail stations can be no more than 4 territories away from each other. rail stations cost 15 and rails are 3. have you encountered this rules set? if so do you know where it went?
-
file:///C:/Users/Philip/Downloads/HBG%20Marker%20RulesRev5.pdf
this is the version i prefer
-
The group we had testing the rules always complained thats the 6.1v rules allowed the Axis to win 100% of the time. In our games it was usually 50/50. But they insisted that it was very lopsided. The official 7.1v will address the needed changes in 7.0.
Any other clarifications that were not addressed from 6.1 to 7.0 let me know.
-
Rohr,
Yes, I have seen the rules you are referring to. We played using/purchasing rail stations and individual rails. We use the newer rules as you mentioned in terms of the 3 unit limit in Europe, 1 unit east of Urals (Siberian Railroad), the British in Africa and the N. American allowance. It’s easier (and cheaper!!!). You are permitted to augment this with new rail purchases I believe, but we never do.
I recommend just using the allowances for simplicity’s sake and bringing in more detail if/when you decide to introduce trains. HBG has markers for engines, cars, rail guns etc. but I’d really like to see 3D models.
Have fun with the game. Ours is over with a hard fought Axis win.
-
Hi Tigerman,
I hope the observations and critiques posted here helped.
In terms of Russia, it may be a good change to give them a 3 IPC NO simulating German machine tools and finished goods before war breaks out. 15 IPC starting cash, roll for income and declaration of war plus the NO. If the Allies are made too strong, playing the Axis will be less than desirable. I remember A and A 1984 when Russia could jump on Germany on turn one, the U.S. could build and IC in China, Britain in India/South Africa etc. It was a really hard go for the Axis, almost too hard. I’d hate to see global '39 or '36 head that route. Judging by the pics posted on HBG’s Facebook page, it doesn’t look too good for the Axis there either.
I know in 6.1 the Allies could tie Germany up in Europe and create trouble for Japan until the U.S. entered the game. If the Axis weren’t on their way to Moscow/Stalingrad by the time Uncle Sam came on it was goodnight Irene. That dynamic hasn’t changed in 7.0. In fact, it’s been enhanced. If the Allies play it right, Cairo will not fall, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Poland will be terrorist PITAs for the Germans and Japan will be busy trying to beat off Russia while fighting the Chinese, FEC and ANZAC.
Regardless, I’m confident you’ll do what needs doing.
-
Ok. I put russia starting income and war entry rules back to 6.1. Seems the extra units on setup are enough to keep Germany at bay for a little while.
Also changed the Fort rule: Fort fires 2d12 on first round only. Also defending infantry get a +1 and attacking units get a -1 including aircraft.
-
Yes, the Russia situation looks good.
Nice compromise on the fortification rules.
We may be playing this weekend so perhaps there’ll be a chance to try them out sooner rather than later.
Thanks again.
-
Is there anyone out there that is playing with 7.1 besides just Koba and I? I’d be interested to hear how hard it is to win for the Axis now.
-
We have a game sunday.
-
Is there anyone out there that is playing with 7.1 besides just Koba and I? I’d be interested to hear how hard it is to win for the Axis now.
We are playing a game in about an hour. Well see how it goes.
-
I can not find the 7.1 rules and setup. Have they been published?
-
7.0 is at BGG and the 7.1 are just a few changes to the 7.0 rules. &.1 will be out soon with maybe somemore changes.
Suggested Topics
