7.2 Rules question

Thanks RC!

In case anyone is interested, I’ve also been working on some naval supply rules and like Narvik I settled on a naval movement/combat radius of 2 or 3 sea zones from friendly naval bases. Submarines and transports get a range of 5, since they operated at slower speeds which provided better endurance and range.

To go along with that I also am working on rules for oilers that would extend the range of naval units; right now I’m thinking that each oiler gives an additional 1-2 range. This would allow you to combine one or more oilers and a naval base into a long supply chain to your fleet, like the US and UK did in the Pacific. This also allows for interesting side-rules like German secret raiders who can act as oilers to supply the commerce raiding warships, or submarine oilers (the “Milchcow”).

If a fleet is suddenly rendered out of supply, either due to loss of oilers or naval bases, I say that they are not allowed to initiate combat, must retreat immediately if attacked (not sure yet if I’m happy with this), and must non-combat move towards the nearest friendly naval base on their turn until they are back in supply.

I have not yet been able to test any of these rules to verify they are fair and fun, but it seems like they should generally work.

Most WWII-era ships had a designed range of about 10,000 nmi at 10 to 15 knots (typical cruising speed). Bumping up to combat speed drastically reduced that range, down to about 2,500 nmi. I’ve done lots of calculations and in Global War 1936 each sea zone on the map is about 1000 nmi wide, so reducing the combat radius of ships to 2-3 sea zones from a naval base is actually fairly accurate if you assume a fleet at sea is doing a mix of cruising speed and combat speed and either being supplied by a local oiler at the naval base, or maybe the fleet is running back and forth between port and their assigned sea zone each turn. Then each oiler unit would represent a collection of oilers and supply ships able to carry supplies further out to sea.

Oops files to large

2016-08-21 10.59.06.jpg

i like the convoy zone optional rule, however i believe there should be a qualification that the axis still only gain the income on an actual roll of a 1.  this would represent the fact that subs can’t steal cargo, their sole goal was to destroy merchant ships not seize them.

Crus, if your looking for these rules of Tigermans game they are at Board Game Geek.

@coachofmany:

@John:

@Ben_D:

There’s a few things that HBG has available that aren’t explained well, if at all. �� All of the resource tokens, certain types of fortifications (like the Fort Drum one), P.O.W. camps and a few other things seem to fall into that category. �� There is a section on the site that has rules laid out for some of the stuff, but it seems to be outdated at this point.��  Maybe an update is in order?

I’ve asked them to update the rules to the markers and fortifications many times, but I’ve never got a response. I assuming they just don’t have time since they are producing so much as of a late. That is just my theory. I hope they can update it at some point.

We are updating the special marker rules and it will be ongoing. Look for it in a couple weeks.

I appreciate it. It will help a lot. :-)

Thanks for the feedback man, it’s much appreciated!  I’ll be discussing this with the guys I play with.  Alot of the things you pointed out make sense, so I’ll definitely be rethinking them.

There’s a few points I disagree with though.

I figured the port in Santa Cruz for the Allies would actually be quite useless to them, in exception to the Commonwealth fleet fleeing the pacific, but that’s about it.  It’s faster to go through the Panama canal the vast majority of the time anyway.

Splitting sea zone 28 in half was done to make it realistic, because it’s just not practical in real terms.  I guess it just depends how you wanna balance gameplay and realism…  I’m pretty excited for that '36 map, we’ll see what they do with it :).

As for building in friendly territory, I can see your point with the Soviets.  I don’t see a problem however with places like Iran and Free French territories, vice versa for the Axis with their eligible territories.  Compromises can be made.  I’m aware that Germany can do this already with the minors.  At least it’s not like G40 where you can build anywhere (where there’s enough value in the territory).

I think the logistical issues with the way China produces is pretty much related to how the population itself fought with the military against the Japanese.  The population is scattered, yes, but why would a militia form up in force in western China when there’s no direct threat there, and then march their way over after?  Better to form up where you’re needed most, isn’t it, especially with the kind of transportation they had at the time?  The fight is in Eastern China, and that’s where the majority of the population is anyway, so more people can volunteer to fight close to the front lines, where it’s relevant.  Just send the supplies to where they’re needed.  Also in regards to C. China, the Russians are just too busy in my games to go there.  The C. Chinese collect little in the first place, so I figured it wouldn’t make that big of a deal.  F.E.C. doesn’t factor much into this for me, because they’re usually toppled within three turns when I play with my regulars.  I know it’s tough for the F.E.C., ANZAC and Americans later on otherwise in other peoples’ games though.  It just depends on what Japan does.  Giving them a major factory actually seems to balance out everything with the changes in that theatre I proposed.

I downgraded the factories in Karelia and Fukuoka and raised the value of Helsinki because the factories there in the official setup stand in contradiction to the rules.  For actual game mechanics in terms of how units work and what they’re allowed to do, I don’t agree with this sort of thing.  Raising/swapping the values in the territories can be done too, it doesn’t matter much, just as long as nothing contradicts the rules in that fashion.

Yes, and no.

The limit is one… and all parties can do it.

Of course it doesn’t help when the russians drop that in Moscow with a stack of 70+ units.  But, if Germany can do the same? What does it matter.