Global War, 2nd edition - due 1\. November 2015

Panzerpenguin on utube has a digital 36 game. This may provide you with an alternative. I’ve never tried it I’m more into the table top variety

@Rank:

Jinx

As for the highlight every time we get a new guy the charts are so busy this may help simplify the starting learning curve. If you can get a new to game tester for your charts it may assist on readability. I know that the standard charts were a bit of info overload. Suggestion to have starter units better separated from upgrades and researched units. Takes a bit of explaining that every time we get a new guy in. Example germany jumps strait into super heavy tanks skips the 6 regular heavies required first. And all new guys think they can build heavy tanks off the hop without research due to chart placing. A simple coloured highlight signifying reasearch required would eliminate this. Or maybe 3 charts first basic units, second tech and upgrades, final all units together. And get them more into the game faster rather than getting corrected constantly, increases the fun factor for the new guys.

Ah, that explains a few of your chart lines. Didn’t realize you had developed your own air combat rules. They sound interesting. Maybe a bit much for our group now though, lots of newer players. Still not fully grasping current rules without the odd reading.

What program are you using? this has me interested in tidying up our charts.

As for the switch from historical its not often I agree but a real Stalin in this position would. In current game as soviets I own South America and Middle East. And am neutral across the board nonagression pacts with axis.  Im ready to attack germany, italy,usa at panama canal,  india (fec), africa (uk), and japan at Tokyo, all at once. Germany has london, and japan focused on only us and owns San Francisco. But im not allowed to unless us attacks me first or berlin falls. All combatants are severely unit depleted due to fighting while im ready to go. Russia has largest navy on both oceans lol. In no way would Stalin really hesitate, Russia is a global power able to expand all over the globe.  But the rules have the Russians handcuffed. So im now forced to take berlin first and allow the rest to rebuild before i can take it all. Meaning allies must win first, so I can never actually attack allies until the game has already ended realistically.

John Brown

Welcome and thank you also. Ill look into those sets. Was more thinking if 1939 setup comes out. Chart changes adding their newer units would also be a help,  if all in one chart. Rather than add-on expansion charts or I’ll need a massive amount of paper on the walls. Don’t want it to become a legal style rules with endless exceptions and loopholes lol. Or nobody will want to play it.

Hehe, sometime our games turn out to be a lot like that. But we have a core of experienced players and a kind of forgiving system for mistakes in purchases and those that neglected to read the rules.
I’ve played full games of G36 over twenty times now, and I still keep the manual by my elbow and a bunch of online FAQ pages printed out. I’m generally the referee for our game and there is so much to remember and so much grey area that we find we often need to patch it up with house rules.

We have tried it out in past games. For instance, we allowed the Soviets to DOW against the Allies. The Soviets built a massive fleet presence. Though they did DOW against the Allies, the Soviets natural enemy is the Axis.
The fact that the Soviets could now DOW against Allies did not change the game in the slightest. The Soviets VP points are mostly gained from taking neutral nations which they gathered from the middle east. But they had no reason to come into conflict with any western powers except for India (which was taken by Japan) and Egypt, which was far off and did not matter. The Soviets played a great game of pacifism and won the game. Sure at one point they declared war against the Allies, but only because it made the Axis hope that they would come to blows and eased pressure from the German/Soviet border. Only one French Militia was lost in Syria to the Soviets.

My conclusion is that there is no reason for that rule, except for historical railroading (not meant in a derogatory way).
Theoretically the Soviets could build a large fleet (which they did) and marines (which they did) and invade…England (which they did: northern Ireland) or America. But they don’t need too, all the IPP they need can be found on the continent, and in our game, after the soviet fleet invaded Ireland. They trundled back home to the Baltic. It was a pretense to gain them time on the German/Soviet border to strengthen and achieve parity on the border. Earlier, Germany could have taken them, especially with their expenses into a large fleet. But by the time the Axis saw that the Soviets in England in any meaningful way was a pipe dream; it was too late.

No need for a Soviet limiting of DOW, at least in my opinion.

So in our current game. The French (according to designer rules of French DOW to Neutral nations) DOW against Republican Spain while they where in Civil War. They actually went so far as to lose Bordeaux and Marseilles to Republican Spain in Early 1938.
We thought about the rules a little, and said that for this game, we would let the Soviets be capable of DOW against allies, and begin their rearmament rolls because of being at war with a “Major” power. France will be collecting its Wartime Income.

It worked to some degree in Axis favor in the short term, because the French and Soviet fleets mutually decimated themselves, and the Spanish/French forces have cleared western Europe of troops. Perhaps the Soviets will continue to sink Lend Lease to Spain. Perhaps, and if nothing else, France has lost half of its land army because of its need to watch Germany.

In the long term it will bite Axis in the butt. But…perhaps a Chamberlain-Ribbentrop pact can be signed. Perhaps.

Anyways, its exciting. :-)

@radar231:

Hi,

This one ? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUVqIVjaipY

J.  8-)

Yes, that is it! Thank you.

If someone could make a video, but longer, of their game, at least till all powers are at war, it would help.

It would help some of us that don’t have a regular play group to learn it faster.

I’m going to try to provide a place to set this game up at my house and learn it on my own, but any help, visually, would help as well. :-)

@koba:

I’ve been waiting for these too. I have a feeling they’ll be rolled out when/after global 1936 comes out. It appears they are concentrating on getting the new map and rules sorted out.

Koba, I think your right. I think they will start with the map and rules, and then move forward from there. :-)

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’m willing to help someone turn this into a TripleA map

however, i’m not willing to do it myself, cus i don’t have the time (and also never played this map)

Who has what in the Philippines