HBG’s Spanish Civil War version 3.0 (Admiral)

Turkey when active in this expansion is a player nation into itself and thus only surrenders if it’s capital is conquered and Turkey can’t liberate it on their turn.

@noob_melon No. Only Doug has knowledge on this.

9c6d2930-8111-4ad6-9cd2-b4c8b439b3f2-image.png

On my map, the St. Laurence Seaway connects Ottawa to Sea Zone 21.

@delaja Thanks! Yeah, I thought it had a decent base to it. Just as you said, I was trying to think specifically in terms of an HBG expansion. I wanted it to stay localized to the area at hand.

My thought for requiring the planes on the islands was to force the player to have to do something to get the bonus convoy raid other than just possessing the territory. True, the overall goal is to bring those islands into the conflict in some way, and by eliminating the need to have a fighter present on either Malta or Sicily you’d still want to defend the islands with troops. But I figured this way either side would have to “give” something to “get” something. You want the convoy raid? Place a fighter in these spots, even if not optimal for potential offensive operations!

I’m certainly happy to chat more about it if you’d like as well! Will and Doug both implied they liked it. But like I said, they said it looked great, and asked if I play tested, and I didn’t hear anything after that. Not saying they had to or anything, but I don’t know how much stock they may have really put in it in the end!

@imperious-leader
Did you read the rules?
https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/assets/images/HBG/GW1936v3/Expansions/canada at war/Canada at War Rules v33.pdf
https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/assets/images/HBG/GW1936v3/Expansions/canada at war/Canada at War v33.pdf

Please inform yourself before commenting on something.

@jbuckbuddy I think that’s probably the most accurate interpretation. I was going off that one quoted text I had in my first comment, but even that wasn’t a guarantee. I think that’s how I’ll play it too, unless an official ruling comes along stating otherwise.

I live in Bonn.

@GeneralHandGrenade Unsurprising that you have the intel GHG! And ultimately unsurprising this is in the works. They’ve done such a great job with diverse expansions, this was bound to be an area for one. Very intrigued it’s the same designer as Latin America, as I think that Expansion (and China at War) was one of the best thought out ones they’ve done yet! Will be very interested in seeing this in the future, I think it could hold a lot!

I completely agree, I think the Med/North Africa could be a great standalone game. I posted on the forums here years ago how cool it would be to see an A&A game like that done, though really any similar game like that would be great. There’s so much that can be done.

The biggest criticisms I’ve really heard on the topic was that you couldn’t really do a true “final victory”, since any map would obviously not actually include a Berlin as a final destination to take, and that this game wouldn’t feel like you “won the war”. Well, I guess that’s true, but who cares! One needs to look at is as a Theater-level game. You’re objective is victory in the Theater. That might mean taking Rome and Tunis for the Allies, or taking Cairo as the Axis, or it could just mean surviving a certain amount of time.

The other part of this would be how to incorporate the US. Do you start a game on the eve of Operation Torch? Or have a game similar to Global 1940, where the US joins starting a certain turn? I personally would advocate for the later. I’d love to play out a game where I do what I can with British and Commonwealth forces early on, and then see the tide turn with a US entry. I’ve seen complaints of how people think it would be dumb to just have US forces bought/appear from the edge of a map (since the US would presumably not be represented here). Again, I say you’ve got to be able to have fun with a game!