Rules and reference sheet discrepancies

@theveteran Yeah, it’s definitely a good point. I think we’ve really just been overlooking the value of an easy lend-lease area for the CCP by doing this earlier in the game than has typically happened!

@insanehoshi True…
I forgot that.

@linkler Here’s some adjusted stats for the A9/A10 (the Actual name) “Amerika Rakete”

A9/A10
Attack: literally the same as the V-2
Range: 8
Cost: 5
Move: 1

@hbg-gw-enthusiast I would just add italicised texta clause saying something on the lines of “aircraft may not be placed on carriers during the place units phase” in that section, and a clause saying “newly built carriers may not be used to guarantee landing spots for fighters and tactical bombers.”
It is rather obvious is you look for it, but I think a FAQ or a additional clause is needed.

@caesar-seriona Actually, it works well. Japan gets CCP until the Chinese Civil War ends or they declare war on China. Creates a real war. The CCP is trying to kill as many troops on either side. The Nationalists are trying to preserve as many. We play the long-game but I understand why Japan may leave China alone (same in G40).

Hello,

HBG has posted updated Reference sheets on their website in October 2020.
https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Global-War-1936v3-Downloads_c_1462.html

Since I had most of them already printed out in color, I was trying to figure out what pages need to be corrected or should be reprinted.

This is a work in progress, but if it can be useful to anyone else, I am posting what I can figure out so far. Please feel free to point out if I missed something.

Quick Reference Sheets:
Facility Reference Sheet v3.1 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 3 (Upgrade costs for factories)
Vichy France Reference Sheet v3.1 (updated 10/20/20) - no visible changes from v3.0
Technology Reference Sheet v3.0 (updated 5/5/20) - no recent changes
Quick Reference Sheet (posted 10/23/20) - New document

Nation Reference Sheets:
ANZAC v3.2 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 3 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Great Britain v3.4 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
China CCP v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (location of “Hainan” in Warlords section)
China KMT v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (location of “Hainan” in Warlords section)
Far East Command v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship) and 3 (Def. value of Seaplane & “Malay” corrected to “British Malaya” in Set-up section)
France v3.4 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Free France v3.2 (updated 4/17/20)- no recent changes
Germany v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 1 (“Bessarabia” corrected to “Southern Ukraine” in Victory Objectives section) page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane), and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Italy v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 2 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 3 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Japan v3.4 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 1 (“Malay” corrected to “British Malaya” in Wartime Bonus Income section, “Guam” corrected to “Marinara Islands” in Victory Objectives section), page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and page 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)
Neutrals v3.4 (updated 10/20/20)- no visible changes from v3.3
USSR v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - **Changes to page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane), page 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship) and 5 (Northern Caucasia" corrected to “North Caucasia” in Set-up section)
United States v3.3 (updated 10/20/20) - Changes to page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship)

Expansion Reference Sheets:
Canada v3.1 (For “Canada at War Expansion”) updated 10/20/20 - Changes to page 1 (5 to 6 in Income and Production section), page 2 (placement of German subs in Set-up section), page 3 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 4 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship) - Note that there are still incorrect references to ANZAC in the Build Tables section
Netherlands v3.1 (For “Netherlands Fight Back” Expansion) updated 10/20/20 - no visible changes from v3.0 - Note that the Build Tables section is still not adapted to v.3 rules with four-steps builds and no Seaplane stats
Turkey v3.1 (For “Turkey at War” Expansion) updated 10/20/20 - Changes to page 2 (Def. value of Seaplane) and 3 (Att. value of Coastal Defense Ship) - Note that there are still incorrect references to ANZAC in the Build Tables section

@hammertimepower

I wouldn’t call myself any kind of official on the rules, first off.

Yeah, this is a bit different than the other nations. I would say first off that this is one of the bigger differences between versions 2 and 3. I believe the game makers went out intentionally with the idea of making conflict between the Comintern and Allies a more realistic possibility. Example, in Version 2, the Allies and Comintern couldn’t declare war on each other until the Axis had been defeated (though I think there’s a little loophole in the Monroe Doctrine there). Same with China, the KMT or CCP would not have been allowed to declare war on the Comintern or Allies, respectively, until all foreign powers were expelled from mainland China.

The Version 3 rules open this up for conflict earlier on, so I think this was absolutely intentional on their end.

Of note, in order for the KMT or CCP to get Major Power status, they need to effectively have control of all of China. They need 13 IPP, I think there are only like 16 IPP possible in all of China. So while not necessarily needing FULL control of all China, that IPP threshold probably effectively means they’ve won the Chinese Civil War, and arguably have expelled Japanese power on the mainland for that to have happened also.

That’s my long way of saying that their ability to declare war is probably not as easy as it reads on the surface. Plus, I think the KMT would have a hard time deciding to declare war on the USSR unilaterally until the other Allied nations were available to assist!

@GeneralHandGrenade The end of your “Misunderstood Rules” video reminded me of this discussion.

Upon reflection, I think what I was really getting at with the way the beta rules are written is that they never explicitly state that surface warships other than Destroyers cannot attack submarines with the help of an aircraft on MAP. It is only implied that other ships cannot do this.