A list of terrains on some of the harder-to-see land zones?

Sorry if this has been suggested before!

I think that the game could benefit from a land unit scramble option into adjacent land zones from cities or a FOB.

I noticed a potential need for this when I was playing Germany and I had fighters in Paris so that I could better defend the French region. I was annoyed that I couldn’t have my armoured units (mech, med. tanks, etc) stationed there like IRL to respond to a seaborne invasion.

I think the rule should be either:

Up to three armoured units (or units with a movement of 2) can scramble out of a city to defend an adjacent territory. or; Instead of a city perhaps a FOB can be added into the game to act as a land unit airbase for scrambling purposes, or even movement purposes as well (I think that the game is too short and land units movement needs a buff, perhaps +1 movement from an HQ could help).

I think this would add quite a nice dimension to the game. Making cities more important and making it easier for nations to go on the offensive by not needing to stack as many units on every territory (think Japan on the Chinese coast).

Maybe the incoming scrambling land units can defend at a -2 on the first round of combat (minimum 1 defence) to simulate them coming late to the battle (not as fast as fighters).

Please feel free to critique this or add to it!

@noneshallpass haha yeah I got that your all saying the same thing sorry my wording maybe. Thank you guys

@theveteran No problem.

Ok, now back to mountainous borders. I’m not saying terrain is magically flat if it is friendly. The way you can be certain that I don’t believe that is to scroll back and read where I said if the armor were in Northern Italy and moving through a friendly Southern France, it would not be allowed to continue on to Aquitaine the same turn.

I’m saying that when a land zone is friendly, then border terrain doesn’t start affecting you until the moment you cross the border. And the river rules give a hint that my perspective may be the correct one.

Sidenote on Game Design: There are two ways game designers can approach movement costs: walls or quicksand. With the walls approach, you are not permitted to move unless you have sufficient movement. If I understand Global War’s system, it is a quicksand one. You are allowed to go in, but then get penalized and stuck. This is the way I conceptualize it. I may be wrong, but I know Morten’s approach in general is to give the player choices with consequences. Other game designers forbid players from doing things.

Here is how I proceeded.

I already owned the A&A Europe 1940 first and second editions, so with the pieces from all these sets, I had a good base for France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and USSR, plus the Chinese infrantry for KMT.

I also own the A&A pacific with red chinese soldiers that I am using for the CCP infantry (there is also one Pacific edition where the japanese pieces are red).

This still leaves a lot of pieces to buy from HBG or to scavenge from other sources (cavalry, neutrals, militia, air transports, medium bombers, coastal subs and battleships, TBDs, light cruisers, tank destroyers, advanced mech and artillery, SP-artillery (basic and advanced), motorized infantry (trucks), etc.).

Some powers have specific and different sculps available, but not all, so in the end you will need to paint pieces and still use some kind of tokens/markers to distinguish some special units.

As @Ghetty pointed out, if you can get your hands on HBG « wrong colour » pieces for units that you have to paint anyway, that is a good option to obtain cheap pieces. Their spare pieces from old A&A Games can also provide a cheaper option and can be purchased individually, but are not always available. For instance, I built almost all my Canadian forces for the CAW expansion with older « celery » color british units and painted what was missing.

I also bought some scupts from I will never grow up games. Unfortunately, I find that the 3D printing leaves a lot of visible « fibers » and the plastic is very brittle and small details can easily break, such as tank barrels and ship towers. IMO, the best sculpts from them are the German trucks which can be used for Motorized infantry (especially if you don’t own A&A Battle of the Bulge for the trucks).

I think that you have to see Global War as an ongoing project, as there will probably be new pieces available over time that can replace your generic units or markers.

I would not advise anyone to try to get « everything » before playing their first game. You have to go by steps and find out over time what you are missing and what can be improved.

@adalwolf

I attacked Poland (and warsaw) in July ‘39, the turn After I attacked Paris

Thank you guys. I played a dozen games of A&A in my life, so I am far from an expert. I prefer asking than being wrong.

I figured as much but thank u.

Hello everyone,

I think having contested land zones, with perhaps 3 rounds of battle per turn per zone, would add a nice layer of depth to this game. It would be similar to how Axis and Allies D-Day would do it.

Perhaps there could be a supply limit to each zone and the attacker/defender would suffer debuffs if they went over the cap. Factories or forts could increase the supply limit, or something like that. I won’t go into depth cause it’s 99% not gonna happen but I think it’s a cool idea.

The allowance of enemy combatants remaining in the same zone even at the end of the combat phase (contested zone) could allow for interesting frontlines. The 3 battle limit would allow for armoured units to still utilize the blitz as well.

Furthermore, planes could have to be stationed in airbases and could make multiple sorties during their attack and defence phases depending on their range. So for example, a plane based at an airbase within range of 2 zones being attacked could partake in both battles assuming that the plane survives the initial battle(s).

Another idea would be to allow subs and bombers to be put into a strategic war box that abstractly represents convoy raiding and strategic bombing. The units would not be on the map and could not partake in battle whilst in the strategic war box, and perhaps even be forced into that box and not allowed to be on the board.

To do any of these I believe that incomes would have to be adjusted to be higher, or the turns would have to be put down to 3 month ticks.

These are just random ideas that you can tear apart or add to. None of them are fully fleshed and I haven’t considered any balancing issues.