High resolution map of Global War 1936 V3.

@ButterSurge

Im trying to create a basic framework for the rise of the Axis powers very similar to the one sported by HBGs Global 1936. It is my hope this script will get the ball rolling so to speak. If anyone has any suggestions to improve or expand such a script, please feel free to share.

The Diplomatic script

ROUND 1

Germany annexes Austria
UK and France incomes increase by 1 IPP each

Italy annexes Albania

ROUND 2

Germany annexes Czechoslavakia
UK and France incomes increase by 1 IPP each

Italy may invade Abyasinia
UK income increases by 1 IPP if Italy occupies Abyasinia

Japan may invade China
FEC and ANZAC incomes increase by 1 IPP for every Chinese territory Japan occupies until at war with Japan

USA may invade Mexico
CSA income increases by 1 IPP for every Mexican territory the USA occupies until at war with the USA

ROUND 3

USA may occupy Cuba
UK and CSA incomes increase by 1 IPP each

ROUNDS 4-6

The status quo continues until global war

ROUND 7

WW2 begins, Germany invades Poland and the Entente minus the CSA, declare war on Germany exclusively

The Molotov-Ribontrop pact is signed, Eastern Europe is divided between Germany and the USSR and the USSR agrees to lend-lease Germany 3 oil and 3 iron ore per turn until they are at war

If Germany captures Paris, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Venazeula, and Argentina become pro-Axis

Italy and Turkey may join the Axis at their descretion from now on

ROUND 8

The USA and Japan may sign the Pacific Mutual Security Pact, stipulating the USA will cede the Phillipines, Guam, Wake and Midway island to Japan and the USA promises to lend-lease Japan 3 oil and 3 iron ore per turn until either power is defeated, the game ends, or if “Japan leaves the Axis”* at a later date. Japan and the USA then must declare war on the Entente jointly. The CSA will then join the Entente and declare war on the USA.

*Japan may leave the Axis and act as a free-agent after round 12, this allows to Japan to attack any power and make peace on their own without the consent of their allies.

@Trig Quite facinating ref sheet! Do you have a complete version available for publication?

@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.

@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.

@trig This is why we have adapted the BBR VP conditions and made other changes. Attacking a neutral in Europe by the Axis only results in one dice before 1939. We found the penalties for attacking Neutrals limits the Axis and causes the same scenario over and over again. Anyway…trying to adapt for 2-player as best we can.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast I think it should be errata’d the subject of what counts as “An aircraft on Carriers.” Imo they should say that aircraft are only “on carriers” all the time save combat movement and combat. It would solve a couple other questionable areas as well.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in Subs, Destroyers, MAP and other ships:

then during non-combat I can treat that sea zone as empty? Could I move beyond the submarine then to another further sea zone? If my CV is two away from the submarine, the destroyers enter during combat movement, the submarine submerges, then I could move t

As per 0.5, When a submarine submerges, they are allowed to share sea zones with other vessesls. Thus submarines can not participate in combat until the next players combat phase. This means that you can non combat into zones with submerged submarines since combat can not occur.

Hey all!

So, this might be a question for those who have played some games with the V3 rules a few times, and/or those who helped play test or help refine (like GHG).

I’m just wondering what changes between the two versions of the game people are bummed about that were taken out of V2, or just altered a lot. I don’t have any experience with V3 yet, other than reading the beta rules on their website once or twice. Would love to get others’ takes on what they might miss or not agree with. Just thinking ahead to the potential of house ruling a bit to revert to V2 if anyone wanted.

A couple potential talking points (and sorry, it’s been a minute since I read through the V3 beta rules, so I might be misremembering):

Variations in unit costs by nation? I think I read that all units of the same type will now cost the same for every nation, right? Does everyone like this rule? My gut reaction is I kind of liked having a little variable there, as it gave different nations different advantages. But on the flip side, I understand from a level playing field perspective how making all the same makes sense. Not to mention it probably simplifies the rules a bit. Any opinions?

Special units. I might be misremembering here, but I thought there were no longer special units, like Volkstrum, Black Shirts, etc. for some nations. How do people feel about that? Do they miss that variation a bit, or is it pointless?

Naval options. I’ve mentioned this before, and have heard how others feel. But again, just curious on thoughts. Do people like all the different naval base and naval unit options now in V3? Or has anyone found it might bog the game down a bit at times? Just curious.

Any missed opportunities for improvement that you think would have been beneficial?

Thanks!

Chris