Global War 1940/41

It’s just called Global War. You will find the game and the links to the rules and needed pieces here;
https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/The-Game_c_1443.html

You will find a lot more information on my YouTube channel here;
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVoI898HChr4R5RoP3e8Czg

Your a good man Grenade. Much success to you!

For those interested i’ve posted some information about my new Global War table here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37864.0

billcallaway, I agree that on the surface they seem to be focusing too much energy on expansions and selling new sculpts then for getting the base game right. I think the original plan was to have these expansion sets and units come out a few months after the release of GW1936/1939 (as they have). The problem I believe is that the 1939 set-up got back up, and the rules needed an immediate update which threw the whole time table off.

I know how frustrating it is referring back-n-forth between the 63 page rule book, all the reference sheets, and the web site in an attempt to play the game as intended. I think they very well should have put out an official FAQ to high light the bulk of the changes while they were working on the rules update. Kinda like a transition reference sheet.

I however think that they are working diligently on a rules re-wright. As you know by going through the web site there is a lot of work to be done here. I guess I’m willing to be more patent so they get it right (surely don’t want multiple rules updates over the next couple years).

MY EXPECTATIONS are that the rules re-right will correspond with the very over due 1939 set-up release. It is also my understanding that the updated rules will work for both the 1936 and 1939 start dates.

I also hope that they put out a supplemental package of units and colored chips that don’t come with AAG40 so you can set-up GW1936/1939. Many people don’t have the units just laying around to even set it up.

Hi, Ben,

Yeah, Wikipedia plays a big part in my research.  But I stumble across other websites as I’m hunting for things also.  Sometimes I find declassified official documents from the time.  I also use other games in my collection, like War in Flames and Battlewagon, where the designers did the research, and came to their own conclusions about how to fudge things.  I used to be in Military Intelligence when I was active duty army.  I spent six years at NSA (“In God we trust.  All others we monitor”)  :wink:  So I developed the habit of confirming intelligence from multiple sources whenever possible.  I’m still in the National Guard, actually.  But I switched my MOS to MP so I didn’t have to drive so far for drills.

Midnight,

Good job on the research.  Every time I start to do it for land forces, I get distracted by all the different sources, and how they use different methods for listing things.  Yeah, with the way A&A works, where the infantry of one country is equal to the infantry of every other country (unless you are using the elite units in Global ’39), then you have to reflect differences in troop and equipment quality by using different ratios to represent one unit.

One idea I’ve toyed with is using the same ratio for everyone’s infantry, (like 1 for every three divisions) but then reflecting the differences in firepower by assigning different ratios for artillery.  For instance, at the start maybe Germany gets an artillery unit for every 2 infantry, and France gets one for every 5 infantry, or something along those lines.  The problem there, of course, is that the French (and Russians) really really liked artillery, and it made up a bigger percentage of their overall forces.  So it would not be entirely satisfying from a historical perspective.  For the same reasons, I am reluctant to just start them off with a bunch of SS units.  Although I suppose I could just not call them SS units.  But I’d know.  I’D KNOW, and it would bug me  :-D

If there is going to be a zombie set, how about a flying saucer/foo fighter set. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter

I will attempt to answer what I can here. I will note rules in red, and my opinion in blue

@WILD:

I do have some other questions about the Chinese factions. Some are carry over from before, but not answered definitively by the game’s creators.

Was the word original intended to be in the text under Nat Chinese (#8 pg29). It says the Nat Chinese can capture original Red Chinese territories instead of liberating them. There are only two original Red Chinese territories in the game, so are the Nat Chinese allowed to capture (or retake) unoccupied territories from the Reds that aren’t original Red Chinese. This could be interpreted that they can not capture Red Chinese territories that aren’t original, which would prevent them from taking back their own territories from the Reds (which would be silly, but fixes the double dipping thing LOL).

Liberating a territory by definition means restoring it to it’s original owner after taking it from an invader. If Nat Chinese take control of a Japanese held territory that was originally Com Chinese owned, they capture for themselves instead of returning control of it to Com China. And, although omitted from the rules, the vice versa would also be true. I will be sure to include that in the next revision.

This question may actually help solve the “double china income” problem. I am still working on that. If we only allow a Chinese faction to take a territory from the other Chinese faction when captured from an Axis country, it would solve the problem, right? In other words, Chinese can’t take from each other unless they are taking it from the Japanese. Let me know.

Both Chinese powers are on on the Allies side, can they both be on the same territory. Russian units could back up the either Chinese powers, are the Chinese allowed to reinforce each other?

No, they can’t occupy the same territory. That is what is meant in the rules when it says they cannot attack each other.

When the Japanese capture a Chinese capital do they get the income stored there. Rules don’t say specifically (that I saw anyway), but do say the only exceptions are for Russia & UK (stored income goes to bank), so I would think YES the Japanese also capture the income from both Chinese factions. Being the Chinese can capture unoccupied territories from each other, would that include capturing income if that territory is a capital. This could be a good move to keep Chinese income from falling into Japanese hands. I Know that in G40 the Chinese income isn’t transferred (Chinese keep it for later), but that game doesn’t have Chinese capitals either.

Since the Chinese taking each other’s territories is still a bit up in the air, I will only comment on Axis powers capturing Chinese capitals. Yes, they would capture the income stored there as well.

The Communist China rules (pg29) don’t list territories the Red Chinese can enter or not enter (FEC or French to be exact). Rules do say the Reds can attack an axis power w/Russia as long as both are at war with that axis power. So they can liberate or capture Japanese held territories with a joint venture, and I would imagine they could also attack Japanese held territories by themselves outside of the Chinese borders just like the Nat Chinese (although this would be difficult with just inf). Are the Red Chinese limited to French territories, and Hong Kong (like the Nat Chinese) or can they enter any original UK FEC territory by design (just as Russia could). Furthermore can the Red Chinese leave China and NCM into orig FEC or Russian owned territories to seek refuge or reinforce (this last one is doubtful).

Since the rules don’t address this, and we’ve never had it come up, I will offer my personal opinion. I would only allow the Com Chinese to move within the confines of Com China, Nat China, Japanese controlled China, and Hong Kong. Remember, they were not friends with the French or the Brits. Hong Kong could be considered a special case perhaps. I will pose this to the group and get an official ruling

Bump for update 5.1 rules:
Damaged Battleships attack & def at 5 or less