Posts made by Erocco

Seeing this topic started up again I decided to post some pictures from my 3’ x 6’ printed map based on version 5. I haven’t made any adjustments to the map (love it as is). You’ll notice all the units are placed based on the OOB anniversary 1941 version with small additions here and there for balancing. I also made my own NO’s for further balancing (you can see them on the 3rd picture bottom left on the whiteboard). Unfortunately my flash drive with all the saved files stopped working so I lost all the files (set up charts, NO chart, victory cities chart etc.). The good news is I have hard copies of the files so I can make them again sometime. Play tested this about 10 times and it’s very interesting and fun. Seems balanced but much more playtesting needs to happen.

The map looks great, I love the changes especially interested on V5, gives you more content and options, hopefully a bit more balance from the anniversary oob map and setup. Are you working on a revised setup? Have you tested this map?

Sure! When that page was first re-listed, they had up renders of all of the original sculpt ideas - both the set they have currently listed and some other ideas they had that they are apparently pulling back from, like the Chammond SP Arty and the La Galissonniere light cruiser. In the span of a morning, they trimmed the list down to “just” what they now plan to sell, with the exception of leaving the light cruiser and taking out the battleship. I suspect that sometime soon, HBG will fix this oversight and replace the light cruiser with the battleship.

-Midnight_Reaper

I know. I was so excited to see all the units (heavy artillery, medium tank, 2nd mech. infantry, light cruiser, heavy bomber)  even though I knew they are not part of the set but maybe sold separate later.

I’ve done a ton of research on raw materials for my upcoming A&A game which will include two scenarios.

Here is a good start for you. https://ww2-weapons.com/military-expenditures-strategic-raw-materials-oil-production

@Undercover:

What size map should I buy for Global War 1936? I am trying to decide. Should it be 36" x 72" (3 ft by 6 ft) or 48" x 72" (4 ft by 8 ft)?

The 4’ x 8’ map is one foot wider and two feet longer than the 3’ x 6’ map which it doesn’t seem a lot but it makes a huge difference. The overall square footage is 32sf compare to 18sf which makes it 78% bigger. Think about that for a second. All the territories and sea zones are 78% bigger.

I don’t have the map yet as I am waiting for the updated one with the new railroads and other minor changes but I for sure would get the bigger one.

I am thinking of ordering some realistic resources from Scythe, see link below.

https://www.amazon.ca/Stonemaier-Games-Scythe-Realistic-Resources/dp/B01JGOMSQ4

I would love some feedback on some house rule ideas. I would like to keep it realistic but simple.

No preorders yet…

For me and probably 95% of Global War fans it would be GW 1936.

Here are a few reasons:

• 1939 supports only the 1939 scenario. GW 1936 supports two scenarios. 1936 and 1939.

• HBG is still selling 1939 but I know they are not updating it. It feels (to me) incomplete. GW 1936 is constantly getting rule updates, new expansions, map changes etc.

• GW 1936 map is just beautiful

• GW 1936 feels unique and the gaming experience feels the closest to the real war than any other WW 2 board game out there

• GW 1936 in the future will be part of a GIANT game that spans from the 19th century to the late 20th century including WW 1, Cold war etc.

Won’t be until winter for which? The wrong colored one’s or a correct color re-order?

The wrong colored one’s arrived almost 6 months ago, strange to wait almost a year to put it for sale.

The wrong colored ones were in about a month ago.

I was holding off completing on an order as I wanted to add some of the Japanese pieces I am missing. I gave up as it was taking to long. I asked Doug and apparently the pieces are in but he has do some work assorting them, putting them on the website etc.

I asked Doug a couple of weeks ago and at that time he said 4 months. So times that by two and it should be coming out next spring.

A battlecruiser, in very general terms, would generally be faster than a battleship, but less well protected armour-wise, and would have a less powerful armament (either in terms of the number of its main guns, or their caliber, or both).

I agree with this. This is why I am heaving a tough time deciding on stats. Making the movement 3 means my house rule unit will be faster than all types of ships.

HBG has a number of units like the ones you’re looking for at their Shapeways Shop. They are building up in advance of the release of Global War 1914. You can check them out here;
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/historicalboardgaming?section=Global+War+1914&s=0

GHG thank you for this. I wasn’t aware that HBG has their own sculpts at shapeways. Are they eventually going to be part of the HBG website and sold in mass production? You talk to Doug more than I do.

For stats, this is what I would do:
D6: A4 D4 or D3 M3 C20, no second hit.
D12 A8 D7 or D6 M3 C20, no second hit.
In both cases, your battlecruisers move quickly (as battlecruisers historically could) but can’t take a hit (as battlecruisers historically could not)

Interesting stats. The only thing I am having a hard time is the movement. Historically speaking I don’t think battlecruisers were faster than cruisers or destroyers.

For sculpts, I would use the Admiral class (HMS Hood) battle-cruisers in American green and British tan and the Kongo class battle-cruisers in German black and Japanese burnt orange from A&A 1941.

I have both sculpts and I bought them to make them the battle-cruiser unit but they are as big as any OOB battleship from A&A. I wanted sculpts slightly smaller than the OOB battleship and slightly bigger than the OOB cruisers. For that reason I decided to purchase the HBG units I mentioned above (even though they are WWI era battleships). They are perfectly sized for an in between battleship and cruiser unit.

I am thinking of the following stats:
D6 A4 D4 M2 C16 one hit-point
D12 A8 D8 M2 C16 one hit-point

Reducing the hit-points to one makes it less defensive powerful than a battleship
Attacking wise lot of the battle-cruisers from my research had 12" guns and some even 15". Off course not as many quantity wise and that’s the reason I made them as powerful as battleships.

What would you suggest for stats on D6 and D12 system for a unit between a cruiser and a battleship.

I am thinking of purchasing the following units from HBG which I think are perfect for what I am looking for.

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces–German-Exp–Schleswig-Holstein-Battleship-x5_p_1370.html

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces–Japanese-Supp–Fuso-Early-War-Battleship-x5_p_1627.html

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces–Allies–Nevada-Class-Battleship-x5_p_1340.html

We all know and there is plenty information out there the Allies lend-leased amongst each other, primarily USA lend-leased to UK and Russia, and UK lend-leased to Russia.

How about the Axis Powers? Did they lend-lease to each other and at what degree?

@CWO:

@Erocco:

@Argothair:

Some early thoughts on your mix of units:

1. Many of your units are quite similar to each other mechanically, especially on land. E.g., a tank destroyer is C5 A4 D4 M2, whereas a light tank is C5 A5 D4 M2 – do you really need two different units whose statistics are within one point of each other? Another example is Mech. Inf. (C4 A2 D4 M2) vs. Armored Cars (C4 A3 D3 M2). With d12 dice, these small differences will only matter once every 12 rolls. Consider whether your players will want to buy extra minis, carefully squint at the setup, etc., so that they can enjoy the result of these small differences.

I though of this long and hard. I love to have a choice of many different types of units for every situation. I own most of the HBG sculpts so I figured why not.

Just a comment on a possible middle ground between two valid points: your valid point that having special extra units is fun and interesting, and Argothair’s point that having too many special units – some of them having only minor differences between them – complicates things excessively.  A possible way to split the difference is to have a rule saying that, out of the full range of available special extra units, each power is only allowed to buy X types per game (say, for example, 2 types).  This helps to keep things manageable, because each player only needs to remember the specifications for a very limited number of extra types, not for dozens of them.  It doesn’t restrict game-to-game variety because, from game to game, the various players won’t necessarily buy the same special units.

An additional concept to consider would be to have certain types of special units only be available to certain powers, rather than to everyone.  This could result in interesting situations in which the opposing forces can never be precisely matched in composition…and it would also have a historical basis, because in WWII not all powers fielded every type of weapon.

I should start posting some of the work completed to date because that’s exactly what I’ve done. Every Nation has 2 specific units with the exception of Italy which they have one (ideas for a second unit are welcome) and depending on the unit you can only build 1 or 2 per turn. So anything you suggesting CWO Marc has been implemented.

Thanks for the comments and support guys!  :-D

Thank you for your feedback Argothair! It’s always good to have experienced players providing constructive opinions. I always find that when people create mods and house rules will always tend to think of their game play liking first and think of the community second. I hope after reviews and game testing I will have a satisfactory product that will be liked at least by my game group.

@Argothair:

Some early thoughts on your mix of units:

1. Many of your units are quite similar to each other mechanically, especially on land. E.g., a tank destroyer is C5 A4 D4 M2, whereas a light tank is C5 A5 D4 M2 – do you really need two different units whose statistics are within one point of each other? Another example is Mech. Inf. (C4 A2 D4 M2) vs. Armored Cars (C4 A3 D3 M2). With d12 dice, these small differences will only matter once every 12 rolls. Consider whether your players will want to buy extra minis, carefully squint at the setup, etc., so that they can enjoy the result of these small differences.

I though of this long and hard. I love to have a choice of many different types of units for every situation. I own most of the HBG sculpts so I figured why not.

Light tanks hit chance is 8.3% more than a tank destroyer but at the same time a tank destroyer has armor selection at 2 or less (16.7% hit chance). If you were Russia and Germany is coming at you with 10 tanks, as a defender of mother Russia would you throw in the mix a couple of tank destroyers or light tanks? In the same token been in the offensive with Italy or Germany attacking Russia I would rather build light tanks than tank destroyers to attack. Same goes with m. infantry and armored cars. Bear in mind I just finished creating the Technologies that can be researched. The same Technology will benefit one type of unit like armored cars and another like m. infantry completely different.

2. Your naval structure looks very similar to OOB rules for Global 1940, but it’s widely agreed that cruisers are overpriced at 12 IPCs – do you disagree? Do you think players will purchase your cruisers, and, if so, why? Also, your light carriers look relatively inefficient – I could imagine Italy buying one to support operations in the Med, but otherwise you’re really not getting much bang for your buck – a light carrier plus a fighter combined only defend at 8 and cost 19 IPCs. For one more dollar you could get a battleship, which lets you defend at 8, gives you the ability to soak a free hit, and gives you a better bombard than the lone fighter.

100% agree with the cruisers. I might increase their attack and defense to 7 or give cruisers and battleships AA capabilities. Haven’t decided yet… As for light carriers + a fighter = two hit points, just like a battleship. Making the light carriers cost 8 will make the air craft carriers obsolete costing 16.

3. It’s not obvious that the “choose your target” ability is very useful, because so many of the units are of roughly equal value. At sea, the carrier and battleships take two hits each, so it’s not clear that you want to target them unless they’re already wounded. On land, I guess it’s nice to kill a 6 IPC tank instead of a 3 IPC infantry, but if you’re choosing between a tank destroyer and an artillery piece, good luck figuring out which will hurt your opponent more. Most of the units have special abilities that are very situational.

Not many unit types have target selection. In fact the only two that have this capability is a tank destroyer and the tactical bomber. So not too many dilemmas of what to purchase. As an example if I am USA and fighting Japan in the Pacific I will prefer TB;s over medium bombers. At the same time if I am UK I would rather build more medium bombers than TB’s.

4. How exactly do the coastal guns and fortifications work? I assume the coastal guns only score hits on a roll of 1? And I assume the fortifications don’t roll dice at all, but simply boost the defense of infantry? Do the fortifications still work when they’re partly damaged? Fully damaged? Is there any way to destroy or capture a fortification?

Coastal guns work just like anti-aircraft guns. Here is the updated description on the reference chart’s that I made few days ago: ‘Roll 1 die for each (max 3) attacking sea unit including transports on a 2 or less (first round only)’

Here is the updated description on the reference chart’s for the fortifications: ‘+1 defense of up to 5 infantry (every round of combat). Can take up to 10 damage. For every 2 damage support 1 less unit (round up)’ I thought that wasn’t good enough so I also gave them a defending value of 6 that fires every round.

Coastal guns and fortifications are destroyed when captured. They cannot be taken as casualties (unlike AA guns)

5. Your factories produce income when they’re not damaged, which gives players an incentive to send a ‘harassment’ bomber to annoy every opposing factory. The first bomber targeting a major factory is much more valuable than the second bomber. You don’t really have a ‘harassment’ bomber available, though – the smallest aircraft that can do a strategic bombing raid is the Medium Bomber, which costs 12 IPCs. How do you want this to work? Does a factory still produce bonus income if you repair it at the start of your turn, or do you only collect the bonus income when you start your turn with a damage-free factory? Do you want players to be able to easily disrupt each other’s factories, or is the extra income meant to be a more-or-less permanent bonus?

Very observant Argothair. Repairing of the facilities is done at the beginning of the turn. Collecting IPC’s happens at the end of the turn. This means if you want to collect bonus income you must repair your factories. I introduced the bonus income factory feature as I thought facility bombing doesn’t occur as often as I would like in the other A&A games. Also if you bomb a factory in A&A and you roll a low number it doesn’t really change anything as what’s the difference if a factory can produce max 10 units or 9 or 8. I am hoping this will make players think bombing actually hurts more than just factories producing less units

@Natneo:

i use too Illustrator to make a custom map and by my own  opinion, it’s the best software to create large map. After it’s right, it’s not the cheapest software…
Siredblood is creating his map wth Photoshop, i don’t know how he can do it with a such great result

Have you seen Sireblood’s work aside from his map? That guy is freaking talented.

I’ve decided to create my own A&A game based on IL’s AA50AE map and DK’s Hybrid map.

I enjoy all versions of A&A but I feel (just like DK) a version between AA50AE and AAG40 is missing.

My rules are based 70% from AA1942.2 and AAG40, 20% from HBG’s Global War and 10% house rules. A lot of units have been added!! Game will be based on D12 system.

I am thinking of creating set-ups for 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942. 1942 will be the first set up I will complete.

Here are some of the major changes I made on DK’s V1.2 map:

• Created Malay below French Indo-China and gave them 1 IPC
• Split Germany into Germany and West Germany. I figure if Italy and France are split
    into two territories why not Germany. Germany now produces 10 and W.Germany 6
• Reduced Russia to 10 IPC, Vologda and Tambov to 1
• Reduced Italy from 8 to 6, S. Italy from 4 to 3, Croatia from 4 to 3, Greece from 3 to
    2 to suit my game-play
• Moved Sicily closer to Italy and added Corsica
• Moved Crete closer to Greece
• Fixed the coast by Sydney
• Fixed some Chinese and Russian territory names
• Deleted some VC’s and added my own to match the AA50AE map VC’s
• Deleted the Russian port symbols and city names
• Deleted the Convoy symbols but might add them back in. I just have to think of a
    clever but simple way to use convoy raiding. Might use the GW 1939 rules which
    gives sea zones with convoy symbols an IPC value and if there are any enemy ships
    on the sea zone you just don’t get the IPC’s

Not sure why I can’t upload images so I posted hyperlinks of some sample work instead. More pictures, rules and progress updates will follow.

Japan Reference Card
https://ibb.co/bVNFoH
Map
https://ibb.co/gHmVNc

You’re missing the biggest monument on earth. The Parthenon in Athens Greece.