Posts made by RellHaiser

@linkler said in Land Unit Adjustments:

@rellhaiser very cool! I’d try those rules I think with a few little tweaks like 1ipp upgrade fr light tank to tank destroyer, 2 for SP artillery still seems like tank destroyers never get built enough, at least in our games. Love the idea of non mobile anti tank guns! What if your armoured car rec. ability was you could instead pair with artillery for a +1 attack for artillery first round only? And to be honest would keep the non combat movement the same as it is I think that would be a big change, maybe it would be alright though. Just some opinions, for what it’s worth. What would your anti tank gun stats be like?

• Fair enough on the upgrade cost from Light Armor to Tank Destroyer. I really think Tank Destroyers should be allowed to pair for Blitzing. The justification given in the rules for units being allowed to Blitz even mentioned being protected from small arms due to armour, and this should indeed apply to Tank Destroyers as they are indeed armoured.
• For the anti-tank artillery, I was thinking to base them on the Tank Destroyer, just with a movement of 1 and cost 4 instead of 5 IPP to keep them simple.
• Armoured cars giving artillery a +1 on attack is actually a great idea, and devalues artillery less than cancelling First Strike would.
• For the Motorized infantry… I think the simplest and most straightforward way of making them better is to just let them benefit of the +1 bonus from artillery when Attacking.

In general I still think non-combat movement should be unaffected by terrain penalties though.

@captainnapalm The rail artwork on the map is only relevant as far as defining gauge and which land zones are being connected.

This is as per section 12.10 in the rules, “If a land zone has a border with a crossing railroad, the railroad allows rail movement across that border and is considered to connect to other rail lines present in that zone, including rail lines built on other zone borders.”

This allows you to greatly simplify pathing along rails.

Based partly on some of my own ideas and partly after having listened to most of Wintermute’s videos with Jinx, I’ve come up with some adjustments to existing units and a (hopefully) interesting Armored Car implementation. None of this has been playtested at all, these are just ideas at this point.

Light Armor:

• Gain an “Early Blitz” ability allowing them to perform Blitzes, but nothing may pair with them for this until Medium Armor become available.
• Additionally, when Medium Armor are available, Light Armor can upgrade to Self-Propelled Artillery or Tank Destroyer for 2 IPP.
• Rationale: Based mostly on Germany’s performance in early WW2, their blitzes were executed almost entirely by light armor. As regards the upgrades, again following Germany’s experience, as newer armored vehicles became available older ones were repurposed into various tank destroyers and self-propelled artillery. Panzer III became the famous StuG III, Panzer IV were modifed to become the Hummel self-propelled artillery or Nashorn tank destroyer, for example.

Self-Propelled Artillery:

• Become available same date as Medium Armor
• Rationale: I’m not 100% tied to this one, but I figured creating some unit gating behind a certain date will help new players as they’ll have fewer unit types to bother with in the first several turns.

Cavalry:

• Now limited to 2 per turn for Major Powers, no built limits for Minor Powers.
• Rationale: Cavalry are the most cost efficient attacker, don’t require research, or inexpensive (and therefore spammable), and get to ignore mountain movement penalty. Limiting to building 2 per turn significantly reduces the potential for abuse.

Armored Car:

• Attack 3, Defense 2, Movement 2 (3), Cost 3, Max 2 per turn
• Wheeled Vehicles: May move 3 in non-combat
• Reconnaissance: Negates First Strike from Artillery and Self-Propelled Artillery
• Rationale: Limited to 2 per turn for most of the same reasons as Cavalry. I’m not 100% sure on the Reconnaissance ability, I might want it to only be effective while Attacking and not Defending. Reconnaissance ability was intended to represent historical use in recon and screening. Wheeled vehicles have better on-road performance than tracked vehicles so wanted to represent this.

Motorized Infantry:

• Towing (just a rewording of this ability): May tow any Artillery-class unit with a base movement of 1, imparting its movement onto the towed unit.
• Wheeled Vehicles: May move 3 in non-combat (including while towing)
• Rationale: Towing reword because I wanted to prevent Self-Propelled Artillery from being towed (which would be silly), and because I’m considering adding Anti-Tank as a new unit, basically a slow (towable) version of a Tank Destroyer.

In general I’m also considering making terrain movement penalties irrelevant for non-combat movement, the idea being that if you’re making a non-combat movement you likely already control the road infrastructure and can ignore the actual terrain.

Thoughts?

@linkler This doesn’t seem to be made clear, BUT… I think the best approach is the latter you mentioned.

Referring to the base game rules in section 9.4 (Submarines are the only base game unit that can retreat while Defending), the retreat happens in lieu of the Defense roll.

You cannot retreat with land units after winning a combat.

"This retreat is in lieu of making their next round of Attack rolls. "

If you have no next round of Attack rolls, how do you expect to do anything in lieu of it?

Edmonton, Alberta here. Have yet to play a game of Global War, but I have everything I need now that my map finally arrived yesterday!

Though I have studied the rules for both versions 2 and 3 for some time, quite anxious to give it a go. If the pandemic is under control enough where I am my group will try to play during our May long weekend here in Canada.

@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.

That Armoured Car idea seems decent. I too would like to implement them, but I kind of struggle to find an interesting/fun way to differentiate them either from Cavalry or from Light Armour.

Based on the maps drawn on pages 6 and 60 of the beta rules for V3 Istanbul is entirely in the Middle East, and therefore has a rail movement of 1.

@Dran-Black The Ju-87G is A7, D5, M4, C13
Available January 1943, target-select 1-5 vs. vehicle class.
In return for being that much better than a normal tactical bomber against ground targets they’re unable to hit ships, or use ordnance from those expansions.

I like your two turn Flak Tower build time as I think they could be built in 6 months IRL but only by using pretty much all the concrete that was available. So Flak Tower cost and built time at 4/4 I think. July 1941 availability sounds good too.

@SS-GEN I had no intention of increasing anti-tank’s target select from 3 to 5, only the raw defense value, but I think your criticism is fair. How about A2, D4, M1, C4, target select either a) stays at 3, or b) increases to 4 but only works on defense?
And of course towable by Motorized.

1. I’ll likely eventually use HBG’s rules for the Swordfish and Ju-87G pieces.

2. I’m considering using HBG’s Anti-tank acrylic marker to make an Anti-tank unit. Same attack, defense, and target select as a tank destroyer in V3, cost 4, move 1, towable by Motorized. Might skew attack/defense values further in favour of defense if it proves too cost effective relative to tank destroyers.

3. Flak Towers: Unsure of cost/build time yet. Can only be built in cities. Add +2 to all AA rolls and act as a supplemental fortification, granting +2 defense to all land units for an additional round if a normal fortification already exists.

4. LVT-A amphibious tank for USA using HBG’s rules.

I’m currently at work, if I remember to do so when I get home I’ll dig out HBG’s rules for some of these and update the post.

@GeneralHandGrenade Thanks, I was actually hoping you would reply here as you have a lot more insight into why these rules are the way they are now.

I like that it is intended as a bonus, but it reads like a massive penalty. If it’s the Maritime Air Patrol that prevents Submarines from declining combat outright, I don’t see what stops you from throwing something heavier, even a Light Cruiser at the Submarine. and forcing it to endure a better dice roll before submerging. Again, because the Maritime Air Patrol already prevented it from declining combat.

How I’m interpreting the rule also makes historical sense, as WW2 submarines were really more just submersibles, operating on the surface most of the time.

Having studied the released beta rules for V3 for some time I still find there to be some ambiguity with the rules regarding submarines, specifically, how to kill them.

Given:

1. “Submarines may not be Attacked unless the Attacker has an aircraft on Maritime
   Air Patrol.”

and

2. “Submarines have First Strike unless the Enemy has a Destroyer present.”

What is the point of “A destroyer may pair 1:1 with aircraft on Maritime Air Patrol to participate in an Attack on a submarine.” if it’s only the Maritime Air Patrol that prevents submarines from declining combat?

I think other surface warships should at least be able to attempt an attacking roll against the submarines (providing they’re backed by Maritime Air Patrol) even if the surviving submarines opt to then just submerge instead of firing defensively.

Thoughts?

@hammertimepower Based on how I read the rules the -8 penalty for USA is one time only. If it was every turn that would quite unbalanced as well. Furthermore you cannot recruit Colonial Infantry in Gibraltar as Colonial still require the territory they’re placed in to have an IPP value.

@mrgoatcheese In V3 anyway based on the beta rules Great Britain is only restricted from declaring war on major powers when below wartime income. There is no such restriction mentioned for minors IIRC.

Nice lists!

I recently placed the last order from HBG for units I’ll need to make V3 playable when the map arrives later on.

I probably spent more money than I needed to, even though I will be using coloured chips to indicate some unit types until the rest of the needed pieces are available. I haven’t gotten into painting yet (when I do make that leap, will likely paint a Canadian army out of mixed US and UK pieces) which probably hurts me somewhat as I purchased units in 5 even if I only needed a single one.

@GeneralHandGrenade’s lists were of great help, and I just used the search function when looking at the neutrals setup PDF to quickly count the units needed there.

I really like the look of this setup, and (I don’t get to play frequently, but…) I look forward to playing it at my next session in early September.

I just performed a test setup yesterday and noticed a few things:

• I’m going to get a handful of grey German units from HBG to use as the standing armies for some of the new Pro-Axis neutrals such as Romania and Slovakia / Hungary to avoid confusion from the German player. This is despite me already using the Pro-Axis / Pro-Allied indicator chips from HBG. For the new Pro-Allied neutrals, which only have Infantry in their standing armies, I’m using white infantry pieces from HBG.

• I think your starting income/treasury for UK Europe is off by one IPC, should be 26 and not 27. I’ve counted several times, and as long as I haven’t missed a territory my best guess is you forgot to take away the 1 IPC for Belgian Congo which is a Pro-Allied neutral.
  Nevermind, I forgot British Columbia on the other side of the map. Sorry.

Thanks again for creating this scenario, I can’t wait to play it.

Hambone, I must say I disagree with your tank destroyer implementation and prefer Rebhot’s. Unless we’re talking about turreted tank destroyers like the Hellcat (which HBG has) they should really be weaker on attack due to lack of a turret, and stronger on defense due to low profile allowing for use in ambushes. The German StuG III is really the archetypal example of this. Even though it began as an assault gun for use in supporting infantry, sporting a short 75mm gun 24 calibres in length, constant upgrades eventually had them carrying 75mm L/48 guns and doing very well with these ambushing Allied and Soviet armour.

There are lots of pieces I’d like to see, but if we’re talking for Global 40 specifically…

A combined Assault Gun / Tank Destroyer unit would have been cool. For example:

A2 D4 M2 C4 or 5.

Similar to artillery it could boost the attack value of infantry while only having an attack value of 2 itself due to the typical casemate design but be very strong on defense due to the low profile. HBG has a few pieces that could work for this such as StuG III, Hellcat, and Su-76.

I also really like the Self-propelled Artillery idea, and HBG has a few pieces to back that up as well, M7 Priest, Sexton, Katyusha, Hummel.