Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Historical Scenarios
Some players may want to just fight, without getting involved in the
bookkeeping associated with research, production, mobilization and
diplomacy. For these Pattons, the Historical Global War, European and
Pacific scenarios are ideal. These scenarios may also appeal to players
curious to see just what they could have done with (and against) the forces
actually employed in the real war.
Research and Production: The research and production rules are used in Order of Deployment: Poland, Germany, Italy, France, Britain, Russia,
all campaign games. U.S., Japan, China.
Order of Movement: During each game turn, Germany, Italy and Japan
Pacific scenario: move first, moving together. The Allies, including neutral Russia, the U.S.
Japan conducts research and production normally, beginning in Fall 1939. and China, move second. The order of movement does not change in the
course of the game.
The Western Allies conduct research and production beginning in Fall
1939, but available research points and some allocations are constrained Allied Unpreparedness and Pearl Harbor: The rules governing Allied
by the demands of the European Theater. The Pacific Campaign Game unpreparedness on the first turn of a Japanese attack apply if Japan declares
Western Allied Research sheets provide the research points available war on Britain or the U.S. See rule 51.
each year and list the required “European” allocations. The remaining Additional Setup Information: Additional information relating to the
research points may be assigned as players choose, in accord with the initial setup of this scenario is found in the following rules: supply status
normal research rules, including the placing of additional points in (7.25); mapboard box restrictions (7.31); replacements (10.25); partisan
mandatory projects. Required allocations count towards project and placement (11.36); airbase placement (18.141); initial transport placement
category maxima. (20.631); initial fortifications (32.41); initial oil reserves (33.422); no YSS
Russia does not conduct research or production. Russia’s combat training (35.12); RPs (41.21, 41.22, 42.16); initial codebreaking cards (48.23); DPs
level increases to two in Summer 1942, and its Air Nationality DRM (49.13); initial cooperation restrictions (53); Poland (64.34); Baltic States
increases to two in Spring 1943. One shock tactics result may be used (65.22); minor country setup (82.51, 82.92); minor countries begin with a
each turn beginning in Spring 1943. Heavy armor is available. “3-4” diplomatic result (Diplomatic Tables Introduction).
One harbor attack is considered to take place in Europe in the Allied
Winter 1940 player turn, and modifies any subsequent harbor attacks in
National Capabilities
the Pacific. The Global War campaign game BRP levels, growth rates, mobilizations,
unit construction limits, basic airbases, replacements and RP and DP
Force Pools: Ground and air force pools are listed on the force pool chart allocations are set out on force record sheets, together with each major
for each major power. Each force pool chart lists the starting forces, initial power’s ground, air and naval forces and space to record force pool
allowable builds, fixed force pool additions, and the maximum number of additions from mobilization and production.
additional ground units which may be added by mobilization and
production. The Global War scenario cards, which contain the Naval Construction
Charts and space for allowable builds, isolated units and minor country
Mobilization: Italy, Japan, Britain, Russia and the U.S. mobilize additional units, should be used to keep track of units which are currently in play.
forces and increase their BRP base as indicated below. See also the scenario
sheets for each major power and the Mobilization Record Sheet.
Duration: The Global War game begins in Fall 1939 and ends at the end of
the Axis Winter 1946 player turn or when:
A. The Axis wins a decisive victory, because:
France, Britain and Russia are in a state of surrender; and
Germany and Japan have not surrendered.
or
France, Britain and Russia are in a state of surrender;
the United States signs a peace treaty with Germany as a result of an
adverse U.S. election result; and
Germany has not surrendered.
Deployment Limits (Europe): Two 3-4 infantry units, six replacements In the European scenario, U.S. mobilizations occur as determined by the
and one strategic bomber factor begin the game in the Atlantic U.S. box and USAT level. For each mobilization, the U.S. adds 25 BRPs to its BRP base
must remain there until war breaks out between the U.S. and Germany. and level and adds 20 BRPs of units to its force pool except as follows:
When the U.S. mobilizes at USAT level 10, the U.S. increases its
European scenario: shipbuilding level by one and otherwise adds no units to its force pool,
These units constitute the initial American force pool in a European as any ground and air units mobilized are considered to go to the
scenario. Pacific theater.
In Winter 1942, the U.S. mobilizes 15 BRPs of ground and air units.
Deployment Limits (Asia): U.S. forces must remain in the following These represent forces that are mobilized from an American
locations until war breaks out between the U.S. and Japan, unless otherwise mobilization in the Pacific theater.
allowed by the USJT level:
Pearl Harbor: One 2-2 infantry unit, one 1-2 infantry unit and one AAF. Pacific scenario:
Philippines: Three 1-2 infantry units and two Filipino 1-2 infantry units. In the Pacific scenario, U.S. mobilizations occur as determined by the USJT
These one-factor units may not stack together. level. For each mobilization, the U.S. adds 20 BRPs of units to its force
Midway: One NAS. pool except as follows:
U.S. box (Pacific): One 2-2 infantry unit, one 1-2 infantry unit, two 1-2 In Summer 1940, the U.S. mobilizes 15 BRPs of ground and air units.
marine units, six replacements, four AAF, eight NAS and one air These represent forces that are mobilized from an American
transport factor. mobilization in the European theater.
Pacific Fleet: Nine NAS. When the U.S. mobilizes in Winter 1942, the U.S. may only mobilize 5
BRPs of units, as the remaining 15 BRPs of mobilized units are
Pacific scenario: considered to go to the European theater.
These units constitute the initial American force pool in a Pacific scenario.
European and Pacific scenarios:
Additional units may be deployed to the Pacific as allowed by the USJT The United States used shipbuilding in one theater to build ships that were
level. used in the other the theater:
The Yorktown (which begins in the Atlantic fleet) and American naval units From Fall 1939 to Summer 1940, one Atlantic heavy shipbuilding point
launched after the start of the game may be assigned to either the Atlantic is used for Pacific shipbuilding.
fleet or the Pacific fleet. Carriers in the Pacific fleet must be assigned to
carrier TFs (51.223) until the U.S. is at war with Japan. Transfers between From Fall 1940 to Summer 1941, two Atlantic heavy shipbuilding
the Atlantic and Pacific fleets are restricted until the U.S. is at war in both points are used for Pacific shipbuilding.
theaters (51.2). From Fall 1941 onwards, three Atlantic heavy shipbuilding points are
used for Pacific shipbuilding.
European Scenario:
From Spring 1941 to Winter 1941, one Pacific light shipbuilding point
The Yorktown, Wasp, Washington, Indiana, and Massachusetts are is used for Atlantic shipbuilding.
considered transferred to the Pacific and are not present in the European
scenario. From Spring 1942 onwards, two Pacific light shipbuilding points are
used for Atlantic shipbuilding.
American submarines: Prior to the outbreak of war, the U.S. may base its In European scenarios:
submarines in the Pacific U.S. box, Pearl Harbor, Manila or any
combination of the three locations. In turns when Atlantic shipbuilding points are used for Pacific
shipbuilding, the U.S. deducts three BRPs for each shipbuilding point
Research: The Western Allies begin with a [+1] ASW modifier, a [+3] air so used but may not use the shipbuilding point.
range modifier, a [+5] radar modifier and a "9+" result for strategic
bombers. See 41.31D and the research record sheets for date restrictions on In turns when Pacific shipbuilding points are used for Atlantic
RP allocations. shipbuilding, the U.S. may use the shipbuilding points at no U.S. BRP
cost. Each transport constructed with Pacific shipbuilding points counts
European scenario: three BRPs towards any cash and carry or lend lease limits (27.7322).
The Pacific shipbuilding rate cannot be increased.
RP Allotments: The U.S. receives one additional RP in the 1941 YSS,
three additional RPs in the 1942 YSS, and five additional RPs in the 1943 In Pacific scenarios:
and each subsequent YSS, to reflect RPs from the Pacific. In turns when Atlantic shipbuilding points are used for Pacific
DP Allotments: The U.S. receives one additional DP in the 1942 YSS, two shipbuilding, the U.S. may use those shipbuilding points. Ships laid
additional DPs in the 1943 YSS, three additional DPs in the 1944 YSS, four down with Atlantic shipbuilding points are placed in the Atlantic
additional DPs in the 1945 YSS, and five additional DPs in the 1946 YSS, shipyard, and Atlantic shipbuilding points must be used to continue
to reflect the Pacific BRPs not represented in the game. construction. The ships are eventually launched into the Atlantic U.S.
box, and may redeploy or base change to the Pacific. The Atlantic
Production: The U.S. may not produce marines. shipbuilding rate cannot be increased.
Pacific scenario: In turns when Pacific shipbuilding points are used for Atlantic
shipbuilding, the U.S. may not use the shipbuilding points in the
American BRPs: The U.S. does not track BRP expenditures. All U.S. Pacific. The shipbuilding points count as being used to build one-factor
shipbuilding is maximally accelerated once the U.S. is at war with Japan. “light” naval units for the European theater, and count against the one-
BRP Grants: While the U.S. is neutral, BRP grants to China are limited to half of the Pacific shipbuilding points that may be used for such ships.
3 BRPs/turn in addition to any USJT limits. The U.S. may not grant BRPs
to China via the Atlantic (40.82C). The U.S. may grant BRPs to Australia
and India (via the Pacific only) for unit construction (40.244C,D).
The Philippines are an American associated minor country worth 10 BRPs. Flying Tigers: Nationalist China adds one Flying Tiger AAF to its force
The BRPs for the Philippines are included in the American Fall 1939 BRP total pool when the USJT level reaches 20 and adds a second Flying Tiger AAF
of 160 BRPs. Filipino forces (two 1-2 infantry units) begin the game in the to its force pool when the USJT level reaches 35.
Philippines (89.4). Communist China
Communist China is a minor country independently at war with Japan.
Communist China becomes a Russian minor ally when war breaks out
Russia between Russia and Japan (85.6).
The dangers of restlessness which favored one side tended to be offset by changes which favored the
other side. Playtesting showed that the overall balance in the game
A World at War began in the mid-1990s as a somewhat haphazard remained more or less intact throughout the many years of development.
fiddling with the rules to Avalon Hill’s Advanced Third Reich and Rising
Sun. To some gamers, this amounted to heresy, it being sacrilegious to The process
ever consider tampering with the sacred script that was the “Classic
It may be that A World at War is the most tested, polished game in
Game”. But, as the creator of those games, I was not bound by such
wargaming history. Given its scope, it had better be. Hundreds of playtest
inhibitions. Neither, as subsequent events demonstrated, were a great
games were conducted, reported and dissected. The vehicle for this was
many other people.
an e-mail discussion group, which is still going strong and which
While I viewed the Classic game system as being fundamentally sound, provides a way for new and experienced players to get quick answers to
the implementation of the game system in Advanced Third Reich and questions, receive advice (sometimes unsolicited) and find new
Rising Sun struck me as imperfect. Strategic warfare was too abstract, opponents. For more details, see the preface to the rules.
fleet factors were unsatisfying, different naval rules applied in the
But the discussion group went well beyond playtesting. It was the forum
European and Pacific theaters, and many interesting games were ruined
for the “design by committee” which some designers reject outright as
by the chaos of the “double move”. Of course many of these “flaws” only
unworkable. While patience and forbearance beyond that normally
came to light as time went by. But, in general, I thought we could do
expected of mortals was required, a host of inspired ideas were generated
better, although it was by no means clear just how.
by this process, and the result speaks for itself.
“Global War 2000” On occasion the whole effort moved two steps forward and one step back,
as false starts proved unworkable and previously rejected ideas were
Once it became clear that a schism was developing in the Advanced Third reassessed and adopted. I can think of two examples. Initially I rejected
Reich/Rising Sun community, the “revisionists” established their own the idea of named ships (“too much of a change”) and a single set of
Yahoo discussion group and began to review every aspect of the game. naval combat rules for both theaters (“why make Europe more difficult to
The project was given the (optimistic) working name “Global War 2000”, play?”). The manner in which these design issues were resolved is
which indicated the intended date of completion. In 1997, that didn’t instructive.
seem unrealistic.
As the “named ship” lobby agitated for bringing non-carrier capital ships
Perhaps in reaction to the “Classicists”, the basic premise adopted by into the game, the naval construction rules were conceived, which
those involved in developing “gw2k” was “no sacred cows”. 130,000+ e- provided a simple system for building and repairing the named ships. The
mails later (they’re all available for review…), I can attest to our end result was the coolness and realism of having the Bismarck and
unwavering adherence to that precept. Each component of the Classic Yamato in the game, as well as a big improvement to the unit construction
game has been stripped down, examined at every level, and reconstituted rules.
– sometimes with almost no changes, and sometimes in a completely
different form. The result was A World at War. As it happened, the introduction of named ships and the resulting changes
to fleet combat caused a long-sought simplification and rationalization to
A favorite question the naval combat rules. These were further revised prior to the second
printing. In some ways the naval rules are the most difficult in the game,
A favorite and rather pointless question which was discussed early on but hopefully A World at War players now look forward to naval battles.
was whether A World at War was “a new game”, as compared to The improvements to the naval combat system removed the barrier to
Advanced Third Reich. In the Designer’s Notes to Advanced Third Reich, applying the same system to the entire game, so players now have to learn
I spent some time discussing this same question with respect to Advanced just one set of rules and use them.
Third Reich and the old Third Reich. But now, thanks to GMT, I can
borrow from my favorite one page science fiction story and give a It is impossible to give A World at War’s players the credit they deserve.
definitive answer to the question “Is A World at War a new game?”: “It is In the fifteen years since the first printing in 2003, many new players
now!” have taken up the game and made important contributions to further
refining and improving the rules. The main changes have been in clarity,
The more things change… with occasional substantive changes which have simplified unnecessarily
complicated areas of the rules or thwarted “peace plans” which were too
The fundamental assumption upon which Advanced Third Reich and easy to implement. The game, in short, is more balanced and easier to
Rising Sun were based remains unchanged in A World at War. Either side play now than when it was first published.
could have won World War II. Historians have debated this complex
topic for decades, with some arguing that the Russian and American It would also seem, as A World at War goes into a third printing in 2018,
economic superiority made an Allied victory inevitable, while others that the game is more widely played than ever. Players’ search for the
pointed to the multitude of lost opportunities for German victory, and “Holy Grail” – the perfect plan for one side or the other – has been made
combination of Japanese foolishness and American luck which turned the even more difficult by the 2015 publication of Gathering Storm, the
tide in the Pacific. prequel game for the European theater. The development of Storm Over
Asia, the pre-war game for the Pacific theater that will also flow into A
A World at War could not come down firmly in one camp or the other on World at War, is well under way. With a nearly unlimited number of
this issue. While players may have their preferences as to which countries imaginary wars to fight from a wide range of starting positions, there is
they like to play, these preferences should be based on their personalities, no danger of A World at War getting stale.
interests or other subjective factors, and not on which side is more likely
to win. In general, it is intended that the Axis are less likely to win, but What next?
more likely to “win big” (in the sense of conquering Europe and in so
doing stalemating the United States in the Pacific) when they do. In a ten- So what now? My suggestion is simple: play the game! It’s time to enjoy
game match, the Axis should win a handful of decisive victories, the rewards of the collective effort to design and publish A World at War
offsetting the more numerous, but more closely contested, Allied and Gathering Storm, and to celebrate the third printing of A World at
victories. War.
The assumption was also made that the Classic games themselves, despite That leaves one final concern - where are those dice?
their shortcomings, were balanced. As those games evolved into A World
at War, an effort was made to maintain “play balance”, in that changes
ZoCs do not extend across enemy fortified hexsides; Ground units may not attrition across a fortified
ground units in fortifications are not eliminated by enemy hexside; units defending behind a fortified
Fortification
isolation (but the DM of the hex is reduced by one each hexside receive a +1 DM (unless also attacked across
turn). a non-fortified hexside).
National Movement into a neutral country requires a declaration Attacks into a neutral country require a declaration
Boundary of war. of war.
Ground units may only cross all-water hexsides if Air and naval combat is permitted; ground combat
Ocean carried by destroyers or transports. is prohibited.
Partial Land- Partial land-sea hexes are considered both land and sea
None.
Sea Hexes hexes for all purposes.
Switzerland Swiss hexes are impassible to ground and air units. None.
The defensive strength of a ground unit equals its printed combat strength multiplied by its net Defense Multiplier (DM). Defending ground units
receive a basic +2 DM (have their combat strength doubled), which is then subject to additional positive (15.32) and negative (15.33) DMs. Units
never defend at less than face value.
A WORLD AT WAR
Credits
Project Director: Bruce Harper Second Printing Proofreading: Mike Crowe, Dave Hanson, Keven
Leith, Kevin Milne, Paul Milne, Bill Moodey, Tim Schroeder
Co-Designers: Don Moody, Eric Thobaben
Original Design Team: Mike Crowe, William Dixon, Dave Hanson, Third Printing Proofreading: Dave Hanson , Bob Kester, Randy
Vic Hogen, Markus Kaessbohrer, Keven Leith, Bill Moodey, Edward Scheers
Schoenfeld, Martin Smith, Paul Stoecker, Greg Wilson, Mark Yaeger Web Site Administrator: Randy Scheers
Additional Designers: Rob Carl, Stephen Erickson, Elihu Feustal, Warplanner: Chris Goldfarb
Chris Goldfarb, Randy Scheers
Original Playtesters: Jason Allen, Greg Bangs, Nate Bangs, Rob
Vancouver Playtest Group: Tor Abrahamsen, Trevor MacDonald, Carl, Brian Conway, Ken Cruz, Michael Curtis, Raf De Backer,
Boyd Pyper, Kevin Ray, Bill Steiner Robert Brophy, Ernie Copley, Stephen Ede, Greg Falato, Tim Francis,
Graphics, Counter and Mapboard Art: Mark Simonitch Luis Miguel Garcia, Eric Grotelueschen, Jussi Hannunen, Jon Hogen,
Michael Horsley, William Humphrey, Graham Kays, Darren Kilfara,
Cover Design: Rodger MacGowan Pierre Lagassé, Eric Laner, Dale Long, Alvaro Martin, Randy
Layout: Mark Simonitch, Maurice Buttazoni MacInnis, Txema Mendebil, Kevin Milne, Maurice Miskow, Jason
Moore, Patrick Mullen, Steve Oliver, Fergal O'Shea, Greg Roberts,
Counter Designations: Markus Kaessbohrer, Drazen Kramaric, Michael Rutkowski, Eric Scheulin, Jake Schmidt, Jerry Smolens, Jim
Boyd Pyper, Edward Schoenfeld Sparks, Kozan Soykal, Andrew Sutton, Larry Torrance, Javier
Original Proofreading: Bill Kohler, Paul Stoecker, Eric Thobaben, Vilarroig, John Weatherby
Greg Wilson Post-publication Playtesters: Too numerous to list.
The Three Wise Men: Joe Brophy, Mike Stone, Conrad Struckman