@Kreuzfeld said in Why is Global better than Revised?:
@SS-GEN It is a very good game. At least 40% of the rules are relating to optional units. Most people play with most optional units, but a lot of people play the vanilla version.
:+1: :+1: :+1:
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
@young-grasshopper Just build a Battleship why don’t cha- Throoow your Ipcs away!!!😏
-
@nolimit said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@young-grasshopper Just build a Battleship why don’t cha- Throoow your Ipcs away!!!😏
maybe he wants to attack caucasus ? :)
-
Could make sense if there is an airbase although the airbase defences can be overpowered.
-
Question regarding the Danish Straits. If the US lands in Norway and is able to build a MIC on the following turn, can newly built ships then be placed in the Baltic Sea, bypassing the need to control Denmark? I assume it is possible When looking at Norway’s shoreline and touching four SZs, I just wouldn’t be able to bring any existing ships through the Straits without taking Denmark. Am I correct with this assumption?
-
Yes…
-
I’m practicing against the computer, my question is how come I can’t place a British factory upgrade in South America, Egypt or Ontario?
-
It has to have a value of 3 and +
-
@tcnance
Major industrial complexes can be built only in originally controlled (not captured) territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher.A minor industrial complex can be upgraded to a major one at a cost of 20 IPCs. The industrial complex to be upgraded must be located on an originally controlled (not captured) territory that you have controlled since the beginning of your turn and that has an IPC value of 3 or higher.
-
Notably, Manchuria does not count as originally controlled. I have no idea why it doesnt, since you control that territory at the start of the game.
-
@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Notably, Manchuria does not count as originally controlled. I have no idea why it doesnt, since you control that territory at the start of the game.
That is explanied in the Pacific rulebook, page 8:
“A few territories in China have a Chinese emblem on them but
are controlled by Japan at the start of the game. These
territories are considered to belong to China originally, but
have been captured by Japan.” -
I know what is in the rule book. But it’s still nonsense. Why are Norway and Romania considered original German territories? Because that makes no sense either…
-
@squirecam Yep, there’s a lot of Abstract things about the game but it’s such a Great time playing it that we have learned to accept it as is- otherwise it’s just not A&A anymore if it was almost as realistic as the Real War was, you could always use your Own House rules to your personal liking anyway!!!
-
@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
I know what is in the rule book. But it’s still nonsense. Why are Norway and Romania considered original German territories? Because that makes no sense either…
Ok, for further answers to this, if Kiangsu was originally Japanese they could build a major factory on it so that is prohibited. Would also require a long list of exceptions to the non chinese territories that China is allowed to occupy, and also require exceptions to allow China to mobilise there. Far easier to just call it originally Chinese.
Whereas Norway could be its own power with no capital like the Dutch but that would have no effect on the gameplay except that Germany couldn’t build a major complex but they would never want to. I guess Italy or Japan could retake it from the allies.
-
Also the Chinese coastal territories could become US/UK/ANZ.
-
These territories should be colored differently then. Have Norway neutral with a German control marker. So the rule is consistent and applied equally.
-
@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
These territories should be colored differently then. Have Norway neutral with a German control marker. So the rule is consistent and applied equally.
Might as well do the rest like Finland,Hungary, Yugo, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece etc etc. pro neutral ? Strict neutral ?
-
@gen-manstein
Finland got hosed by the Allies during the winter war so I have no issue with them being Pro Axis.
You could make the argument for the others remaining as is. But Norway was the subject of invasion by both sides.
So it’s not an original German territory and Germany shouldn’t be able to build a major IC there if we are following the Manchria reasoning.
-
Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.
-
@squirecam check out Sired Bloods map for face 2 face games. He kept all territorys in Sand colors. Maybe this is something for you to Look in.
He also realigned some territory connections. Very good made. Also i think Young Grashoppers maps are remodelt.If you are interested in these let us know and we provide the links or look for the house rule forum or the Customizing forum.
-
@colt45554 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.
I dont see the relevance to being able to build a major factory there or not. Germany never owned Norway. In fact, they conquered it right before the game started.
Manchuria has a government for years that has favored the Japanese. At least as much as the Romanian government “favored” Germany. Logically, you should be able to build a major ic there.
If China takes it, burn down the ic.
Suggested Topics
