And the reason China doesn’t have a capital in the board game is because it was meant to be impossible to take over their capital, which allows you to take a country’s money and stop all production and income.
The capital of China IS a victory city. But China doesn’t have a “capital” like the other powers, by design.
ok, i have 2 fixes lined up for version 3.7 of global 1940 2nd edition:
1. fixed japanese national objective so that if germany/italy takes india and/or the other power centers in asia, that japan gets her money
2. allowed rockets to gang up on infrastructure
anything else i need to change (that is specific to this map) ?
ok, i have 2 fixes lined up for version 3.7 of global 1940 2nd edition:
1. fixed japanese national objective so that if germany/italy takes india and/or the other power centers in asia, that japan gets her money
2. allowed rockets to gang up on infrastructure
anything else i need to change (that is specific to this map) ?
The seazone thing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30091.0
The submarine thing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29780.0
But I don’t know if they are map related or engine related.
Panther’s post reminds me:
SBR’s for tacs and bombers going after different targets and stuff
On
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=63087#p63087
Krieghund points out a rule change from Alpha3 to 2nd Ed. that I did not notice before:
In the Alpha 3 rules, the application of Soviet neutrality was absolute, based on the two maps. For instance, if the USSR were only at war with Japan, Japan could not move into Soviet territories on the Europe map, and Germany and Italy (not at war with the USSR) could move into captured Soviet territories on the Pacific map.
In the 2nd edition rules, this has been changed so that powers at war with the USSR can move into Soviet territories on either map, and powers not at war with the USSR cannot move into captured Soviet territories on the other map. Using the same example, Japan could attack Soviet territories on the Europe map, and Germany and Italy could not move into captured Soviet territories on the Pacific map.
I don’t know how this is handled in TripleA, actually.
But i wanted to mention it to be sure that it does not get lost.
Oh my goodness.
No wonder there’s so much confusion about the rules of G40. That’s crazy.
@P@nther:
On
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=63087#p63087
Krieghund points out a rule change from Alpha3 to 2nd Ed. that I did not notice before:In the Alpha 3 rules, the application of Soviet neutrality was absolute, based on the two maps. For instance, if the USSR were only at war with Japan, Japan could not move into Soviet territories on the Europe map, and Germany and Italy (not at war with the USSR) could move into captured Soviet territories on the Pacific map.
In the 2nd edition rules, this has been changed so that powers at war with the USSR can move into Soviet territories on either map, and powers not at war with the USSR cannot move into captured Soviet territories on the other map. Using the same example, Japan could attack Soviet territories on the Europe map, and Germany and Italy could not move into captured Soviet territories on the Pacific map.
I don’t know how this is handled in TripleA, actually.
But i wanted to mention it to be sure that it does not get lost.
Well, this doesn’t come up often while the USSR is not at war. In fact, I don’t know if I’ve seen Japan attack the USSR while they were still neutral with Germany.
If Germany is attacking in Siberia then the game is probably over.
@ seazone thing
Fixed already in triplea 1.7, is engine related.
@ sub thing (this is the “casualty choosing” thing also)
This is on my list, but won’t be done anytime soon. It is engine related.
@ sbrs for tacs and bombers going for diff targets
This is on my list, but won’t be done anytime soon. It is engine related.
@ soviet politics thing
TripleA handles the new 2nd edition rules version of this correctly
I wanted to mention just for completeness so to be sure that it does not get lost.
Can you choose to not place your purchased units just for the sake of it? I know if u are unable, it is reimbursed money, but can you just choose not to place?
The answer is that you MUST place all units that you bought as long as you have capacity.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.465
TripleA handled it differently, I think it is an engine related.
And i mean Bloodfresh mention a situation that Dutch New Guinea is occupied from US, but Anzac and UK Pacific not receive the PU´s for the NO. Maybe we have to wait for an answer from him if he made an official bug report.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.510
TripleA has a different take on it than Larry.
If you are dumb enough to purchase units that you do not actually want to place, then TripleA forces you to go to the bathroom and give yourself a swirly.
Thxs Veqryn are you always so polite and diplomatic! 8-)
The Situation was the following. Germany buys 8 Transports for a sealion but he forget the russian subs that could sink all the transports, because there was no dd present. If he noticed that he did not place his transports and so they were save, but the rules are clearly in this case, his answer was: i always can do this in tripleA so it is allowed but it isen´t.
I guess it is a lot of work for you to fix it and i mention it only because TripleA handel this different, thats all.
Maybe you can mention it in the notes, that is allow in tripleA but not in Larry´s Game rules!
but he forget the russian subs that could sink all the transports, because there was no dd present.
Swirly time!
:mrgreen:
Veqryn, there is a nuance of the game that you’re missing.
I am attacking a destroyer with 2 fighters with ANZAC in a game right now. I am buying a transport. If my fighters fail, I would not want to place my transport because he will just sink it with the destroyer.
It is significant that the rules prohibit me from holding it back. Triple A allows people to hold it back, and then you might have to prove to them that the rules prohibit that (and it’s not terribly clear in the rulebook, so you might have to go and get Krieghund to say it again).
So it would be nice if you either fixed it, or put a note in that says it doesn’t do it properly, just as Babubaer suggested.
Wait, I thought if you didn’t or couldn’t place all your units in triplea then you lose them?
Also- you ‘can’ place your transport and it would not die until Japan’s turn and he left the DD in the SZ. Perhaps there is a French DD in range or fighters that can scramble in the SZ?
Wait, I thought if you didn’t or couldn’t place all your units in triplea then you lose them?
No, you don´t loose them.
Yes, you can place them the next turn, like you want. 8-)
Also- you ‘can’ place your transport and it would not die until Japan’s turn and he left the DD in the SZ. Perhaps there is a French DD in range or fighters that can scramble in the SZ?
Uh - no.
New South Wales doesn’t have an airbase. There were no allied ships in range. That’s beside the point anyway.
My fighters succeeded, although I lost half of them :x
TripleA lets you carry them over
The rule book says you never carry units over. If you bought more than you can legally place, you get your money back for the excess units. Then you could buy something different the next turn.
Point is, the rule does make a difference, and Triple A doesn’t follow it.
There are times when carrying units over to the next turn is an unfair, illegal advantage whether Veqryn recognizes it or not. Doesn’t matter too much, as Veqryn always says, follow the rulebook and not Triple A. I will not allow my opponents to carry units over to the next turn because it’s illegal. You must place all units if you have the capacity, and no, they don’t always deserve a swirly because adverse combat dice rolls might have caused the problem.
Here’s another example.
Russia has 39 IPC’s and buys 13 infantry. The only complexes Russia controls are Moscow and Stalingrad. The Russian player intends to attack some German infantry in Rostov and leave an infantry blocker to keep the German tank and mech stack in the Ukraine from storming Stalingrad next turn.
The dice fail him, and the Russian player loses all his infantry in the attack on Rostov, and is unable to block. Now he doesn’t want to place 3 infantry in Stalingrad because they will get annihilated and probably only score 1 hit on a mech. He would much rather have the 3 extra infantry in Moscow the next turn, now that he knows the attack in Rostov failed.
Triple A would let him hold it back, and a lot of players would probably assume it’s legal. But like Veqryn says in his disclaimer, it’s the players’ responsibility to know the rules. Might as well make a note of it if you’re not going to fix it, though. I mean, there are a lot of rules and most players don’t bother to learn every single one accurately. They’re going to depend on the engine sometimes.
