6.1 RULE CLARIFICATIONS DATABASE

I could see doing that on a larger map, but I’m concerned that the current map is too small for that. Then again, the game includes air bases, so maybe naval bases/ports aren’t exactly out of the question. Either way, I like the specifics of your suggestion.

thanks for the link to the rules, they will come in handy this weekend  :-P

i like the convoy zone optional rule, however i believe there should be a qualification that the axis still only gain the income on an actual roll of a 1.  this would represent the fact that subs can’t steal cargo, their sole goal was to destroy merchant ships not seize them.

Hi have you got the setups for download cause I would really like to try this on map I’ve been working on
I took modern world map enlarge European contents(spelled wrong I know) then then broke every country into their administration division that I could.

Thanks for the feedback man, it’s much appreciated!  I’ll be discussing this with the guys I play with.  Alot of the things you pointed out make sense, so I’ll definitely be rethinking them.

There’s a few points I disagree with though.

I figured the port in Santa Cruz for the Allies would actually be quite useless to them, in exception to the Commonwealth fleet fleeing the pacific, but that’s about it.  It’s faster to go through the Panama canal the vast majority of the time anyway.

Splitting sea zone 28 in half was done to make it realistic, because it’s just not practical in real terms.  I guess it just depends how you wanna balance gameplay and realism…  I’m pretty excited for that '36 map, we’ll see what they do with it :).

As for building in friendly territory, I can see your point with the Soviets.  I don’t see a problem however with places like Iran and Free French territories, vice versa for the Axis with their eligible territories.  Compromises can be made.  I’m aware that Germany can do this already with the minors.  At least it’s not like G40 where you can build anywhere (where there’s enough value in the territory).

I think the logistical issues with the way China produces is pretty much related to how the population itself fought with the military against the Japanese.  The population is scattered, yes, but why would a militia form up in force in western China when there’s no direct threat there, and then march their way over after?  Better to form up where you’re needed most, isn’t it, especially with the kind of transportation they had at the time?  The fight is in Eastern China, and that’s where the majority of the population is anyway, so more people can volunteer to fight close to the front lines, where it’s relevant.  Just send the supplies to where they’re needed.  Also in regards to C. China, the Russians are just too busy in my games to go there.  The C. Chinese collect little in the first place, so I figured it wouldn’t make that big of a deal.  F.E.C. doesn’t factor much into this for me, because they’re usually toppled within three turns when I play with my regulars.  I know it’s tough for the F.E.C., ANZAC and Americans later on otherwise in other peoples’ games though.  It just depends on what Japan does.  Giving them a major factory actually seems to balance out everything with the changes in that theatre I proposed.

I downgraded the factories in Karelia and Fukuoka and raised the value of Helsinki because the factories there in the official setup stand in contradiction to the rules.  For actual game mechanics in terms of how units work and what they’re allowed to do, I don’t agree with this sort of thing.  Raising/swapping the values in the territories can be done too, it doesn’t matter much, just as long as nothing contradicts the rules in that fashion.

This is great news. Looking forward to it. We’ll try them out next game.

I do have a quick question for the creators brought up while discussing the minor axis powers in another thread:

If the Germans build a naval base on Romania can the Romanians (who don’t need an IC) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units in their capital (not ships next to it)? Using the same principle, are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.

I believe this next part is still under review, any word yet?

This leads me to a 2nd question, say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also fill the requirement to allow for ships to be built from Germany’s Romanian IC adjacent to it? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?

Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements for shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Say the Italians take Holland and build a NB (sz 16). Would the Italian NB allow the Germans to drop ships into sz 16 from their adjacent major IC in W Germany?

@General-6-Stars Yea exactly. Is in there. As far as a rule-booklet that someone mentioned, that should be in a file further down.