7.2 Rules question

Rohr94 is right. I think people try to read too much into the rules.  Example, the minor axis IC’s.  Before there were no IC’s but they could still produce units.  Then people asked about building naval units.  Just build a naval base and then build a ship!!  Lol.  On setup there are some countries that dont have naval bases and IC’s in the same zone……so what!  That just means in order for them to build more naval units they would have to buy and place an IC and naval base in the same zone.

You shouldnt put 2 ic’s in the same zone, although there is no rule against.  That is why the minor axis had special IC rules.

If you capture an IC, that is from the enemy, it is reduced in power or production. So if the IC in Paris is under axis control and it is a minor then the capturing of the IC would destroy it.  Also I thinkb there is nothing in the rules about capturing a major IC, it becoming a minor IC, but later upgrading it back to a major IC.

1. So if the allies take back Paris that minor factory is destroyed ?

2. So if Germany captures Warsaw that factory is destroyed ?

3. So that means any Minor factory captured anywhere is destroyed  ?

4. So take away the minor factorys in Axis minors on setup, let them build Naval and Air bases so to not have anymore confusion on factorys ?

We didn’t have any problems with the rules but just to be more clear.

how about lend lease to Holland and France?

I love this game but it seems to just keep getting more confusing. The spirit of what is intended is clear cut. The writing of the rule itself seems to be an issue.

I never did see where paratroops clarifications were written into the rules. The Japanese sneak attack rules are still a bit cloudy. I believe we play both correctly but I’ve been wrong about my interpretation before.

Maybe rewrite the rules like they were written in the original Third Reich. Example: See rule 7-1.a.c. and rule 6-4.b.t.

The fortification rules I thought were going to say only 1 fort per territory?

You only need one great game and everyone will buy it.

There are so many AA variants out there and in many ways this is the best, but it’s still fiddly with rules. Changes should be made slowly and with great care in wording. We keep getting in fights and flip a coin over tiny issues that actually change the whole game. For example, it doesn’t say Japan can’t move into Vichy…so Japan does so UK can’t attack it unless UK declares war on Japan. It’s exploitation but it’s allowed so it can’t really be argued.

In this game you can attack Russia first turn and leave UK/Poland/France alone. They can’t even attack Germany until after Japan attacks UK. I actually really love this option but it seems a bit unrealistic. Just little ways to exploit the game here and there at times makes it a bit frustrating for us.

3/4 of the questions out here are actually clear cut in the rules, but some things should be rewritten to be more clear. Basically the longer the rules get the more fun the game - but more interpretation issues occur.

@billcallaway:

I love this game but it seems to just keep getting more confusing. The spirit of what is intended is clear cut. The writing of the rule itself seems to be an issue.

I never did see where paratroops clarifications were written into the rules. The Japanese sneak attack rules are still a bit cloudy. I believe we play both correctly but I’ve been wrong about my interpretation before.

Maybe rewrite the rules like they were written in the original Third Reich. Example: See rule 7-1.a.c. and rule 6-4.b.t.

The fortification rules I thought were going to say only 1 fort per territory?

You only need one great game and everyone will buy it.

There are so many AA variants out there and in many ways this is the best, but it’s still fiddly with rules. Changes should be made slowly and with great care in wording. We keep getting in fights and flip a coin over tiny issues that actually change the whole game. For example, it doesn’t say Japan can’t move into Vichy…so Japan does so UK can’t attack it unless UK declares war on Japan. It’s exploitation but it’s allowed so it can’t really be argued.

In this game you can attack Russia first turn and leave UK/Poland/France alone. They can’t even attack Germany until after Japan attacks UK. I actually really love this option but it seems a bit unrealistic. Just little ways to exploit the game here and there at times makes it a bit frustrating for us.

3/4 of the questions out here are actually clear cut in the rules, but some things should be rewritten to be more clear. Basically the longer the rules get the more fun the game - but more interpretation issues occur.

I agree the rules could be more clear, my friend and i would get into arguments about little things that could have a huge impact.  but i’ve been trying to adapt my own one month rules and so i know how hard it is to address every issue that may come up.  also i think sometimes common sense just needs to be used.

with regards to your issue about germany attacking russia and the allies not getting involved.  while it may seem broken for game balance i think it is accurate.  there is a ww2 computer game called hearts of iron.  there are actually three alliances within it all with their own play style.  it’s broken up into the axis, allies, and comintern, and considering that the capitalist system of the allies is the antithesis of communist russia, i dont think it would be far off for the allies to ignore germany should the german player avoid attacking poland or any other neutral which the allies have guaranteed sovereignty to.  i think that if Germany were to make substantial progress into russia the stalin may call for help from the allies, but this is hard to simulate in a baord game.  it works on the computer because diplomacy can run through an algorithm which runs all the possibilities.  i havent even touched on the political situation in my variant, but just brainstorming ideas i’ve come to appreciate how difficult it is.

there will always be ways to game the system, and rules that may seem prefect to one group but another group finds all sorts of issues with them.  i think people, who are lucky enough to have groups that play together consistently, should just address the rules from the get go and write down their interpretations and stick to those.

Wait, I thought the UK and France start the game at war with Germany?

@ghr2:

Wait, I thought the UK and France start the game at war with Germany?

tHE uK AND FRANCE WILL GO TO WAR IF THEY OR POLAND OR HOLLAND ARE INVADED.

@sophiedog2:

@ghr2:

Wait, I thought the UK and France start the game at war with Germany?

tHE uK AND FRANCE WILL GO TO WAR IF THEY OR POLAND OR HOLLAND ARE INVADED.

Page 24  1.    Reads at beginning of the game, Germany is not at war but preparing to attack Poland and/or France.

Can’t UK and France declare on Germany at any time?

Page 26  no.5

UK can only declare war if France, Poland, and Holland are attacked.

@ghr2:

@sophiedog2:

@ghr2:

Wait, I thought the UK and France start the game at war with Germany?

tHE uK AND FRANCE WILL GO TO WAR IF THEY OR POLAND OR HOLLAND ARE INVADED.

So, Germany just focuses on Russia via transports?  Seems like not a viable strategy.

It can be viable if done right.  i’ve never attempted it before, i prefer to go the historical route. by focusing only on russia, you’re accepting that the allies will become incredibly powerful.  as a result it is key that both japan and germany attack russia.  japan while not be doing much martial damage but will slowly detract from russias income.  if germany can conquer leningrad and karelia on the first turn, while also using airborne troops to secure key territories, both can be held.  while germany is focusing on northern russia romania needs to begin the attack in the south.  Germany will be at an income disadvantage so if you have the resources to spare, try and take as many national advantages as possible.  russia will take a few turns to get into a position to strike and hopefully by that point you’ve created enough of a buffer that you can build up a solid defense in the north while now focusing minor axis and german resources to the southern portion of russia.  it’s a tricky balancing act but if done properly you could break the game.  i may try this in my next game.

Hum  :|

@rohr94:

@ghr2:

@sophiedog2:

@ghr2:

Wait, I thought the UK and France start the game at war with Germany?

tHE uK AND FRANCE WILL GO TO WAR IF THEY OR POLAND OR HOLLAND ARE INVADED.

So, Germany just focuses on Russia via transports?   Seems like not a viable strategy.

It can be viable if done right.  i’ve never attempted it before, i prefer to go the historical route. by focusing only on russia, you’re accepting that the allies will become incredibly powerful.  as a result it is key that both japan and germany attack russia.  japan while not be doing much martial damage but will slowly detract from russias income.  if germany can conquer leningrad and karelia on the first turn, while also using airborne troops to secure key territories, both can be held.  while germany is focusing on northern russia romania needs to begin the attack in the south.  Germany will be at an income disadvantage so if you have the resources to spare, try and take as many national advantages as possible.  russia will take a few turns to get into a position to strike and hopefully by that point you’ve created enough of a buffer that you can build up a solid defense in the north while now focusing minor axis and german resources to the southern portion of russia.  it’s a tricky balancing act but if done properly you could break the game.  i may try this in my next game.

Full income Russia may be hard to crack.  Especially with Germany being poor to all hell.

Italy gets destroyed.

@sophiedog2:

Italy gets destroyed.

Italy cant even get into the war since paris never falls.

" On the turn that Germany takes Paris, or London, or declares war on Russia, Italy joins the Axis on the start of its turn" page 25 of 7.2 rulebook.  i would assume that in the case of Germany ignoring the western allies and going straight for Russia, Italy would only end up at war with Russia and not the rest of the Allies like Germany, i come to this conclusion because it says joins the axis, implying that Italy would be at war with anyone who is at war with the axis.  Italy being able to build up for a confrontation with Britain for many turns while also helping in the fight with Russia is key.  Italy can secure the Turkish straights and focus on the southern flank of Russia, allowing Germany to only attack in the North.  The question that is risen by this scenario is can the Axis attack strict neutrals without provoking the allies, and more importantly can they attack pro allied without consequence, because both Hungary and Bulgaria require the axis to hold Yugoslavia and Greece to attack.  This is an interesting prospect and i’m looking forward to trying it when i find reliable players.

just side note for those who don’t have easy access to the map while they are posting or reading.  if Italy successfully captures turkey and gains access to the black sea they are only 1 territory away from both Stalingrad and Moscow.  That would spread the superior income of Russia quite thin, even if the Italian attack isn’t incredibly powerful initially.  The added benefit though is that Italy wouldn’t have a Russian navy to contend with so they could focus on a land invasion force.  Russia has 48 Ipcs not taking into account the money they would lose to Japan and Germany on the first turn.  Germany has 36 base just from the Axis minors, if Germany successfully conquers denmark and norway that would bump Germany up to 44 plus the income of karelia and leningrad which puts Germany to 48.  that’s not including any paratrooper drops you might do to secure your flanks.  I’d say this is an incredibly viable option.  The only shortfall is that russia can just start throwing infantry at you turn one, so while it may be viable it is certainly not going to be easy.