Seems like Tigermans answer is just for the axis minors and Germany.
liberating and capturing territories are very different things. thus the capture of paris by an allied player would not destroy the minor factory. the problem that would arise from the paris minor, is if paris is liberated but the allies are unable to hold it and the axis recapture it then would the minor be destroyed? and is the minor is warsaw destroyed when germany captures it on the first turn? maybe a more realistic option would be to capture the factories with full damage markers that the capturer has to deal with.
Liberation and capture are not very different. In fact in the rules there is single paragraph explaining liberation and an assumption as to the definition of capture. As the game is written currently liberation means a special rule regarding who gets the IPCs in all other respects it is the same as capture. In fact in the case of ICs the rules specifically state the IC is captured and not ‘liberated’. Page 30 - Section 1 - Industrial Facility - “If an enemy captures a territory containing an IC, that IC is captured.” All spaces are captured from the enemy. If the space originally belonged to an ally still in possession of its capitol then the ally gains the IPC. That is the only current definition of liberation. It can be expanded but that is what there is.
What if Russia takes Helsinki and the Germans take it back. Does Finland need to wait 4 turns until it rebuilds its minor IC or does one just appear? Since it is legal to have 2 factories in one location the FEC player can now build a 2nd minor factory in Calcutta. A strict reading of the rules supports this conclusion as the base criteria for a factory build is “an original territory with sufficient production level.” No mention of the presence of a factory making the build illegal. It has been a general assumption that one factory per zone was the limit but nothing in the rules support that position. I am certain the intent is one factory per area it is not recorded in the rules and introducing locations where multiple factories can exist really muddies the water.
If the question of how minors produced navy started this how about the question of how did France build its navy? or Russia? These are major powers that have no ability to build ships.
……
Ok I have taken my inner rules lawyer out behind the barn and beaten him with a stick. I am just going to focus on the great game that we have and not worry about the details. They will get straightened out eventually. :)
i also agree that sometimes people read to much into the rules, just use common sense. in the case of minors building navy, if they can build troops without a factory, and a navy requires both a naval base and a factory then it stands to reason that for a minor power to build naval units they would only require a naval base. i dont quite see the strategy for building naval units with minors. it would require many turns of saved income just to build transports and to what avail. as for industrial complexes being destroyed, i think reducing majors is important for game balance, but the destruction of minors doesn’t make much sense to me. again i think gaining control of a minor with max damage would make more sense. also could someone point me to the actual section of the rule book where it says minors are destroyed? i didnt see it under facilities or capturing a territory.
It has not yet been added. Tigerman mentioned he was going to add it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :|
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.
