GW36 Exploit - The Jeanne d'Arc Exploit -

So I tried to address a similar problem with the Monroe Doctrine. My group and I still have not gotten Monroe reaction by US down to 100% because the rule designer clearly didn’t think or test this shit out enough. (not shocked based on responses).

Non allies attack Americas: I’ve been told that the US doesn’t actually DoW by definitions of the words but take military action while at peace, think of it as a proxy war but both sides are directly involve like the Suez Crisis in real life. US may go down and engage and remove any hostile nations in the Americas and then they end up annexing the territories they took since they are active by rules and thus US was able to gain income while still being at peace.

France or Commonwealth (or any other official Allies): I put in the house rule that they cannot attack the Americas because the game doesn’t allow nations inside Alliances to fight each other so unless Monroe is the only situation where US will fight French and Commonwealth troops, I tell my group they simply do not wish to piss off the US and thus cannot attack the Americas.

Listen to the doc. Hope you get well soon! Awaiting your next strategy topic, always gets a discussion started.

Feel free to ignore my previous post. The move was predicated on the alignment of the balkan minors however their alignment is based on the taking of Paris only. The speed that they may be aligned increases if at war with USSR.

Ben.  Not sure about the 36 game but for the 39 game we aren’t going to change anything except for some small tweaks and other clarifications. I understand you want to use as many pieces as you can in your games, I do too.  There are smaller size games on the way that will utilize these other units more.

Just a thought. You could roll a die for automatic retreats. What I mean is if defender wants to retreat, then roll a die and that many can retreat. Bad die roll and he may have to leave a good piece behind. Also could force the attacker the same thing.

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?

Very nice!!!

Any update on this?