Why can't movement be a single phase?

@mike141500
Any nation can remain neutral if it is not attacked or does not attack first. And a declaration of war by another power is not a declaration of war by the power that is attacked. Even though it would attack the agressor, it is not considered to be aggression. If played badly, USSR could be in great troubles declaring war on all Axis powers by itself. But who knows, you might have a lucky day 🍀

@chris_henry I think I will just amend the set-up to make it a minor factory and leave it at that for now…

If the rules had a different mechanic for the annexation process other than a combat move then I might think that the medium factory could stay a medium factory. The rules state any factory that was a major or medium in a territory that is conquered becomes a minor factory.

I guess there is nothing to stop the Germans from building another minor factory there if they want but why would they?

I think it was just a mistake when the neutral set-up was getting developed.

@trig said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
My suggestion would be to have that sub moving through Suez wait to enter 83, and then raid in it. That would show you can seperate moves, and don’t have to do them sequentially.
Also, what was the point of the transport in 85? I didn’t see where that came up.

I was going to have the Japanese use their Surprise Attack ability to grant that submarine one more movement to go after the transport in 85. Maybe I’ll make the transport in 85 two naked CV’s instead.

You should probably also mention scrambling and maybe something with MAP, do cover all the bases. Maybe there is a plane on MAP in 82 or something to do with that in another spot? Just to show how this also applies during wartime moves after the DOW.
Overall, looks good! I would also probably mention some other possibilities, if say, GB does DOW and how that would work with screening forces.

Great ideas!

I really like the use of this system for all moves, and will definitely “house rule” it in.

I believe in the game designers and hope that with time, this system will be officially adopted! Other than the two GHG videos, this is how I would have thought the rules work as written.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in Does the Global War 1936-1945 board game (third edition) actually exist? How can I buy one?:

@gen-manstein said in Does the Global War 1936-1945 board game (third edition) actually exist? How can I buy one?:

What were the Plan Z ships ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Z

Ya I read that. Thanks hbg-gw. Thought I missed something. Thought maybe co. Made a specific piece. Yes I do have as a National
Adjective in my game

A2C566A8-C3FE-49DE-8C4C-DC686358B561.jpeg

@sjelso Yes

I figured as much but thank u.

It’s funny how such an important rule is in such an odd place. You’d think it would be mentioned in the non-combat chapter but it isn’t :/. There is nothing wrong with stating the same rule in multiple sections. I hope that the creator of the game will be receptive to hot-fixes for V.3.0.

Yes. It says so on the Russian reference sheet