Best posts made by Chris_Henry

@mark-the-shark, @David-06, in a perfect world for us as consumers, I would love that. I don’t want to sound disparaging at all, but part of me says it would be good to reward your long-time/loyal customers/players who have endured 3-4 (and maybe more in the future) map iterations with that option.

But the practical part of me gets that that would never happen. I’m sure profit margins are already thin, and it is a business after all, so having them discount maps in exchange for existing old ones probably doesn’t work well. Not to mention they’d have who knows how many V2 maps just lying around collecting dust now.

Frankly, I’m going to see if I can sell my V2 map for something. I won’t need to have multiple lying around. My dad (who I play this game with mostly along with my brother) is convinced we should keep it as a practice map for my now-11-month-old-son haha. To me that’s what the older A&A versions are for, but he does bring up the good point that this doesn’t take up a ton of space when all rolled up.

As was mentioned earlier, ~$150 more for a new map isn’t so outrageous to deal with, especially when you consider all the other money you’re bound to have dropped to complete the game. While true not everyone has the same (or hardly any) disposable income, I think it’s safe to say those that don’t have much aren’t exactly shelling out for this game and all its components in the first place.

@warwick Sorry if I’m misunderstanding your question here! So, I think what your example shows is not possible with the current rules.

In your example, are forces A, B, and C all starting at the same sea zone? Or saying that force A is just trying to invade Sumatra, while force B screens in the sea zone adjacent to India, while force C invades India, right? Are there enemy naval units also in the Sumatra sea zone? I believe so if I’m understanding correctly.

If no enemy naval units there, this isn’t even a screening move that requires the rule to come into play. That’s just a standard divide your forces to attack wherever you want rule, and then splitting an amphibiously assault force between what kills an existing navy and what would then amphibiously assault India.

If there are enemy naval units in the Sumatra sea zone, I would say that above example isn’t possible. The rule 9.7(b) states that: “The screening force engages in combat with any Enemy units present during combat phase. If the screening force wins (i.e. it eliminates all Enemy units or they retreat), the moving force immediately moves into the next sea zone where it may conduct a second regular naval combat or an amphibious invasion (but not both) To move into another sea zone each ship must have remaining movement points and expends them all in doing so”.

This move would require a screen of the naval units in the Sumatra sea zone, making the next move to the adjacent India sea zone one where you can conduct another naval combat or an amphibiously assault, but not both. What would happen here is Force B screens the naval force in the Sumatra sea zone. Assuming Force B is victorious, Force A amphibiously assaults Sumatra, and Force C then moves to the adjacent India sea zone and can conduct a naval combat there if one is possible, and if no naval combat is possible, may amphibiously assault the mainland (but couldn’t do both).

Regardless, I can certainly see how clarification could be needed!

@insanehoshi Yeah, that’s my reading of it too. Doesn’t say what happens. I guess I should clarify, I like that you have the option to create Vichy or not, but part of that for me depends on what happens to French units then. For the same reasons you said above. I don’t want to see French naval suicide missions just to get use out of them!

@Trig So, I get what you’re saying generally, but remember that any other nation that surrenders is wiped off the board entirely. So this wouldn’t be something we want here.

14.4.1 is probably the most concrete piece that says Free France is still formed. But it still doesn’t answer what specifically happens to create Free France. It says they atke possession of all Free French territory, but we’re not told if that’s just every French territory in their non-Home Country possession, or what. And we don’t have a determination on rolling for navies either.

So you think you wouldn’t roll for navies at all? Just everything stays on the board and is Free French?

• There is no mention of what happens to units in France if Vichy is not formed. Do they go Free French, get removed, stay as neutrals?

I think this would be determined by 14.4.1 that you quoted above. It says they take command of all French Units not in French Home Country. That to me means anything remaining in France itself is removed from the game, same as if Vichy were being formed.

• In the Vichy rolls it seems to mention that all French colonies are rolled, regardless of their current status. For instance, that would seem to mean that if Italy takes Tunisia, then it would also get rolled for. (14.4.2.“French Colonies”)

While an interesting point, I can’t imagine something already possessed by another Axis member would be subject to this rule? That would suck to just take that away from Italy. But I obviously could be wrong.

• What happens if Italy takes Paris. Or the USSR? I know they get the money, but is Vichy formed? Also, the captured ship, do they go to them or Germany? Also, if the surrender happens on Italy’s turn, say b/c they took Southern France to encircle Paris, can Vichy form? I think not, but it is vague. (14.4.2.“Vichy creation”)

I think you’d still have the option to create Vichy. The Vichy Reference Sheet says “Immediately after French surrender, the German player may opt to create a new neutral Minor Power called Vichy France”. This doesn’t specify that a specific nation has to make France surrender, only that Germany can decide this once France surrenders. While very true this would be odd in the event of a USSR takeover, the chances of that are probably slim. I think they made assumptions in the rules of Germany/the Axis taking out France. I personally do not like that the rules make tons of assumptions throughout, a rule should be concrete and binding. But that would be my guess, that this situation wasn’t really considered.

• Also, according to 9.22, if a major power surrenders, its aligned or controlled minor’s are given to an ally. Does this occur with Abyssinia, or other french minor? 14.4.2.“French controlled & Aligned minor powers” says they go to Free France. What takes precedence?

While I totally get your point, I think this is another one that was maybe overlooked as assuming Abyssinia will have fallen to Italy by any point Free France is created. Not saying I like the oversight, but I think that’s what it is. I’d have to imagine you’d roll for anything that was aligned by that point to see if they become Vichy or Free French.

• Also, what of the troops from aligned minors? Are they automatically Free like their land, or are they rolleed for? That could cause some interesting results, and would need a lot of tracking. (14.4.2.“French Controlled & Aligned Minor Powers”)

Same as the above I’d think. I think the Vichy creation rules stay in play here. If you roll Abyssinia as being Free French, it and all French units on it become Free French. Same as any originally controlled French colonies like Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc. Again, just my take, because you’re right that this isn’t addressed.

• Allied units in France if Paris is taken. What happens? The rules say they “move out of France” but how does that happen? Do they just move out in later turns, or are teleported out?

The “Other Forces” portion of the Vichy Reference sheet says: If Allied forces are in any other part of France when the French surrender, they are allowed to move out of France. If they cannot they are eliminated. However, if Paris is encircled with Allied units in it, those units immediately surrender with Paris and are removed from the game".

So to me that means that Allied units have one chance to make a normal free movement phase out of French territory, and if they cannot, they’re dead. So you’d need a transport on the coast, or be able to use the narrow crossing, or if Spain, Belgium, or Switzerland were somehow Allied aligned at this point.

Similarly, what if Axis units are in a Vichy zone, but there is no adjacent axis territory for them to move to? (14.4.2.“Other Forces”)

Unless I’m not understanding your question, I don’t think this is possible. If Vichy is being formed, the rest of France is under Axis control. So they can simply move to Paris, Bordeaux, Lorraine, or Northern Italy even.

• Also, it says the place the Vichy army in “Vichy France.” Is that Southern France, or any Vichy land zone, or what? (14.4.2.“Vichy Army”)

That’s Southern France. The Vichy Reference Sheet is more clear in “Vichy Army”: “Place 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter, and 1 Artillery in Southern France”.

• What happens if France is conquered again? For instance, Paris is liberated and Germany takes it back. Does this all happen again? (Looting, Vichy, etc) Also, what if an airborne takes Paris but it is surrounded by the Axis? Are the conditions reversed and France formed? Paris is liberated, but it is still surrounded. (14.4.1)

I 99.99% sure this does not happen again. I can’t remember if this is in the rules somewhere, or if it’s just been asked before, but I do remember a definitive answer that this is a one time thing. But I’m just simply old me, so maybe you can’t take my word for it haha.

• Does France surrender if the USSR hold Normandy and the Germans Picardy, Lorraine, Southern France and Aquitaine? (Assuming France is not at war with the USSR.)

Great question, and another I would say was overlooked as a possibility. My gut would say no. But realize that the Allies can declare war on the Comintern if they have an originally controlled Allied Territory. That doesn’t mean the Allies will for sure declare war, but just something to keep in mind.

• And finally, as a design note, why do the rolls put Niger and Dahomey with French Equatorial Africa, and not French West Africa that they were a part of? Similarly, the Pacific colonies were governed separately. Please give me a reason not to go the historical route.

While I get what you’re saying, I think we can’t do the historical route for parts if we don’t do it for all. If going historical, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Corsica, Southern France, Syria, and Madagascar should all automatically become Vichy, and every other French African colony should become Free, while Indochina goes to Japan, as with the islands. I think they lumped these groups together for playability. This way you don’t roll for 6 territories in one lumped African group, and only 3 in another. This way those two groups are split 5/5 down the middle. Somewhat the same with the Pacific islands. I think for the sake of speeding this process along they are just man to be Japanese for sphere of influence purposes.

@Didier_de_Dax That would be really the biggest reason I ask this question! If the classic surrender rules apply, where everything is just removed from the board, that leaves a ton of French suicide attacks in the offing, specifically with their naval forces that otherwise wouldn’t have happened!

My gut tells me that if you don’t create Vichy, then all French colonies and units not in Home Country all just become Free French at that point, with no rolling for naval units or anything. It just wasn’t addressed in the rules completely. I had missed the part in 14.4.1 that @Trig called out as implying Free France is created regardless of Vichy creation. But the rules should have spelled out a more obvious function of that than they do, namely what I say in the first sentence of this paragraph.

• In page 61, rule 14.4.2 : “All french Aligned Minor Powers (e.g. Abyssinia) become Align to Free French”. The errata recently remove the word “controlled” (page 3).
  The problem is that: if Abyssinia isn’t annex by Italy and the war between them continue until the surrendering of France. Abyssinia is ONLY CONTROLLED by France, as long as Italy doesn’t declare war on France before the fall of this last country.
  So it means that: Abyssinia isn’t considered Align with France and Abyssinia isn’t aligned with Free France. Then Abyssinia only remains controlled by Free France?

A very good point. I was going to say they would be Aligned since Germany would have taken out France, but they have to be at war with the same Major, so you’re right in that they would only be controlled. I think it would stay that way, and Abyssinia would just be a controlled minor power by Free France. But I could be wrong! Again, I have a feeling the rules were written regarding Abyssinia here as if Italy will have already taken them out.

• In the USA reference sheet (page 2) on the peacetime income increases: “Japan declares war on British Commonwealth or France: +5D12” and “Japan declares war on any other neutral: +2D12”.
  If Vichy France is created and Free France gets the French Indochina Provinces (Annam-Tonkin and Cochinchina), when Japan attacks, the USA gets 5D12 or 2D12? Because it’s not France but a neutral minor.

Another interesting query. My gut says 2D12 here. Unless specified in the rules, I think we have to assume that minor power mentions would include Free France moving forward. Just something else to consider when playing I suppose!

Many good point @Noneshallpass! And yeah, @GuamSolo, with no disrespect intended, I think you guys should reserve judgement for a few more rounds (at least) of play! I think you’ll find it balances out a lot more.

It’ probably unsurprising that first time players might find the Axis as the overwhelming favorite. From a very simplistic point of view, I’d say the Axis are probably the most “straight forward” to play. By that I mean, it’ a matter of understanding when and where to activate and attack enemies, not letting the Allies/Comintern gain so much IPP too early, etc. But the Allies have a far heavier logistical load to bear. You need to keep Lend Leasing in mind as a larger Allied necessity to victory than the others need to. Likewise, the Comintern is harder to figure out I think because of the very reasons mentioned above. People think of the USSR in an A&A context of being allied with the Allies, and that is just not the case in this game.

I also mean no disrespect to your playing group, but maybe switch up who is playing who. Maybe your Axis player is a bit more of a “superior” player, or has understood the rules more quickly. Or, to flip it, maybe the Allied/Comintern players are just a bit slower to the uptake on the game rules and strategies. My point being, maybe intentionally keep your “stronger” players away from the Axis if you’ve found the Axis the overwhelming favorite in your games!

ITALY AT WAR.pdf
North Africa-Mediterranean Expansion.pdf

Hey all,

I’ve been working on the two linked docs a bunch for a while now. I had parental leave for 12 weeks earlier this year with no work other than watching my son. So between his naps in that time frame, and the wider pandemic overall, I had taken the time to work out these two “expansion” ideas. I have PDF’s uploaded to the top of the link here for anyone interested, but I’ll response with two subsequent posts with everything copied here as well for potential ease for everyone.

I thought about making this two separate posts, but the more I thought about, the more the two can possibly have some overlap to them.

I thought about these strictly in terms of existing Global War 1936 game play, and in ways that seemed to mirror already existing Expansions HBG has for sale currently to play. As in, I tried to not deviate to largely unknown realms of GW game play here, but wanted some ideas to spice up these theaters of the war a bit more.

For both, I like to think of expansion ideas of being “internally balanced”. As in, I didn’t want to create something that was very obviously pro-Axis or Pro-Allied. I wanted to make something where, if one side was given a bonus, I wanted to either give the other a somewhat corresponding bonus, or a negative effect to the existing side balance it out. Giving Italy special units, but making their Infantry retreat on a +10 D12 roll is kind of an example of that.

The North Africa/Med “Expansion” is one that I’ve play tested a decent amount. I wouldn’t say it’s a ton of playtesting, but enough that I’d felt comfortable passing on to HBG to see if it’s something they wanted to use either in full or in part. Here I wanted to give localized bonuses that wouldn’t directly affect other theaters. For example, the Afrika Korps, Italian Divisions, and 8th Army can only use their special abilities in Africa, and couldn’t then also be used later against the USSR, Asia, etc. Something that directly affected this area is what I was shooting for. I wanted to bring the Med Islands into the game a bit more, namely Malta and it’s real-war significance. But also wanted to get other ground forces in Africa to make it more diverse.

The Italy “Expansion” has not been play tested by me in the same way. I’ve implemented some parts of it in games at times, but not to the extent I’ve written out. HBG seems somewhat receptive to the North Africa/Med rules that I figured I’d get Italy ones written down too. I did not send the Italy one to them, so don’t have any idea of any reception to it from their point of view. If I’d play tested at all I think I would have. For this one, I really wanted to explore two main realms of potential Italy game play: 1) The Balkans/Greece; 2) The Italian surrender to the Allies and subsequent take over from Germany. I thought the Balkans/Greece theater would be fun to give the Italians/Axis some abilities there. I also wanted to explore the Italian surrender so as to give the Axis some opportunity to potentially prolong Italian gameplay a bit if they see the writing on the wall.

I’m largely curious what you all think of these. Any and all feedback welcome! I’d be curious to hear what you think does or doesn’t work, or if you had any other ideas to add or supplement! No criticism is too harsh haha.

@david-06 I don’t believe so. The rules say that shipyards/dockyards/ports cannot be used when damaged.

Rule 11.4 specifically states: “Lend-lease may be moved across any number of sea zones; No Naval Transport is required. Such movement must leave and enter land zones where there is an undamaged Naval Facility.”

Hope that helps!

@barnee I think you’re right. I think it probably has to do with cost a bit more. I think a lot of the problem too though is just what @Aldrahill said above. I think a lot of people might find it “not worth it” for a plane that only attacks facilities. While I think there’s truth to that a little bit, I think it’s also an A&A mindset people need to get out of too. There’s value in bombing facilities in this game more so than A&A. That’s not to say there’s going to be whole fleets of strategic bombers built, but I think having some in your arsenal makes sense to wreck a Lend-Lease port, forward factory, an air base to scramble, etc.

@mark-the-shark @Linkler yeah, that’s where we’re at too. The 80’s game pieces become useful for some of that for us too.

Luckily for us, we’ve been slowly adding for a few years now. We’re at the point where we don’t have a ton of backlogged items we need. Meaning, we can start buying some of these pieces if we want to now as well without breaking the bank all at once!

I’m just waiting for tank destroyers and SSP to come back into stock. I haven’t seen those available since we got V3, and we hadn’t bothered having them on hand before since they weren’t part of V2!

@bretters Hey, I’m totally with you on this! I’m not fully convinced this is a winning strategy for the Axis (without having attempted it myself) in the long run! Is it a winning strategy for Italy specifically? In every way. But to the greater Axis efforts? Not so sure.

I guess loophole was probably not the right word to use, but I think you know what I mean!

@captainnapalm hahaha. I do like the creativity though, @David-06.

I won’t rehash here my thoughts on this from the thread the other day in full. I totally get how this is a viable strategy for the Italians, but I still wonder if it hurts the Axis in the end by the Allied ability to now devote way more resources to other theaters against Germany or Japan, and just keep a skeleton force against Italy/the Med. Again, I certainly could be wrong here as I’ve never played a game where this happened. But I’d be curious to try it, as I already am envisioning things I would/could do with the extra Allied resources to be used elsewhere!

All this said, I do think it’s a bit lame this can happen. I wish a simple change of something like “Italy has to be at war with at least one major power to get it’s VP’s were to take affect.” Something like that. Or has to have been at war with a major power for “X” amount of turns before the game ends to get the VP’s. That would alleviate this potential loophole, especially if it’s shown to give the Axis a lopsided victory through game play!

No sense envisioning where to use imagined additional Allied resources. You won’t have any. You won’t have the easy $3 from Italy, in Africa, so Italy will have an extra $3. You can’t abandon Egypt, or Italy can just take it. The Italian threat doesn’t disappear. The Axis aren’t down resources, as the Italian IPPs are lend-leased to Germany. All that it really changes is now you have to fight the Axis forces in France, where they are concentrated strongest, and the Axis doesn’t have to spread themselves out, fighting in Africa, the Med, or Italy, which is where they are always weakest. The Axis income is combined, and their weak link, and soft underbelly, is protected.

I’d have to agree with @bretters here. Sorry @CaptainNapalm, I don’t agree! All Italy would be able to make in this scenario is 10 IPP a turn. Nothing stops the Allies from just matching that output, or putting a little more. Hell, they could even do a bit less if they wanted to knowing they have better odds defending! I think you’d see a lot of extra IPP to be used in other theaters! It doesn’t make sense that the Allies would expend the same amount of Capital to defend against a neutral Italy than they would against one at war.

The point above about Italy’s units not being used is also a good one too.

I think it’s an interesting strategy worth trying, but I just don’t see it working in the longrun!

@bretters I agree, the thread got really derailed haha. I also tend to not do a ton of house ruling, just got caught up in the conversation haha.

I agree, I think strategic bombing Italy is probably really worth it. They don’t make much IPP throughout the game, and any IPP spent to repair facilities is going to hurt!

I like to try and use strategic bombing in conjunction with planned attacks to whenever I can. Strategic bombing an airbase in one attack to stop defending fighters from scrambling to help in an adjacent attack, for example, can be really useful!

I also think bombing London is good when you can. Keeping the UK battered some for as long as you can is really helpful towards buying time in the West.

@bretters I suppose that’s the thing about the expansions, and probably why they are just that, expansion! I agree, they certainly slow the game down. But from our perspective it’s this: This game already takes sooooo long to play, what’s a little more time with some detail :) haha.

But I get what you’re saying, if you’re not really into the expansions, then they just aren’t for you! I like a lot of them to try and put more focus on different aspects. The ones I like to roll out are:

Latin America at War
China at War
Turkey at War
Netherlands at War
Canada at War
Partisans
Winter War
Spanish Civil War
Afrika Korps
Manchukuo
Croatia at War

I like these ones because, to me, these ones are the least likely to add a ton of special units, but can enhance game play in areas. That might just be my opinion though. I also love to add the other nations to the game (thus the Canada, Netherlands, and Turkey expansions).

I don’t like the ordinance ones, for example, because they add a ton of specific units that you might have one of each on the map at a time.

I like the idea of the elite units expansions, but haven’t quite yet stomached the idea of having to look at a chart before almost every single battle to see what specialized unit does what!

@vondox So, what was coming from where? The infantry was amphibiously assaulting, and the marine attacking from the ground? Or the other way around?

I guess either way it doesn’t make a difference, it would be the same outcome. If you only had one unit amphibiously assaulting, there’s only one to be taken as a casualty! You wouldn’t apply one hit to the amphibiously assaulting infantry, and then apply another to the marine since “double casualties” are in play. That just means you wiped out the amphibiously assaulting force.

As to the other half of your question, I think you’re reading it wrong! It says the adjacent units are able to retreat, it doesn’t say they have to! That’s just like any normal combat though, attacking units can always retreat if they want to in a ground attack. So even though the amphibiously assaulting unit died, you can still chose to continue your assault with the ground forces if you so chose!

Does that clear it up at all?

@trig Got it, you’re issue is from a cultural point of view then. Can’t say I disagree with you there at all! I totally get what you’re saying. I would certainly never advocate for a game to be sold with rules like that at all. These are just talks for the hard core gamers here that are trying to simulate the war. Personally, it’s not a rule I would plan on using anyways, I was just chiming in on how cities could potentially be changed in that way.

But it’s just that point isn’t it? There’s a big difference between simulate and emulate, and you blur the lines on what’s considered to be culturally acceptable to emulate if you make it the day to day norm! Putting in a game begins to do that, I would agree.

@Chris_Henry Bombing cites would give more cover, as proved in the battle of Stalingrad.

@David-06 I meant in terms of the city being a “valued” target any longer.

@bretters Hitting Romania in that way is definitely something I was wanting to do as well! I know it’s not an uncommon thing to do, but I think it still catches the Axis a bit off guard when it’s done haha.

@bretters That surprises me a bit! I think when I first got the game I would have balked at making that move. But the more we’ve played, and I’ve read strategies on the boards here, I think it’s a very viable option. Maybe not necessarily a guarantee you have to do it every game in order to do well, but I think it’s one that should totally be on the table by anyone playing them!

@bretters Oh got it, just curious!

Sounds like the Balkans are a hot spot right now!

@bretters Totally agree! It’s something I would need to debate in game if I want to risk however many troops it might take to defeat Romania. But just as you said though, taking it at the very least robs Germany of those units to do with as he pleases, and it does give a small economic boon for a while there!

@vondox I think the biggest takeaway is that there isn’t a whole lot that the UK can do to help France.

As is pointed out, the UK and France are technically not considered on the same side until they are at war/wartime income. So no, they can’t lend-lease to each other before that point, and can’t move units into each others’ land either.

The only way to help France would be if both reach wartime income and assuming Germany as attacked another nation to that point, which they should have done by then haha.

To me, if it gets to the point where the UK is reinforcing France, Germany has done a bad job opening the game. France should be dealt with before they reach their wartime economy to stop this very thing from happening (plus, the longer you wait, the more France can strengthen itself against an attack).