Posts made by Chris_Henry

@insanehoshi “subject to”, by definition from Merriam-Webster, means:

“affected by or possibly affected by (something)”.

To me, that reference at 9.17 is just using “subject to” to mean if the defender has chosen to scramble interceptors.

I guess I obviously can’t guarantee any of this, but I doubt it was intended to allow defending fighters to be able to intercept and then also take part in a defense. I’d think they get one defensive action, and it’s up to the defender which one it is they’d like to do.

@Nathan-Greve

How interesting. We haven’t had this be an issue in games yet, but I hadn’t considered that Iceland, for example, is just totally unusable now if it’s really all Tundra! A shame for Iceland specifically, as I believe for a time it was used as a weigh station for convoys heading to England.

Agreed with @Trig on some of the expansions, I don’t think they were really modified completely (properly?) to integrate seamlessly to V3.

But speaking of expansions, one fun house rule you could use for Tundra might involve elements of the Winter War expansion. Namely, use Ski Troops in your game. Maybe only Ski Troops can access Tundra territories/borders or something to that affect? That way there’s still a restriction, but you can have a work around by having to by specialized units to move/combat within the Tundra zones!

@insanehoshi Interesting. I suppose from what I see in the rules, the only thing I can think of for when you can’t sign would be if a state of war already exists between Germany and the USSR. Even then, I don’t think it says that explicitly, so I may be making assumptions! It would seem weird to be able to sign after a state of war already exists though.

I suppose situations like what you describe would only serve to either make the potential signing more or less enticing, depending on your point of view? Like, if Romania and Finland have already fallen, maybe nothing stops you from signing, but is it really worth doing so now?

Will be curious on the answer here.

@warwick I’d have to agree with @insaneHoshi here.

The Example of Romania on page 8 of the rulebook seems to address this too:

“If the roundel is not located in terrain, but you need to cross a terrain type in order to reach the roundel from the border of the land zone, you are subject to “border terrain” rules. Border terrain rules for that terrain type last one round”.

So while that specific example seems to be talking about combat, it does still mention that the terrain rules apply when crossing a mountain border. I just mention that one since it’s using an example just like what you asked, if you cross into a territory with a mountain border, but the roundel isn’t in the mountains.

But also with the rule just being “All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules”, I’d think you have to take that at face value to mean crossing a mountain border reduces movement to 1, even in non-combat movements.

@generalhandgrenade I’m simply pointing out it’s understandable how this question was asked. It’s nothing to take personal, as I’m not attacking anyone’s knowledge of the game or anything. It’s not a secret to players that the rule book has a lot of questions that arise from it with assumptions and ambiguities written in, and HBG has said multiple times they appreciate feedback to be able to clarify the rules (as is evidenced by a running 9-page errata). I’ve seen rules way more clear cut than this get clarification errata’s haha. I won’t argue the point anymore here, as my goal isn’t to make back and forth arguments. A question was asked, and it’s a pretty simple assumption to make that the OP isn’t the only one asking the question as they play. I’m frankly surprised a simple clarification suggestion has been met with this much hostility. I would think a clarification would be welcome for players and not met combatively, but I guess not.

Anyways, on to other posts :)

@insanehoshi It’s a very unique circumstance. I think 99 out of 100 games this situation doesn’t pop up, but it is possible of course, as this example shows. I’d be willing to bet a lot of players hadn’t considered this scenario as being likely.

I’m just saying, people know the alignment/control rules as written. And then there are the unique alignment conditions as written. But with all of those other nations and rules, Poland is alone as being potentially aligned to a neutral major power is unique. Every other one happens with a major power at war or full income. That in itself makes this situation unique.

I’m not saying the rule is written incorrectly, because it’s not, but I’m just pointing out a way to write it that would take away this question being asked again. The OP wasn’t off-base for asking this question is all I’m saying. And if it was asked here, I’m sure it’s been asked by others playing the game that maybe came across this situation as well. It’s frankly a simple 4-5 word clarification errata.

@generalhandgrenade The big difference there though is that Germany already starts out at full income/wartime economy. GB doesn’t necessarily have to be with this example.

I’m just saying, adding that qualifier would alleviate questions entirely. Because as it stands now, as evidenced by this questions even be asked here, people see Aligned and will say “but how is that possible when the rules says you need to be at war with the same major power to align a minor nation?”

@generalhandgrenade I’m aware of the tables. However, every one of those other tables require the nation to be at war with a Major Power, or their Aligning Major Power already has their full/wartime income (basically the Axis in that example). Poland would seem to be the only exception to that, as this example shows that it’s possible to Align Poland even if GB is still neutral and/or not at wartime economy just yet. That’s fine of course if that’s the rule, I’m not debating that if that’s the case. The point I was making is that qualifying that part by saying Poland Aligns to GB regardless of GB’s war/neutrality status, would be more clear. As it’s stated now it can cause a lot of questions (as the original post here has) as to how that’s possible given the games usual Alignment conditions. Adding a “regardless of GB’s war status” qualifier would serve to clear up the rule entirely and leave zero ambiguity.

@insanehoshi So it’s just completely outside of the standard rules for alignment then, got it. I guess I would have thought the rules would say something like Poland Aligns to GB regardless of GB’s neutrality status to specifically mention this veering from the standard rules. But I guess not.

@insanehoshi Yeah that’s my exact thinking too. I was thinking the same thing.

So how is Poland played in that scenario then? Are they Aligned to a neutral GB, but allowed to fight Germany even if GB is not? Or does Poland somehow just align fully to a neutral GB, and now GB gets the extra IPP from Poland until such time as Germany attacks them?

It just seems like a specific enough example where you’d want to clarify. We’re making a lot of assumptions with how it would be played here it seems!

@Jan-Aerts I could be wrong on this, but the GB reference sheet does say they have a peace time income increase for when the “Axis or Comintern declares war on France”. Since France is now at war with Germany in this scenario, I think that just automatically pulls GB in. I know it specifics the Axis being the ones to declare war on France though, and not the other way around, so keep that in mind. Again, I could be wrong there, but I certainly get your point. If I am wrong, then something is off with the wording I think.

@generalhandgrenade Oh yeah, agree on all fronts there for sure! That’s what makes it so interesting for the USSR! I was just curious if 30 IPP was your “special number” for you personally for it being worth it for you, in-game circumstances notwithstanding of course!

I think that’s one of the more fun parts of the game for me, is a little bit of cat and mouse between the Germans and USSR on this very issue. The USSR most definitely should attack/declare war before the Germans can use their ability, but it’s almost a who will blink first situation! Do the Germans wait that one extra turn to try and get more units in position and hope the Soviets don’t attack? Do the Soviets strike earlier than they’d really want to out of fear the Germans might attack first the next turn? It’s a great aspect!

@generalhandgrenade Just out of curiosity, why do you specify 30 IPP income level for the USSR? Is that just a number you’ve internally decided is worth it for the USSR to declare war first (i.e. since they won’t be able to automatically jump up to their full income by being the aggressors)? Just curious on your thought process. I’ve always hummed and hawed at what is an “acceptable” time for them to do this!

@insanehoshi That is really interesting. Something I’ve heard of, but haven’t researched in very much depth myself.

Relatedly, one of my favorite WWII stories below. I think the potential British occupation was probably related to what you posted above, or was maybe morphed from it.

In the days leading up to Germany’s invasion of Norway, it was frankly very much in the realm of possibility that the British might have attacked Norway first. Germany attacked (as we know) because they wanted to maintain control of Sweden’s iron ore and to deny it to the Allies, as well as to get some northern naval facilities. On the flip side, the British and French were also prepared to preemptively attack/occupy Norway to prevent Germany from doing so, but didn’t want to break Norwegian neutrality without being mostly sure Germany would attack. When Germany did attack, the King of Norway was woken from his sleep and was told that Norway was at war. The kings response was “With who?” haha.

@noneshallpass I totally agree with you. Those Finnish forces pack a punch in the expansion. I have to imagine using this expansion makes a lot more Molotov-Rippentrop Pacts signed in games!

@linkler I’ve long thought the same thing! It’s a really great idea, and I do like what it brings. But yeah, it seems like something is missing.

Up front, I’ll say that I’ve never played with any of the below ideas. I’ve mulled them around for a while, but I’ve never put them to the test.

I honestly think as it pertains to the Winter War itself that the Expansion covers a lot of great ground. I love that the Allies can send Lend-Lease through Norway and Sweden to Finland, as there were actually volunteers from other nations who went to support Finland in the name of defeating communism. I like that Partisans are/can be involved as well, as it keeps Finland in the fight in some little way even if the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact hasn’t been signed and the USSR steamrolls Finland.

But my overall thought though was more of a “Scandinavia at War” expansion sort of idea, which would encompass this Winter War Expansion. I think if you want to expand on the existing rules, expanding to all of the northern area might make sense. So part of my ideas below are directly related to the Winter War itself, but there’s also some other fun stuff as well as it pertains to Scandinavia overall.

- Soviet Inexperience - I think one addition to the Winter war would be to do what happens to the KMT infantry in the game. As in, if USSR infantry roll a 12 for their combat roll they are forced to retreat from the battle. This would be specific to the Winter War only, and wouldn’t carry over to the rest of the game/map.

- The Nordic Volunteer Corps - Sweden, Norway, and Denmark sent a force of about 10,000 men to help fight on behalf of Finland in the Winter War. I think one thing to do would be the moment the USSR declares war on Finland, you place 1-2 infantry (or maybe militia) on the Finnish-Swedish-Norwegian border to simulate this volunteer force from those countries coming to help.

- Narvik - The northern port in Norway was crucial for Swedish iron ore exports. In the winter, Swedish ports were completely frozen, so they had a deal with Norway where they utilized the port at Narvik in the winter months to export their iron ore. Both Germany and Great Britain knew this, and both wanted to keep Swedish iron ore away from the other. While the game already covers Swedish iron ore in the way of German wartime bonus income for a Neutral/aligned Sweden, I had the below thoughts:

• If the middle Norwegian territory (sorry, I can’t remember the name off the top of my head) that contains Narvik is Allied/Comintern possessed, Germany loses 1-2 IPP of the bonus income due to shipments not being able to leave Narvik in the winter months. I also thought about saying if there were 3 Allied warships off that seazone as well the same thing would happen, effectively serving as a
  blockade of the port, even if Norway was still neutral. This might force Germany to want to act in Norway when they may not have otherwise wanted to in a game. It’ll help ensure more IPP come their way by controlling Narvik, I also thought of maybe giving Germany +1 IPP for controlling Narvik in this “expansion” idea, for similar reasons as well.

- Operation Weserubung - Kind of related to the Narvik idea above, I wanted to give Germany some kind of reason/benefit to attacking Norway and Denmark like they did in the war. This one is hard though, as I know a lot of players don’t like to take Denmark, because that opens up the Danish Straights to potential Allied access (i.e. if Denmark remains Neutral the Allies can’t use it, but if Germany took Denmark it opens up the straights). I also understand the point of it being hard for the Axis/Germany to hold on to Norway, making it maybe not worthwhile to attack in the first place (part of my hope for the Narvik rules above to placate that issue a bit as well). My best thought was to initiate some kind of expansion “scheme” for the Germans, in kind of the same vein as the “German Operations Expansion” that currently exists. Here, the Germans would pay a certain amount of IPP over the course of like 2-3 turns. Let’s just say 30 IPP for now (10/10/10 installments). This payment would get you like 2-3 airborne, 2-3 air transports, a destroyer, a light cruiser, and maybe like 2 infantry. So, you’d get these units for cheaper than you would have without implementing the scheme (normally all that would cost 43-54 IPP at a cost of 30 IPP). But in activating this scheme, you’re A) Required to complete the scheme in 3 turns, and B) Required to attack Norway and Denmark on the turn the scheme is completed. The chance to get some cheaper units might offset the hesitancy to want to attack in the north/open up the Danish Straights to potential harm. That’s obviously a work in progress, but could be something.

- Norwegian Nazi Party - Vidkun Quisling was a Nazi sympathizer and was made Prime Minister after the German invasion. Might simple thought was once Oslo/Southern Norway falls to the Germans, immediately place an infantry (or Militia if too strong) on that territory to signify the Norwegian Nazi collaborators.

- Sweden - I had a couple potential ideas with Sweden in this vein as well:

• If Finland is defeated by the USSR, Sweden will be on high alert of their new Communist neighbors. Sweden would become partially Axis controlled. I say partially because I wouldn’t want to make a situation where the USSR stops attacking Finland in games, but would also want to make them second guess moving forward. So, Sweden wouldn’t be controlled in the sense of they would join Germany once Germany and the USSR were at war, they’d still have to be directly attacked/war declared on them from the USSR for that to happen. But the partially controlled part comes to play in that every turn moving forward Sweden gets to make a recruitment dice roll and can place 2 Militia or 1 Infantry, similar to other controlled minor nations in the game. They wouldn’t be able to attack the USSR themselves until war was declared on them, but the potential added forces would maybe keep the Soviets at bay.

I’m sure there are a ton of other ideas out there too, but these are just some that I thought might be fun to implement in some capacity! Would be curious to hear thoughts!

@panzerbaguette Vichy would not be able to perform escort duty for the Italian convoy line, for the reasons you stated. It’s a neutral minor power controlled by Germany, and it’s only fighting ability is against Free France!

I can’t imagine it just means moving to a contested zone. I think you’d have to have control over the territory adjacent to Iraq for that to happen!

@generalhandgrenade Thanks GHG! That’s what I was figured. And good point on the Yunnan attack not even being possible in the first place! All my examples were solely for explaining the potential of an attack anywhere (not necessarily Yunnan), but you’re right of course that the initial example shouldn’t have even been allowed in the first place!

@captainnapalm I guess to me this is the rule:

“Movement: All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules.”

That part of the movement section just says that it happens during movement, period, and doesn’t specify during combat movement. The sentence after that is just expounding on the fact that blitzing is a specific thing of it’s own and couldn’t be allowed either, but as a part to the wider rule of the terrain rule that encompasses all type of movement, combat or non-combat.