Posts made by Chris_Henry

@insanehoshi Hmm, well that could certainly be a good point! I guess I’d be curious to hear an explanation there, as I had just used attacked/declared war upon as synonymous in this situation!

@aldrahill I can’t speak to everything, as I don’t play with this expansion (was never a huge fan). But, I did want to point out that infantry and cavalry can only move with no oil in non-combat movement. Your statement to me seemed to imply they didn’t need it for anything ever, but maybe I just made an assumption, But they still couldn’t attack without oil.

Hope to see an answer to your questions here!

@insanehoshi But if Japan declared war on the USSR, wouldn’t the USSR now be at war, and automatically be pushed to its Wartime income, thus making the peacetime increases not applicable any longer?

Oh wow, sounds like it might actually be happening for you guys!

@barnee Haha yeah, I’ve looked in this part of the forum a few times in the past to see if you guys ever got your game! Such a bummer. Yeah, the guy hasn’t responded to other posters, but I’ve also seen him comment on other posts since then. So who knows. It’s probably nothing, but wanted to share with you all!

Yeah, like I said, it could be nothing at all. The fact that it’s August now and none of you contributors have heard anything makes me wonder on the accuracy of this statement. But thought I’d pass along!

There hasn’t been any new communication on that post since I posted here either. I’ll be happy to update you if there is anything more added.

Hey all,

A bit random here, as I don’t have a ton of interest in this game. But I’ve certainly seen people here unhappy about the status, so thought I’d share some potential news.

There’s a Facebook page called “Everything Axis and Allies” that I follow. A guy there just today posted that he received a message from the creator of the game. A few people commented with astonishment. The original poster then replied with this direct quote below. I’ll note that he says English isn’t his first language, so any typos I left as is for authenticity:

“Eric Harvey, write me last friday to tell me that they gonna start to print it in the mid august. but i tough the project was cancelled due to the time… haha that’s why i ask some of you if you already play the game ^^”.

So there’s that. I’m happy to report back here if anyone interested. A few people have asked him questions, so I’m curious to see if he responds. I suppose it could be nothing, but sounds like you all might want some hope (or are way past it!).

@vondox You know, as I’m looking at the rules again too, I did forget that annexation is considered a combat move, but where no combat actually occurs. So, I could certainly see how the captured factory rule (i.e. reverting to a minor) could be interpreted here.

The fact that the German setup sheet for the 1939 setup has Bohemia as having a medium factory as well though is still what makes me think this was just an oversight. Bohemia is also not German Home Country in 1939 setup, but starts the game German and has a medium factory on it. By your reading of the rules, you’d just make that medium factory a minor the moment the game starts, right? To me, that doesn’t make sense!

I think by strict reading of the rules you guys are correct in the way this would be handled, but I do wonder if it was meant to stay a medium factory for purposes of annexation. But yeah, would love to get input from someone there, this might be a good errata question!

@vondox @Trig That very well could be then!

Here’s a counter question though: Why even bother making that a medium factory in the first place then? No units can be built from it until it’s aligned, but the moment it’s aligned or conquered it just changes to a minor? It seems like that’s either an oversight on HBG’s part in terms of not even being worth putting it there in the first place, or we’re interpreting this incorrectly.

@vondox I’d actually assume the opposite. Aligning is not the same as conquering, so I wouldn’t assume that those rules pertain to Neutral nations that are Controlled or strict Neutral and then become Aligned later on.

So, I’d say that the medium factory in your example would stay medium.

Could certainly be wrong I suppose, but since the rule doesn’t strictly say that about Aligned nations I wouldn’t apply a conquered territory rule to an Aligned territory rule.

I think I’ve always considered hitting both as integral. I think you need the money from the DEI, and you certainly can’t just allow China to sit there and grow too strong one way or the other.

But like @Trig said, I think hitting China first/earlier is typically the way to go, and then hitting the DEI before they start getting reinforcements should certainly be part of your plans!

@delaja Long reply here, sorry in advance haha.

First to the point on gameplay. I should clarify that (even though it’s off topic). I LOVE playing this game. I frankly don’t have any issues with how long gameplay is myself personally. It’s a long game, if that bothers someone then this isn’t the game for them! So part of me leans in to that and says “what’s adding a little more time” haha. But at the same time, my brother and dad have a harder time wanting to add even more time to a game! So I tend to try and pick and chose the best ways to spend that extra time, and reviewing specialized units too much has so far just not been it. If it was just me, I’d love using all the elite units every game, and just deal with the time it takes! So no, not really a need for shorter gameplay, as that’s just not what this game is, but more of a selective look at what we do to make the game even longer!

Anyways, back more on topic. To the point on Special Operations Forces. I definitely agree that there was some overlap there, especially since I pointed it out haha. But part of me did that because it’s not necessarily the case that someone uses the Special Operations Expansion. So maybe it’s something where those units are made available in the Elite Expansion as well? If both expansions are being used, just have a disclaimer that the rules for each are the same? Just a thought. But certainly understood that the role of Special Operations are smaller units, so that might not be what you’re looking for in Elite Units.

To Elite Units and choice made. I guess here’s a counter question, and this is something that I just might not be as read up on as would needed from a historical context, but what would constitute Allied Elite units for you? The Germans have the SS, which makes sense. The USSR the Home Guard, which also is unique and makes sense. Italians, if you were to make it, could have Bersaglieri. Japan having SNLF makes sense.

But for the Allies, what is the equivalent then? It sounds like Airborne, Marines, Army units, aren’t what you’re looking for. Do US Ranger units count? Or are those too small? I guess I don’t know what, for any Allied nation really, is the equivalent to the Axis and USSR ones mentioned above to be able to make this for game play? My thought, which was probably reflected in the units I suggested, was to take specialized units from history that had performed well during the war and to make those Elite. But that was also because I couldn’t think of a unit type that exists to meet the “Elite” criteria that you might be looking for?

I’m so torn on the Elite Expansions. Part of me loves them/the idea of them, and think they add a really fun, unique flavor to the game. But at the same time I have to this point not felt adding all the time it would take to have to cross-reference what Elite unit does what with some kind of chart before every single battle they might be in. I’ve just thought of that as being a huge amount of time added to the game, but maybe I’m wrong without having played them.

All that said, here’s some ideas real quick.

USA:

• 82nd Airborne - Probably most famous airborne unit.
• 101st Airborne - Probably 2nd most famous airborne unit.
• 442nd Regiment (Nisei) - I know this is in the Minorities at War Expansion too, but they were so decorated on their merits as a unit besides being a Minority unit that I just wanted to point them out again.
• 2nd Ranger Battalion - I think the most famous WWII Ranger unit. Fought at Pointe du Hoc on D-Day. Maybe some kind of amphibious rule for them like marines.
• 1st Infantry Division - Probably most famous army unit in WWII famously called “The Big Red One”. Fought in Africa, Sicily, and Europe.
• 3rd Infantry Division - Fought in Africa, Sicily, and Europe.
• 1st through 6th Marine Divisions - Maybe not all 6, but all had big parts. I suppose the 1st Marine Division is the most famous.

UK:

• Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) - This is shown in HBG’s Special Forces Expansion already, but thought important to show here as well.
• 1st Airborne Division - The “Red Devils” multiple theaters, and famously fought in Operation Market Garden.
• 3rd Division - Saw action in the early war as part of the BEF, was at Dunkirk, and later was part of the D-Day landings, and fought in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany.

FEC:

Long Range Penetration Groups - Commonly called “Chindits”. While it seems their wartime record may have been exaggerated at times by Wingate, still a very interesting and unique force for the FEC to have. Fought in Africa and South-East Asia.

ANZAC:

• Australian I Corps - Renamed the ANZAC Corps since it comprised New Zealand units as well. Fought in Greece, Crete.
• 2nd New Zealand Division - Fought in the British 8th Army in North Africa.
• Australian 7th Division - Fought in New Guinea

Free France:

1st Free French Division - First units to join de Gaulle and consisted of French nationals as well as colonial units from the French empire.

Canada (If using Canada at War Expansion):

• 3rd Infantry Division - Fought at D-Day

Hybrid:

1st Special Service Force - Commonly called the “Devil’s Brigade”. This was a combined American-Canadian force. Could be used for the USA, UK or for Canada if using the Canada at War Expansion.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Yup! I apparently decided to not take the word “control” in that sentence in the GW36 game sense of the word that time for whatever reason :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Not quite.

Italy and Free France would have to go to war with each other in order for Abyssinia to become aligned with Free France instead of just controlled. If Italy and Free France don’t go to war, Abyssinia would continue to only be controlled, not aligned.

Likewise, Abyssinia does not need to win the war to become Free French. They simply need Free France and Abyssinia to be at war with the same major power.

@insanehoshi Oh wow, thanks for that. I think that was my source of confusion for sure!

@hbg-gw-enthusiast So, in reading this, to me it sounds like Abyssinia would stay controlled by Free France until Free France and Abyssinia are at war with the same major power.

If France/Free France weren’t/aren’t at war with Italy, but Italy is at war with Abyssinia, I don’t see how Abyssinia can just automatically become Free French. That would either force an end to the Abyssinian conflict, or force Italy to have to go to war with Free France. Neither of those seem fair or correct as it pertains to Italy.

That would make it impossible for Italy to stay neutral in any game. They start the game at war with Abyssinia already. So any time France surrenders and Free France is creating, that means Abyssinia automatically aligns with Free France, and thus Free France is automatically at war with Italy.

That just doesn’t sound right to me, but I could certainly be wrong.

@vondox Well, I guess I’d say this all depends on how early on the USSR chooses the Full Intervention option then. I think if you do it too early, it’s maybe possible the Axis decide to capitalize on that and attack the USSR early/first. They certainly might not, but I think it’s something to consider.

Our group has never actually done the full intervention option. I haven’t had the chance to be the Comintern yet, but I’ve found that I would tend to not want to suck up that many USSR resources on the SCW and risk leaving my homeland too exposed to the Axis because I shipped my resources/units abroad too heavily!

To your point on Republicans winning, I certainly can’t speak for all. I’ve heard that a general consensus on the SCW is that the standard rules in the game too heavily favored the Axis. The original SCW expansion then went too far the other way and too heavily favored the Comintern. Apparently the Admiral rules comes down to a happy medium. I have not played the Admiral ruleset and so can’t speak to it, but that’s just what I’ve read here from others. Point being, a general consensus is that the Republicans have too easy of a time winning the SCW using the original expansion, so it might just take more playing it to get it right! I certainly wouldn’t say we’re experts at it either though.

@bretters Dang, that’s great that worked for you! Sounds like you had a pretty substantial force to be able to pound Paris pretty well!

I think the biggest takeaway from the original expansion rule set would be that the rule states to “decrease the peacetime income increase any Allied power receives from an Axis attack on the USSR to 0”. That could potentially delay Allied entry into the war by 2 turns, maybe even 3 if your rolls are unlucky.

That’s probably the most glaring downside if you ask me.