Posts made by freh

There was one game where I had a damaged Italian BB at S. France and it was German owned. The UK player sbr’ed the harbour, preventing me from repairing my BB and using the harbour to move from there to Egypt SZ. So that might another downside to taking it with Germany, along with the weakened attack on France and the fact that the French med fleet can convoy damage your PUs, unlike with Normandy where you’re guaranteed the 2 PUs.

Generally speaking though, I also don’t like diverting Italian ground forces to take S. France, so I almost always launch an attack against it on G1. Once I retreated after killing one unit and then moved in and inf and art to take it with Italy. But in general, I take it with Germany and keep it. Having the option to build german boats in the med is always good.

@Young:

I guess if WOC had plans to do a 1940 Global rulebook, and then I made one and shared it with the public… than they would likely be pissed about that. I know from a friend that asking a company like wizards for permission to share custom materials that they own, is a great way to hear the word NO. Anyway, if I were to do something like this, it would be after I take my InDesign class in December.

I’m not a lawyer but I work with the law a lot, so I’ll throw in my two cents not in terms of legal opinions but as a practical consideration where the law is concerned.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. If they planned to make a 1940 Global rulebook and sell it, then yes they would see your rulebook as a threat, and move to stop you. But the chances of them doing that are virtually zero. Making the rulebook would take a lot of time, and the likelihood of them achieving a significant enough return on investment is also zero. So there’s no incentive for them to make it. That addresses whether they would want to make it, which is different from whether they would want it done at all. My guess is they would be happy for it to exist since it could only serve to increase interest in the game. BUT, from an ownership point of view, they could never officially give you permission to make it. Which is why you would get a “no” if you asked. Which only means that you shouldn’t ask.

On another front, I’d be happy to volunteer to copy-edit.

I have seen an ANZAC IC in Saudi Arabia, but never in Iraq or Persia.

I don’t think there’s a greater benefit to ANZAC getting into Iraq than USSR (given the 3 IPC bonus for Iraq) or even UK. I would never specifically try to put it under ANZAC’s control. But if presented with the opportunity, I can see some advantages: ANZAC going between Italy and Germany, for instance. Or can opening for UK in the mid-east or North Africa. Then again, if ANZAC units aren’t needed to contain Japan, then the war is probably going well enough for the allies for this not to matter as much.

the one way I think this might be advantage is to help solidify a second front. China could save its money (not necessarily all) and if Russia ever gets into Manchuria, build the chinese infantry there. I’m not sure it’s worth it, but it is an interesting idea.

I am just running into this situation in a game and I was glad to see that the answer is here. As complicated as this scenario is (to me), Krieg’s answer is completely supported by the rulebook. Thanks to all!

I’m playing against a German bomber strategy for the first time. What I’m finding to be the most significant challenge is their range. 7 spaces let’s them hit the west Gibraltar SZ from France or West Germany, while simultaneously threatening Russian stacks on the eastern front. I’m finding that really hard to defend against. So I had a couple of ideas (assuming the intent is to restore balance – I’m not necessarily in favour of either of these rules in principle, but for the purpose of play-balance, they might make sense.) They are influenced by my observations in early games that saw Germany have a tougher time once they commit fighters and tac to the eastern front and they aren’t available to threaten atlantic shipping. As well, the combined price reduction and increased movement have increased the lethality of bombers. Apologies as well if these were already mentioned but the search function wouldn’t work for me so i couldn’t see if these ideas have already been raised.

My first suggestion is a fairly simple one: to remove the airbase movement advantage from strat bombers. This would maintain their range just enough that they can’t threaten Moscow and gibraltar and everywhere in between West Germany. They could still operate out of Germany and protect the coast of Europe, or Russia, but it would open up some shipping lanes in the Atlantic.

If that’s seen as too extreme, or if the effect on the pacific might be deemed too undesirable, my second suggestion is to give strat bombers the extra movement point if there is an an airbase at takeoff AND landing. In the pacific, there are so many airbases on islands, Australia, and Japan oftens by an airbase for SE Asia to increase fighter and tac range, so this might not affect the pacific as much as the European theatre.

Just some food for thought.

@ItIsILeClerc:

Just to get this straight (I’m a bit confused now):

Since AAGuns fit into the same category as TRS, apparently, I’ve taken a closer look into those rules (defenseless transports). Remaining TRS are simply removed all at once.
The rules are easily interpretated that this is not mandatory, but rather a means ‘to speed up combat’. I.e. as the attacker, I can imagine that sometimes you do not want to ‘speed up combat’ and roll a couple of times against the TRS, in order to ‘keep the right to retreat’ (into a safer SZ).

From my understanding, transports are defenseless and removed once they are no longer protected. The exception would be in a battle where subs + other naval or sea units are in sea combat, and only transports and air remain on the defender side. Assuming only the sub hits in any given round of combat, the sub hits would have to apply to the transports, but common sense would suggest that a single hit by a single sub would only kill a single transport, and not all of them at once. Unless they would all die at once?

Last but not least: the rules clearly state that when an area containing only AAA units is attacked, the AAA units are automatically destroyed and the combat is concluded. In the OP’s example however, the territory did not contain only AAA units so combat was entered. Doesn’t this entitle the attacker the option to (combat sequence step 6) press the attack (in which case all remaining AAA will be destroyed at once) or retreat (in which case the remaining AAA will survive)?

This is the crux of the question. To what extent are the AAA involved in combat given that they fire at attackers? By my reading of the rules, they fire before general combat, not in it, and while they can be taken as a casualty, because they don’t fire, they don’t technically take part in the battle and so need to be defended by a unit or they are automatically destroyed.

I’m on the other side of the game VS brincobi, and obviously have somewhat of a vested interest in this but really just want to know what the rule is.

First off, Krieghund’s ruling makes sense to me. Thanks for replying!

While reviewing the rulebook, I found something else that didn’t quite make sense to me:

If you moved any units into unoccupied hostile territories
or hostile territories that contain only facilities and/or
AAA units, no actual combat is necessary. Simply skip to
step 7 (Conclude Combat) for each of these territories and
remove any AAA units that might be in them. (page 19 under “General Combat”

So let’s say I attack a territory with 1 fighter, and it has one defending AAA. Does the AAA fire at me before I automatically kill it? Or is it just automatically destroyed? According to my reading of the rules, there would be no combat and the AAA would be automatically destroyed.

EDIT: I just found this in the AAA unit profile:
An AAA unit can fire at an air unit only
when that unit attacks land and/or air units in the territory
containing that AAA unit.

So that answers my question. Any undefended AAA are automatically destroyed by any attacking land or air unit.

Thanks Ozymandiac for raising this point, and thanks Wittman. I was as puzzled as you were, Ozymandiac, about the rules as it relates to 1940 Pacific 2nd edition,  but it’s all clear now.

I think some of the confusion comes from the two FAQs that were released on September 3, 2014. I only noticed the difference now, that there is one September 3, 2014 FAQ for the second edition, and another September 3, 2014 FAQ for the first edition that has the same rule that you quoted, Ozy. I think it would have been great if each FAQ really made it crystal clear that they apply to different versions of the game for dopes like me that are kinda slow :-P