Noticed one thing while playing the KMT - the declaration of war rules are not consistent with the rest of a the allies.
Rule:
KMT can declare war on any
Comintern, Axis or Minor Power once
it has evolved to a Major Power or
if that nation has units in Chinese
Home Country.
None of the rest of the allies can declare war on the USSR just because when they are a major power. Does anyone know if this is intended or balanced?
An odd situation popped up in a game that I was playing with some friends. I was trying out the Dutch Pannenkoek in this game and my buddy was spitballing ideas to counter it.
We discussed specifically attacking the Dutch with the Commonwealth to try and put the Japanese off balance since they were not angling to attack China and might have given the kmt and ccp too much space. We decided it wasn’t worth it but it brought up a discussion.
If the Commonwealth attacks the Dutch they become German aligned. The Japanese still want the Dutch Indies and they are still technically neutral. Could they still declare war on the DEI even if they are German controlled?
Your biggest threat is the Commonwealth Navy. If you lose to them its probably a long boring game of militia in Rome in my opinion (though you may be able to pull some colonial infantry shenanigans in Africa).
The best way in my opinion to not have that happen is to divide and conquer and to do that you need to close access to the Med so you can’t be squashed by the FEC navy and the home fleet. First goal is remove any ships in the Med as long as it doesn’t allow the Allies to remove your fleet on the counter attack. The second goal is the Suez for its value to the Allies and the fact that the Allies can’t force a canal. The third goal is Gibraltar because its expensive and doesn’t necessarily stop any ships with the new forcing a strait rule. This will take a ton of time and dollars that they don’t want to spend and even though you can’t stop them I would consider that a job well done.
Or you can sit back and hang the threat of your fleet over the Allies the entire game, but thats boring. At least you’ll do better than Mussolini did.
@Broken-Mortar I think it was a valid question and at some point I think someone will find something broken. There are so many rules and only so much time to play test and analyze. I’m amazed they have the game as fine tuned as they do.
@Dran-Black would you build it in Africa to try and to connect Cairo and South Africa
@Broken-Mortar They could do that but given the income disparity between the comintern and the allies I don’t think that is the right play. They will roll over the axis and then come for you. I think strategically you also want the allies at a low income while keeping them enough of a threat that the axis have to focus resources on them and keep off your back.
Though if the Russians can’t trigger income increases that’s also interesting and I don’t think unfair on a balance basis.
It would be a bad idea in my mind to declare war on the allies in July 1939 but you also have the ability to declare war on anyone at any turn as the Germans, Japanese and Italians. If you were to declare war in 1936 that would be a horrible idea but you have that flexibility.
To be honest I like the flexibility as long as it doesn’t break the balance of the game. So far in the 3 games that I’ve play tested with my group (very new to the rules and game) it hasn’t been an issue and the threat of war has changed the dynamic of the game and significantly enhanced the political situation between the powers.
Fair enough - that nails the coffin for me. It was just confusing because its not stated explicitly in the land combat sequence. Thanks for the help!
Well the global war rules are based loosely off g40 so i take some stock in that. However it does seem by the global war 36’ rules that it is possible. I am inclined to take the rules at face value in the rule book unless someone can point me in another direction. It changes the game’s strategy quite a bit but until I can find it to be completely broken I am willing to go with it.
@Maffezza said in Retreat after Winning Combat:
ombat as the attacker in a territory and you have 1 or
Perfect thank you, do you know what section that is by the way
Having a discussion with some other players about retreating after combat. The rules state that the attacker can retreat after any round of combat. If the combat ends in victory can you decide to retreat at the end of that round of combat or are you forced to move and take that territory?
@Dran-Black If I am reading the rules correctly the 10 IPPs must be paid immediately and can be shared among any aligned powers. So it needs to be cash.
Just to clarify the US IPP reduction: Jan. 1939 the UK attacks Iran, current US income is 16 IPP. I believe the US’s income would immediately reduce to 8 IPPs and when they role the d12 for mobilization that would be completely unaffected. @GeneralHandGrenade correct me if you think that is wrong or unclear.
I also thought militia could be built anywhere as a minimum of one regardless of point values. At least when I’m looking at the V3 rules.
@mrgoatcheese hmm I never even thought of that. I must still be thinking in g40 terms where India needs to play defense. Do you think the Commonwealth can actually threaten the Japanese navy without exposing the home islands/have any recommended lend-lease purchases?
@RellHaiser oh shoot I forgot about the IPP value. I still feel comfortable with a militia a turn though as long as I can keep a sizable fleet alive near the med. But I think that depends on the priority you place on keeping the Med.
@GeneralHandGrenade thanks for clarifying that
@mrgoatcheese I thought that too but under the war section on the national sheet for the UK it only says “Yes, but a 10 IPP penalty applies”. Which implies to me that they don’t have a time requirement or an income requirement. But I might just be reaching.
@HMS-Serapis In the games that I have seen it doesn’t look like the Mediterranean has been too important. Granted Gibraltar is important but you can reinforce Gibraltar with Militia and Colonial Infantry at any time. There is only 1 specific victory objective for it for Italy and not too many IPPs. Usually it is a gateway to the middle east and I think you can strike a deal with Russia or use the FEC to strike back through Iran and recover your victory objectives. Definitely high risk , high reward. Especially if you get diced.
@Dran-Black I believe it is permanent. The section for allied war penalty’s says that the UK penalty is specifically one time while for the US it is specified as an income decrease.
So an idea has been rolling around my head about what a good use could be for a British or French attack on an unaligned neutral. This would be before the US reaches wartime income. The economic penalty is large, 10 IPP up front and 8 IPP a turn until the US hits wartime income, which could result in 50, 60 or even 80+ IPPs.
The best answer that I could come up with is a British attack on Belgium on turn 1. The goal of this attack would be to stifle the Schlieffen plan and lightning war ability of Germany. With the Commonwealth being able to stack units in Belgium it would require a much larger concentration of force from Germany to destroy France which could shift the balance in the West or force Germany to turn East.
The strategy also has the positive effects of not giving Germany a ton of aligned territory when it goes to war with the UK. The USAs income also shouldn’t be able to go below zero so instead of a -8 per turn penalty it mitigates it to a -6 per turn income.
I think the largest cost is economic, delaying America and not allowing them tech rolls. Let me know what you all think and let me know if you can think of any other neutral countries that are worth invading in the early game.