Best posts made by HBG GW Enthusiast

@generalhandgrenade Wow! I didn’t catch that Munck was the designer! Thanks. Doesn’t get more definitive than that!

@generalhandgrenade said in The FAQ Thread:

Declarations of War
https://youtu.be/Kz5Kl9oOZSA

Two follow ups:

1. Does the Clarifying Ordering Effects on Page 37, (a), also apply to amphibious assaults, or is there some exception about amphibious assaults? I assumed it did apply to amphibious assaults.
2. If a nation announces they will be engaging in an amphibious assault (or any other attack), is that not a declaration of war, in and of itself?

When you enter a sea zone where you will be doing combat (screening force, amphibious assault, etc.), your declaration of war occurs when you move into that sea zone. The Attacking player has to announce his intentions first and he has to do it upon entering the sea zone.

@trig I request a terrain player aid with pictures of the terrain!

@trig I have already written to HBG about this, but you may want to change your phrasing to, “In case of a tie for the most VP’s, the game continues until one alliance has more at the end of a calendar turn.” You have faithfully rendered the language in the rulebook, but I think my phrasing hews to the true intent.

Getting your reference sheets printed up and laminated, Trig! That’s the highest compliment I can pay you for creating these. 8 )

@trig You should update the Victory Objectives to have a d12 for the variable ending.

Just got back from a week long vacation and am very interested in this thread. Will respond in the morning after some sleep!

@didier_de_dax said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

Hey @Trig,

At first, thank you for your detailed answer and for taking the time to do it.

I agree with Trig’s long, detailed post, 4 above this one.

I understand that orders maters and that all units attacking in different combats don’t move at the same time.

Agreed.

If I understand it well, for example: a japan fleet attacks an FEC navy (near Australia) by passing thought an ANZAC navy, it create a state of war between the two opponents when the Japanese fleet is in the same sea zone as the FEC (because Japan did not tell is intention before). And after that, the Japanese player also announces that he will conduct a land battle against FEC in Burma. The combats are then resolves in the order of the attacking player (Japan here).
But if the Japanese player announces the land combat in Burma (creating a state of war between the two opponents) before announcing the naval battle with the FEC. Then, the naval battle with FEC is stopped by the ANZAC navy and the naval battle between Japan and ANZAC takes places instead of the one with FEC.

This is true. You have it correct.

Or maybe the screening force rules could be use there? One part of the Japan fleet fight with the ANZAC and the other part fight with the FEC? Even if there isn’t naval invasion occurring.
(I think that the screening forces rules didn’t happen there, but I prefer to make sure, so I ask).

In the 2nd situation where Japan declared war with the movement into Burma, the Japanese fleet can choose to engage the ANZAC fleet with a screening force and hold the other naval units out to proceed on to engage the FEC fleet if the screening force succeeds against the ANZAC fleet.

Then, you say that the player should announce what is he doing with his fleet, each time that he enter a new sea zone right? (not at the beginning of the move).

Correct.

So, during the combat move phase, the attacking player move his fleet on the same sea zone as his opponent, he announce that he will conduct a blockade (for example) on an enemy naval base in another sea zone (the naval base should be controlled by a nation which the attacking player is already at war before the start of the movement or he could also be a naval base controlled by the player who will defend against the attacking fleet?).

You don’t have to be at war before the start of the movement. You could be at peace and pass through other fleets or a canal, then enter the sea zone where you will blockade. At the moment you enter that last sea zone where you will blockade, the attacker has to announce intent first and that blockade announcement will be a declaration of war.

But this only works if there is a trade route to raid, to escort, or a naval base to blockade in a sea zone within the range of the navy, right? Or not necessarily?

Well, the examples you give do work, but I disagree with your use of “only”. There are other things you could also do. For example, you could attack another naval fleet or do other hostile things like an amphibious invasion. It even works if the defending player has a plane on MAP in that sea zone and the defender could declare war on you!

I think I understand your confusion. You feel like you need permission from the “rules” to be allowed to move a unit during combat movement. That isn’t how I think about it. I think about it as the defending player is giving the attacking player permission to move during combat movement. When you are not a war with a particular potential defending force, you need to move during combat movement if the defending player might declare war on you to prevent your further movement or you might declare war at the end of your movement.

I totally agree that in version 4 of the rules, we should strive for clarity on whether my understanding of the way it should work is correct. In my conceptualization, even if you were just moving through the Suez canal when you are not at war with the Commonwealth, it would happen during the combat movement phase because you would enter sea zone 81 and announce, “I intend to move through the Suez canal into sea zone 82. Do you declare war and stop me?” But this is just how I conceptualize it.

Let’s take a concrete example to understand my question better: (I will try to upload an image of this situation to make it more clear).
The Japanese player wants to attack a US destroyer in sea zone 42 with its destroyer that are in sea zone 56 (bay of Tokyo, so they benefits from the +1 naval movement of the major port in the sea zone). US and Japan are not already at war.
So, during the combat phase, he intended to pass by the sea zone 39, 40 that contains two US destroyers and 41, before finally entering in sea zone 42 at fight the US destroyer that is alone and so declares war.

In order to pass the two destroyers that are in sea zone 40 without fighting, he has to pretend that he will raid, escort on a naval route or blockade a naval base. The problem is that there isn’t such trade routes or naval facilities within the range of the two Japanese destroyers when they enter sea zone 40. So are the Japanese destroyers still able to continue their movement? Even if they can’t pretend to raid, escort in a sea route or blockade a naval base to within the range of these boats.

No, you don’t have to pretend to raid, escort or perform a naval blockade. You make your announcement sea zone by sea zone, as you enter each new sea zone. You enter sea zone 39, but there are no enemy units present and you want to keep moving. Since there are no enemy units present, you don’t need to announce anything because there is nothing the defending player can do to stop you. You then move into sea zone 40 where there are enemy units present. Now, there IS something the defending player can do to interfere with your movement, so your intention becomes important. The attacking player says, “I intend to move to sea zone 41. Do you want to declare war, defending player?” If no DoW by the defending player, then you move into sea zone 41. Again, there are no enemy units in sea zone 41 and there is nothing that can be done to stop you from entering sea zone 42, so it’s not necessary to announce your intention. You enter sea zone 42. Because you are the attacking player, you announce your intention first upon entering sea zone 42, saying, “I declare war on you and attack this destroyer.”

“6.2 also states that a player may resolve the actions during a phase in any order ».

This rule is useful when there is a city that could be encircled before attacking it. The attacking player choose to resolve the combat that allows a city to be encircled first, then the attacking player resolves the combat against the city that is now encircled (because there isn’t airbase or naval base undamaged there), so the malus of encirclement applies to the defender in the city, right?

Correct and an important tactic!

@insanehoshi said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

Ok this is starting to make sense to me now.

I have one last stickler, though. If the British fleet is in SZ 82, and you have to declare your intent when before entering a zone, doesn’t that mean, the italians cant attack the fleet in SZ82. The moment they are entering 82 from 81, they declare their intent and the Suez closes?

Well, if you look at the wording on page 37, Clarifying Ordering Effects, the key phrase is “…when moving into a new zone…” I define this as the fleet has just moved into a new zone, not, as you put it, “…before entering a zone…” So you enter into sea zone 81 and you announce, “I intend to move into sea zone 82, do you want to declare war on me and close the Suez canal?” The Commonwealth is in a precarious position. Should they declare war and prevent you from moving in, but suffering the penalties of declaring war? [Side Note: It’s hard for Great Britain to declare war on Italy if Italy is still neutral. Their National Reference Sheet specifies they can only declare war on Germany, Italy or Japan if those nations have already declared war on another nation.] If Great Britain does not or cannot declare war, then the Italians pass through the canal and are now entering sea zone 82. Upon entering sea zone 82, they now have to announce their intentions. If they announce they intend to attack the British fleet in sea zone 82, then that is a declaration of war by the Italians (but they already passed through the canal).

@didier_de_dax What kind words, my friend! I want you to know that GHG has answered hundreds and hundreds of questions. He is actually a very friendly and helpful person, Didier! 8 ) He has poured probably thousands of hours into Global War and has done so much to advance the game. I am very grateful for all GHG has and continues to do for this game that we both love.

Sometimes we can answer questions definitively. We just quote a rule and there really isn’t any dispute. These are the most straight forward and I have found Trig and Noneshallpass to be tremendous assets here. They really have a deep knowledge of the game.

Sometimes, the rules aren’t as clear as we would like them to be. People are confused by the wording or there are two different sections of the rules that are in conflict. Then we need help from the game designer to provide clarity. I’ve been very impressed with how rapidly the FAQ and rules errata have been updated. Respect! It’s fantastic to have quick response times for these kinds of issues.

And sometimes, the game evolves. A player starts using a new tactic (like the USSR invading South America to get America into the war early), and the game designer needs to respond to take corrective action. I’ve been a rules editor for even more complicated WW2 games than HBG’s Global War '36, and in my experience, it can be disastrous to be overreactive and make changes to the way the game is played without playtesting and a period of contemplation. If you respond with “evolutionary” rules changes too quickly, and then have to modify that change, it gives the playing community whiplash as the rules change this way and that. Morten is very good about taking his time and playtesting with his group before making these kinds of evolutionary changes. I think we should be patient and understanding in these kinds of changes. We want fast responses for the easy stuff and slow, thoughtful responses to complicated/evolutionary issues.

@didier_de_dax I totally agree. And I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t critical of you, Didier! Online communication is so difficult because people can’t hear tone of voice or see our facial expressions. 8 )

I’m not criticizing the game designers or their work either, my friend. We’re on the same page and this very forum is the perfect place for us to have these discussions.

There is a lot of talk about what we’d like to see in v4. I’d like to start a thread focused just on map improvements.

@insanehoshi said in Version 4?:

• Is Iraq Connected to the Ocean?
• Is Burma Connected to China (via passable terrain)
• Is Western Australia Mountainous from the sea (Rondel to Rondel terrain tracing doesn’t work for amphibious assaults).
• Do we really need minor ports?
• Updated Rondels
• Here would be my dream, built in battle boards on the north and south sides of the map. Get their image for the battleboard, set the opacity to 50% and set it to the bottom and top.

Here are some of my requests:
Transparent Ship and Facility Production Chart (one in the corner East of New Zealand, one in the corner above District of Keewatin).
Terrain Legend
Greater clarity of fortifications (Maginot, Gibraltar, Tobruk, Leningrad, etc.)
Totally agree with InsaneHoshi = Simplification of Minor Ports (just eliminate them and rewrite the rules ever so slightly!)

@gen-manstein Fair enough, Gen! I too have removed my post.

@insanehoshi said in Airborne and fortifications?:

I play it as if the transport crosses the fortified boarder it counts, otherwise it does not.

Yeah, I concur. But note that if you are dropping on a fortified city, you can’t avoid suffering the penalty.

Drum1Dude and I were debating about whether militia can be built from factories. We need a definitive answer. 8 )

No, they do not get recruitment rolls. If an outside power (like Japan or the USSR) declares war on the KMT/CCP/Warlords, then the KMT immediately gets all remaining Warlords to align with them. But they never get recruitment rolls.

Note that the CCP gets to continue its recruitment rolls even after it evolves to a major power!

My video on the set: https://youtu.be/WWraJ1eawRM

The Morrison Games Risk Replacement Pieces: https://www.amazon.com/Risk-Pieces-Replacement-Infantry-Artillery/dp/B00JQIDKNQ/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Morrison+Games+Risk+Pieces&qid=1625246401&sr=8-1

Noneshall pass and Trig are both correct. All Abyssinia needs to do is capture Eritrea to win the conflict, but it is legal for Abyssinia to capture Italian territory (like Italian Somaliland) other than Eritrea. For example, if Italy left Italian Somaliland entirely empty, it might be worth Abyssinia sending one infantry to capture it since that would increase Abyssinia’s recruitment roll and decrease Italy’s income by 1 IPP.

@didier_de_dax Gotcha! I think CaptainNalpalm is house ruling that particular move. That’s a great point about Northern Ireland needing a narrow crossing.

@panzerbaguette Interesting! You have persuaded me that it is not a settled issue and requires clarification (exactly as you titled the thread, Pazerbaguette!). 8 ) I’ll add this to the FAQ.

@panzerbaguette Let’s look at this situation from the perspective of Japan. In order for France to declare war on Japan, in most games, it would require Germany to have declared war on a minor the turn before planning to take France out. For example, imagine Germany attacking Belgium in January, 1939 with a plan to take the double impulse against Warsaw and Paris in July, 1939. Germany is gambling that France and Great Britain won’t hit their Wartime Income with 2 D12’s each. France only needs to go up 9 (12 - 3 from the annexation of Austria, Bohemia, and Slovakia). The average of 2 D12’s is 13. Britain needs only to go up 11 (14 - 3 from the annexation of Austria, Bohemia, and Slovakia). In my hypothetical, Germany attacks Belgium in January, 1939; France rolls enough to get to Wartime Income and declares war on Japan?!? America’s Peacetime Income drops by 8 for this action! This will delay USA’s entry and really hurt the USA’s overall income through the course of the game. It’s not a one time penalty of -8. It’s turn after turn of having 8 less. This is absolutely fantastic for Japan and the USA and Commonwealth should try very hard to talk a French player out of making this mistake.

So you are probably talking about Japan declaring war on France early in the game, before France and Great Britain are aligned. This would increase the USA’s peacetime income by 5 D12’s. The average of 5 D12’s is 32.5! Remember how disastrous it would be to the Allies to subtract 8 from USA’s peacetime income? Imagine how game changing it would be to instead add 32.5 to USA’s peacetime income! You would be bringing USA into the war against you five turns early and you are doing that for the opportunity to do something against France?!? The Germans and Italians should strive mightily to convince Japan that would be foolishness.