@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in The FAQ Thread:
“Planes cannot land on newly placed carriers. Newly placed carriers may not be used to guarantee land spots. Thus, effectively, a carrier must sit naked for a turn after it is built.”
This is my understanding, Trig, but I agree with you that it would be helpful to have it definitively answered. : )
@trig said in The FAQ Thread:
I am pretty sure about this, but I want to get it proved beyond doubt on the main thread.
“Planes cannot land on newly placed carriers. Newly placed carriers may not be used to guarantee land spots. Thus, effectively, a carrier must sit naked for a turn after it is built.”
This is discussed in more detail here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36743/aircraft-carrier-rules-in-v3-a-new-way-of-thinking
For the purposes of this question, are you playing with optional rule 15.3?
@luftwaffles41 Here’s the first in a video series by General Hand Grenade, talking with Morten, the designer of Global War '36 v3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHlrbXLCdwo
@luftwaffles41 said in The FAQ Thread:
So… did historical board gaming design Global War 1936-1945?
Yes.
@trig Thanks for the support, Trig! Means a lot coming from you! 8 )
I think for most of the gameplay, GHG is right and you don’t have to slow things down by announcing sea zone by sea zone what the intention of your peace-loving naval units are. GHG knows this would be tedious and obnoxious. But if two nations are on the cusp of war and naval forces from two different Major Powers share a sea zone, then the defending player can say, “Hold up. I might declare war here. Now that you are entering this sea zone I’m in, I need you to announce your intentions. Are you moving through to THIS sea zone, or THAT sea zone? It might affect what I decide to do. Are you ending your movement here and moving no further?” This gives a slight advantage to the defender in seeing that the naval units are getting close to entering a worrisome sea zone and they can declare war before they enter it.
@nicbot23 said in The FAQ Thread:
@hbg-gw-enthusiast Thank you for clarifying, I can understand now that this scenario has been put into perspective! I have a few follow up questions:
Does the moving player’s intent need to be consistent throughout their entire movement phase (i.e. The British fleet moves into a sea zone containing Japanese ships, the screening force is required to conduct combat in order to proceed, then the amphibious assault occurs in the next sea zone), or can they move through a Japanese-occupied sea zone peacefully, only to change intent and immediately declare war and conduct combat in the next sea zone all within a single turn?
The moving player’s intent need only be declared upon entering a sea zone, sea zone by sea zone. The announcement is something like, “My fleet enters this sea zone and intends to keep moving to this next sea zone. Do you want to declare war before I leave?” Then say the British fleet reaches the final sea zone they want and they announce, “We now declare war on Japan and are going to try to perform an amphibious assault with these ships/units.” [If there are enemy naval units, then add, “These units are my screening force.”] So yes, they can move through a Japanese-occupied sea zone peacefully, only to immediately declare war and conduct combat in the next sea zone all within a single turn.
Does the make up of an amphibious force (deciding whether each ship is screening or bombarding) have to be established by the moving player upon departure, or are they allowed to make changes to their ship’s roles on their next turn if it takes more than one turn to reach their destination? And does a change in intent determine one’s ability to make that decision?
If you read Page 37, Clarifying Ordering Effects, (a) “The attacking player must always announce his intention first. So when moving into a new zone the attacker announces [his intentions].” The time to announce your intention is upon entering a new zone. You don’t have to declare which ships are part of the screening force and which ships are part of the amphibious assault until you enter the final sea zone.
If a player makes any act provoking a declaration of war during their combat movement or conduct combat phase, are that player’s ships automatically forced into combat with enemy ships they share a sea zone with, or are they able to leave the zone without engaging in battle (as was the case in 1940 2nd edition)? Furthermore, if the player does decide to remain in the sea zone and conduct combat, are their ships not allowed to retreat since they started in the same zone that the battle is taking place?
Ok, this is more tricky because you can declare war at any time. If war is declared at some phase that is not combat movement, for example, then you may have naval units sharing the same sea zone. Page 3, Sharing Sea Zones, “When naval unis of Major Powers that are not at war suddenly come to be at war…units do not participate in combat until one power makes a new combat move during the combat movement phase against the other units in that zone. Either side can move out of the zone freely without triggering an attack.” But if the declaration of war is occurring when you enter the sea zone during the combat movement phase and declare war [this is “one power makes a new combat move during the combat movement phase against the other units in that zone”], then it will lead to combat in the following combat phase. If you declared war during the combat phase (weird timing, but still legal/possible), then you’d have to wait until the next combat movement phase and the naval units would be allowed to leave without combat.
Regarding retreats, the attacking player would be allowed to retreat to an adjacent sea zone that at least one attacking ship came from. So if the attacking player started the turn sharing a sea zone with enemy naval units, declared war and attacked the enemy naval units in that sea zone, then they could not retreat (in my opinion).
@nicbot23 said in The FAQ Thread:
If a nation begins moving a naval force intended for an amphibious assault while they’re at peace, is it automatically assumed to be a declaration of war for the purpose of determining peacetime income increases? For example, if a British landing force departs during the combat movement phase with the intention of landing units in Japan before either side has declared war, does this mean Japan is allowed intercept the invasion fleet without triggering USA’s 5 D12 worth of peacetime income increase? Or does Japan have to declare war first in order intercept and attack the British fleet? I don’t find it feasible that a nation can’t deal with an invasion headed their way without having to make the unprovoked declaration of war.
It’s my understanding that when ships enter a sea zone, the moving player must announce their intent. The amphibious assault fleet could be separated from a screening fleet. Because the moving player has to announce their intent first, it would seem they have to declare war during the combat movement phase when they move into the final sea zone if they will be attempting an amphibious assault. If the Japanese have a fleet in the same sea zone where the British are attacking, the British would be the ones declaring war and no 5D12 is invoked. The Japanese fleet would battle with the screening fleet and if it won, then the amphibious assault would be stopped. However, if the British move to a sea zone where the Japanese fleet is and do not announce they are performing an amphibious assault, but instead announce they are moving through that sea zone to an adjacent one [where the Japanese player is worried the British will invade], in order to interdict the British fleet before it moves to that next sea zone where it will possibly conduct an amphibious assault, the Japanese would have to declare war on the British to try and stop them before they leave. That would incur the 5D12 penalty. And the delicious thing is, the British player may have just been feinting!
@chris_henry I for one would love to read AAR’s!
@chris_henry General Hand Grenade is correct that Germany and the USSR signing the pact is bad for the Allies. It’s a three player game. Imagine all three teams start with 1 “point” each. Germany and the USSR sign the pact and Germany gets 2 points while the USSR only gets 1. Now Germany has 3 and the USSR has 2. The Allies remain at 1.
@polybius68 I imagine the standard is Plano 3700’s. I recommend the thin version (1.38" height), but it seems like a lot of players use the standard, deeper ones. These have up to 34 compartments in a box.
I went with the Plano 3700 CDS (Custom Divider Series) in the thin version (14"x9.13"x1.38"). These are more expensive (about twice as much). I arranged them in 41 compartments. The red stripes indicate advanced (technology) units. I clipped the edges with kohm straight edge clippers and glued them in with JB weld, clear for plastic.
Row 1: subs, adv subs, hvy CV, hvy BB, Battlecruisers, CA, CL, trans, marines
Row 2: seaplanes, cav, CV, fast BB, BB, CVE, DD, air trans, airborne
Row 3: adv art, adv sp art, adv mech, hvy arm, jets, hvy strat bmb, med bom, tac, AA
Row 4: art, sp art, mech, arm, ftr, strat bomb, td, lt arm, mot
Row 5: elite marine, militia, inf, mountain, roundels
I don’t have attack transports or strat rockets and keep those separate. I have 9 of these. One each for: ANZAC, Britain/FEC, USA, France/Vichy/Free, USSR, Ger, Ita, and Jap. The final one I use for CCP/KMT/Repub Spain/Nat Spain.
You could use a 10th for Fact, extra markers, Rockets, Attack Trans, etc.
@generalhandgrenade said in The FAQ Thread:
To simplify this for everyone, movement through terrain is best described this way; The territory you are standing in does not count when it comes to movement. Assume you are standing right at the border. The first territory you encounter determines what type of terrain you are moving in. If there are no terrain features you have to cross in the first territory you cross then you can move into a second territory if your unit has movement points left. Cavalry is the only unit that could move through a territory with terrain (mountain) and into a second territory.
On the other hand, there are restrictions involving blitzing. For instance, you cannot blitz out of a city. That means that if you moved into a city on combat movement phase and successfully conquered that territory, then you can’t subsequently move into a second enemy territory as a blitz.
You can’t blitz into a mountain territory or over a mountain border. That means that you can’t attack an enemy territory with no terrain on combat movement and then blitz into a second enemy mountain territory and conquer it. You could, however, move through a friendly territory with no terrain and then attack a mountain territory as that is not considered a blitz. The first territory you entered did not restrict your movement.
Thanks so much, GHG! We really needed an answer for this one!
@captainnapalm I get it! Bolstering your perspective, units cannot blitz across an enemy mountain, jungle, desert, marsh border or into mountain, jungle, desert, marsh terrain.
We definitely need clarification on this one! You have persuaded me, CaptainNapalm.
@captainnapalm If a unit starts in the desert, it has its movement reduced to 1. Are you saying that when it moves into the clear terrain, you believe it gets its movement increased to 2? I’m trying to understand.
@insanehoshi said in The FAQ Thread:
- Can Fighters/Tactical Bombers land on friendly/aligned aircraft carriers. For example an ANZAC plane landing on an American Carrier? In the US turn if the carrier combat or non-combat moves, does the ANZAC plane come with it? Does it participate in any attacks?
Great question! I am not absolutely sure about this, but I suspect the ANZAC planes can land on the American Carrier, move with the CV, and fight with the Americans.- Assuming an evolved Chinese power, Does the USSR and CCP (or USA and KMT) share rail movement or no? Can the USSR rail 2 units in the USSR and then can CCP rail 2 units?
I imagine the answer will be that the USSR can rail the units on the CCP rail with the permission of the CCP (which is played by the USSR).
@insanehoshi said in The FAQ Thread:
- A German submarine is in a sea zone with a British destroyer and an escort carrier with a fighter on board. On the British turn the fighter goes on MAP and attacks pairing with a destroyer. The submarine is hit and decides to defend, and it rolls a 1 and gets target selection. Can it target select the escort carrier?
Yes! And if there is no friendly island, adjacent aligned land zone, or adjacent friendly carrier with extra available capacity, then that plane will also be destroyed.- When are units subject to terrain rules that affect their movement. Lets assume three Land Zones: LZ1: Mountain, LZ2: no terrain, LZ3: no terrain. If a tank starts in LZ1 can it move to 2 and then 3? If a tank starts in LZ3 can it move to 2 and then 1?
If a tank starts in LZ1, its movement is reduced to 1, so it can move to LZ2, and then it stops. If a tank starts in LZ3, it has a movement of 2. It spends 1 point of movement to enter LZ2. It spends a second point of movement to enter LZ3. Further, if a tank starts in LZ2 and then moves into LZ1, its movement is reduced to 1 and it has moved 1, so it can move no further.
Some games have movement costs and you cannot enter if you do not have sufficient movement. Global War '36 reduces your movement after you have entered the terrain, like quicksand. You can go in, but it’s hard to get out. Starting in the desert? Hard to get out. Starting in clear terrain, moving through a clear terrain and then going into the jungle? Easy to get in.
@manincellv If I understand your question, you want both one and two to happen.
Let’s say it’s 1938 and everyone’s neutral. No Declarations of War have occurred.
Path A - Germany declares war on The Netherlands before Japan does. Now, The Netherlands East Indies becomes controlled by Great Britain as long as Germany isn’t at war with another Major Power. This increases Great Britain’s peacetime income by 2D12, which is an average of 13. Their starting income is 11 and their wartime income is 25. Perhaps you get to 24. Risky, but possible.
Then, Japan declares war on the NEI. This increases USA peacetime income by 2D12, just as you were hoping. Great Britain’s peacetime income increases by +2, possibly allowing them to declare war on Japan.
Path B - Japan declares war on The Netherlands before Germany does. As long as Japan isn’t at war with another Major Power, The Netherlands cannot align with anyone. Instead, The Netherlands becomes controlled by Great Britain (and GB’s peacetime income increases by +2, btw). USA peacetime income increases by 2D12, just as you were hoping. On Great Britain’s turn, they could lend-lease to The Netherlands and this would occur before Germany gets to take its turn. They would also get to roll a D12 and on a “1” they would recruit either an infantry or 2 militia in The Netherlands.
Now, it’s Germany’s turn. They declare war on The Netherlands. This increases Great Britain’s peacetime income by 2D12, which is an average of 13. Their starting income is 11 and the Japanese DoW on the NEI has increased that to 13. Great Britain’s wartime income is 25. The most likely outcome statistically is that Great Britain will hit 25 with their roll of 2D12 and be able to DoW Germany, but there is a chance of your dream outcome going down this path.
But I’d wait to make sure folks like Trig, Noneshallpass, or GeneralHandGrendade concur, because I’m still learning.
@trig Ramble on, my knowledgeable friend! Thanks for the correction!
Turn X
-Great Britain is already at war with Germany. Germany attacks the Dutch. Any surviving Dutch align with Britain.
-On their turn, Japan attacks the Dutch East Indies, which is a declaration of war on the British. The USA gets 5D12 to their peacetime income.
Turn X
-Japan attacks the neutral Dutch. Any surviving Dutch align with Britain. The USA gets 2D12 to their peacetime income.
-Britain has a turn and may reinforce the Netherlands with more troops.
Turn X+1
-Germany attacks the Netherlands (which are now British troops).
@caesar-seriona Oh, I’m totally with you, Caesar! I want to play Global War '36 as a 3-player game and I hate scripting! I even made a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIN2oVkr6oE
@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 )