Posts made by HBG GW Enthusiast

@trig said in Subs, Destroyers, MAP and other ships:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in Subs, Destroyers, MAP and other ships:

Here is my understanding of MAP (this is from some discussion in the comments section of Winter Solace 13.4).
All corrections in bold. Read them.
8.9, Page 36, Submarines: “A submarine may elect to participate in or decline in regular naval combat. The only time it cannot decline is when there is an enemy aircraft on MAP… Note: This effectively means that to kill submarines you either have to wait for them to attack, kill them during convoy-raiding [where you either have an escort or have developed Advanced ASW] or hunt them using your aircraft on MAP…”
Correct

You move aircraft out on MAP during the combat movement phase, per 8.2, During Combat Movement, Examples of Combat Movement Include: “Moving aircraft on MAP.”
Correct
When you leave MAP, that counts as non-combat movement, per 8.7, Page 35, MAP, Ending a Patrol: “An aircraft on MAP may opt to return to a land zone or Carrier using its patrol range during non-combat movement.”
Also correct
If you move a plane out on MAP during the combat movement phase, you cannot then move it back to land during non-combat movement of the same turn, because a unit cannot move during both combat movement and non-combat movement, per 10.1, Page 45, Non-Combat Movement: “During non-combat movement you may move units that did not move during combat movement.”
Wrong. Planes may move in both combat and non combat. Look at at is it this way. You say that if you made a combat move, then you cannot make a noncom. Being on MAP is a combat move. Thus by you reckoning, you could NEVER land, as you would have always made a combat move. That is obviously not the way this works.
So the way to conceptualize this is that attacking submarines is nothing at all like attacking land units or surface ships. It is months of tedious flight patterns where you locate nothing at all, but then you stumble upon a u-boat and there are a few minutes of adrenaline release. When you go after submarines with MAP, it isn’t like a sortie where you fly a mission bombing and then return to the airbase. You move the aircraft out into the sea zone and it is staying there for 6 months hunting submarines. If you want to pull it off MAP, you have to do it next turn during non-combat movement, so it will miss the opportunity to fly another combat mission that turn. In a way, you only get use of the aircraft every other turn when you go on MAP (although it is protecting the convoy line during your enemy’s next turn, before you return it).
Rember, you are not flying nonstop for 6 months. You are flying a patrol, returning, flying a patrol, returning, etc. You can stop that patrol at any point and head off the prepare for another assignment. It makes sense that you could change after one turn. Otherwise, you would need to go on MAP tun 1, go off MAP turn 2, then go back on MAP turn 3, just to hit another sub next door. In reality, you would just change you patrol pattern. There is no need to waste a YEAR, just to patrol for one sub. It makes sense that you would patrol, if you don’t find thing you could leaven and then go search somewhere else for another 6 months.
So, I encourage you to not be too hasty in your generalization. It makes sense that, like other planes, aircraft on MAP could move in both combat and noncombat.

Super helpful and this makes a lot of sense! Thank you again, Trig!

@trig said in What happens when the Allies declare war on Vichy?:

@insanehoshi
If I remember correctly, GHG said that alignment happens immediately after combat. This allows these things to happen. Any Vichy left would align after combat is over, if not surrendered.

True. He did say “immediately after combat.”

Here is my understanding of MAP (this is from some discussion in the comments section of Winter Solace 13.4).

8.9, Page 36, Submarines: “A submarine may elect to participate in or decline in regular naval combat. The only time it cannot decline is when there is an enemy aircraft on MAP… Note: This effectively means that to kill submarines you either have to wait for them to attack, kill them during convoy-raiding [where you either have an escort or have developed Advanced ASW] or hunt them using your aircraft on MAP…”

You move aircraft out on MAP during the combat movement phase, per 8.2, During Combat Movement, Examples of Combat Movement Include: “Moving aircraft on MAP.”

When you leave MAP, that counts as non-combat movement, per 8.7, Page 35, MAP, Ending a Patrol: “An aircraft on MAP may opt to return to a land zone or Carrier using its patrol range during non-combat movement.”

[Section edited with correction from Trig, below].

@trig said in Radar's Convoy Modifier:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Looks decent, the only thing I might do is add the word “defense” as convoying is an attack. So it would read “… convoy defense roll.”

Yes, that’s a good idea! Edited, above. Thanks, Trig!

I finally had time to sit down and write out proposed rules as clearly as possible. Please critique and offer suggestions.

Page 31, 7.8 Technologies, Advanced ASW
“Defending convoys gain +1 to their convoy escort modifier roll.” For clarity, would recommend eliminating “escort”. Should read, “Defending convoys gain +1 to their convoy modifier defense roll.”

Page 31, 7.8 Technologies, Radar
With the current errata, the rule reads, “Defending convoys gain +2 to their escort modifier roll.” For clarity, would recommend changing “escort” to “convoy.” Should read, “Defending convoys gain +2 to their convoy modifier defense roll.”

Global War Tech Sheet, Page 1, Advanced ASW
“Defending convoys gain a +1 to their convoy raiding roll.” Would recommend eliminating “a”. For clarity, would recommend changing “raiding” to “modifier”. Should read, “Defending convoys gain +1 to their convoy modifier defense roll.”

Global War Tech Sheet, Page 2, Radar
“Defending convoys gain +2 to their escort modifier roll.” For clarity, would recommend changing “escort” to “convoy.” Should read, “Defending convoys gain +2 to their convoy modifier defense roll.”

Table 9-8 is perfect and needs no corrections.

@trig Ok, I see how it works now.

With Radar, defending convoys gain +2 to their convoy raiding roll.

With Advanced ASW, defending convoys gain +1 to their convoy raiding roll, but also get the free defense roll at “2” on a D12. Also, Advanced ASW improves Naval Transports by allowing them to defend at a “1” on a D12, allocating any hit to attacking submarines.

Both technologies are good against submarines.

@noneshallpass Always appreciate your thoughtful responses, Noneshallpass! Great point about the Technology Reference Sheet. That’s conclusive evidence that Table 9-8 just needs a little tweak. I might also change the Technology Reference Sheet to say “Escort ships” in lieu of “Defending convoys.”

@manincellv Beautiful! Thanks, manicellv!

8.7 Maritime Air Patrol, Page 35, discusses MAP. I think they should add, under the “Starting a Patrol” section, an explicit discussion of MAP range. I would add a second sentence, “The Maritime Air Patrol range is 1, except for Seaplanes or Medium Bombers with the Long-Range Aircraft technology.”

Let me know if the default MAP range is discussed elsewhere in the rules. I only inferred it from the later section on page 35, “Carrier-Based Aircraft: Aircraft on Carriers have the same Maritime Air Patrol range as their land-based counterparts. Thus, they can reach 1 sea zone away from the sea zone they are currently in.”

Also, on page 35, under “Elimination,” there is mention of planes on MAP being “blocked” from reaching an available landing spot if they have a MAP range of 2. Let’s say a British seaplane is on MAP in sea zone 33 off the coast of Spain. Let’s say Spain, Portugal, and Ireland are neutral and Germany holds Normandy, so they only landing site within a range of 2 is the British Midlands. If the Germans fly a seaplane on MAP into sea zone 24, the British seaplane would instantly be destroyed. Do I understand this correctly?

On page 31 of the rules, 7.8 Technologies, Radar states, “Escort ships gain +2 to their escort modifier roll.” On page 43, Table 9-8, Convoy Modifiers reads, “+2 if having Radar Technology.”

Do I need to have a ship assigned to escort duty to gain the +2 convoy modifier from Radar, or is that +2 inherent in the convoy line itself? From Table 9-8, I had thought that once I had researched Radar, then a normal submarine raiding an unprotected convoy line was now just a flat roll (because both sides were adding +2). But now I suspect I was wrong, and just misunderstood Table 9-8. I think the “+2 if having Radar Technology” convoy modifier is incorrect. “Escort ships gain +2 to their escort modifier roll” means you must assign a ship to escort duty and the submarine must be raiding in that particular sea zone where there is an escort assigned. This makes Radar less valuable than I originally thought for ASW, and the rules should be edited.

Something needs to be fixed here. Either 7.8 Radar on Page 31 should read, “Defending convoys gain +2 to their convoy escort modifier roll” -OR- Table 9-8 should read “+1 per escorting surface warship in the sea zone (+2 if having Radar Technology).” I suspect the latter.

@captainnapalm I’m in rural Minnesota. The store is called “Fleet Farm.” Their selection is insane. So many colors. And if you need tack for your horse, or automotive supplies, or you want to buy a riding lawn mower, or lumber, or basically anything, they probably have it!

Here’s a great thread for those of you painting by hand:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36621/paint-colour-matching

@credulous said in Paint Colour Matching:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

Here’s some more then:

Free French - 2 parts lothern blue to 1 part white scar. I’d suggest white undercoat.

Spanish Republicans - 2 parts screamer pink to 1 part white scar. White undercoat.

Spanish nationalists - 2 parts flash gitz yellow to 3 parts white scar. White undercoat.

I’ll do Chinese soon.

Thank you for adding these!

@credulous No, the match isn’t very close. I admire your tenacity and commitment to perfection, my friend! I just don’t have the time and patience!

@generalhandgrenade Wow! Thanks for the fast update, GHG!

Great observation, Trig! I didn’t notice that! Quirky.

I bet it wasn’t intended, but you are correct that the rules seem very clear it should be treated as impassable desert.

I don’t know how much experience you have with rules editing, but it can be an arduous process. Let’s say you feel the Victory Points aren’t currently working right. Changing that might require a lot of testing. I’ve seen some games where they change the rules too frequently. That can be a nightmare because some people have the rules from 6 months ago and didn’t realize they changed 3 months ago. I used to play a game called Star Fleet Battles and if you had a question about the rules, you’d have to look up the rules, then look in multiple other places (like the back of the Annual magazine for the last several years) to see if there errata for that specific rule.

I would like to see the design team act slowly and deliberately when changing the rules or issuing errata. However, if they have a clear understanding of how they feel the rules should be interpreted, then I would encourage them to be more speedy in updating the FAQ. The fact they are hesitating on the Vichy Rolls signals they might be worried about the potential for players to game them and want to get it right. We don’t need to resort to calling the designers “too stupid” to word the rules exactly as they should be. I like Noneshallpass’s approach, which is to actually outright suggest the wording of the rules.

Ouch! Guys, let’s dial it down a little. Even if we disagree, we can treat each other with respect. I get feeling frustrated. We don’t have to tear into one another. We have a small community and I’d like to see it grow.

Remember, there’s nothing stopping people from house ruling whatever they want. That’s the way I’m handling this rule for now. Maybe it will change to exactly what Noneshallpass has suggested. Maybe it will be similar to what Noneshall pass has suggested, minus the specific sea zones (the General Hand Grenade version of the rule). Or, maybe the rule will be like Caesar-Seriona suggests, where they fly a French flag and maintain their movement range and can move turn after turn across the map until they engage in combat or reach the new owner’s home port.

No one’s holding a tournament so we can play with our own interpretation for now. I do agree this merits a FAQ discussion and perhaps an example added to the rulebook.

For those without the patience to hand paint each mini, I would suggest spray paint: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36533/what-spray-paint-colors-best-match-oob-colors?_=1613946742217

@credulous said in Base Set 2:

I’ve caved and just bought the 3D printed versions instead where I need them as maybe it will never arrive (given the focus on individual nation sets instead).

I feel your pain and came to the same conclusion. This increases the cost of entry and therefore decreases the number of people who will play this game.