Posts made by HBG GW Enthusiast

@insanehoshi I would say that the current rules allow lend-lease of special units like Katyushas. I would also say since you are limited to building two special units, you cannot skirt the max of 2 via lend-lease. But to borrow from the Big Lebowski, “That’s just my opinion, man.”

@insanehoshi said in Are We Forced to Place Units from the Production Chart?:

@noneshallpass said in Are We Forced to Place Units from the Production Chart?:

Otherwise the sentences “If you cannot place a unit for any reason it remains on the Production Chart until a later turn” (11.1) and “You may postpone the placement of units in the place units box if desired” (7.3) do contradict themselves.

I think there might be two different concepts in place here. When you build an infantry, it doesn’t actually go on the place units box and thus must be placed. When you build a ship it does go on the place units box and can be delayed.

Very helpful! I could have kept my submarine and destroyer in the place units box if I had desired.

@generalhandgrenade @Trig @insaneHoshi In Operation Live and Let Die 12.3, Panzer J points out that on Page 27, 7.3, Process: “You may postpone the placement of units in the place units box if desired.” That seems definitively to answer the original question of this thread.

@vondox Vondox, note you said the defending player has the option to scramble and assist the adjacent land zone, but it doesn’t have to be a land zone. It can scramble to any adjacent zone (even sea).

I might be wrong, but I don’t think Dan is worried the defending aircraft could participate in both battles (I think the 3 of us agree they can’t). To clarify Dan’s question, what happens if the scrambling aircraft survive their combat, but their starting land zone is captured? If they participate in the adjacent combat and die, there is no confusion.

@insanehoshi This is such an interesting question!

We need a judgment from the community in Operation Live and Let Die. Here’s the Situation:
-USSR is at war with Great Britain and Japan, but is not at war with Germany.
-USSR has declared war on Finland.
-Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was declined.

Who controls or is aligned with Finland?

Per Table 4-3, it seems apparent it will be an Axis power.
“Nations Align with the Axis if the Allies or Comintern declare war on them.” Check. The USSR has declared war on Finland.

“Nations come under Axis Control if they are Attacked by the Allies or USSR but the Attacker (Allies or USSR) is not at war with the Axis.” I argue this provision doesn’t apply because the USSR is at war with Japan, a member of the Axis.

“Assign [Alignment/Control] to Germany.” Germany doesn’t get to Align Finland since they are not at war with USSR, but some people are arguing that Finland should be Controlled by Germany. I am arguing Finland should Align with Japan. Fighting Irish suggests Finland should Align with Great Britain.

What say you?

@theveteran Fair enough! TY for that, Veteran! 8 )

@theveteran said in Bohemia Medium Factory or minor when annexed:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
Those are videos where he asks Morten about the game design, GHG wasn’t involved directly.

V3 Rules, Page 1, First Paragraph in the Rulebook, “We would like to thank our design team: Morten Munck & Delaja Schuppers (and their respective play groups), Robert Hatcher, Brian Primrose (aka General Hand Grenade)…”

I would say that is definitive proof of his direct involvement.

@trig said in Bohemia Medium Factory or minor when annexed:

@theveteran Have you seen his videos on rule design and playtesting?

For sure! You should check out the V3 Chronicles series by GHG where he is talking directly with the game designer, Morten: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHlrbXLCdwo

@trig That was my analysis exactly, Trig. One follow-on is when you are defending cities, there is no more cost effective unit since a city confers a +1 to infantry class units and gives them target selection versus vehicles on a “1”.

@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.

Regarding the USA peacetime income increases for Japanese battleships and carriers, I had been playing that the USA went up 1 when you placed the battleship/carrier on the production chart, then another 1 if you placed the same battleship/carrier on the map. It says, “+1 (each time)”. Have I been doing that wrong? Do you only pay the +1 penalty once, per ship, or do you pay twice like I was thinking?

Also, now that I know you MUST place the battleship/carrier once it reaches the place units box, it seems wise for Japan to hold their development of these ships at stage 2 if they want to avoid the penalty for placement.

Page 26, Place Units & Collect Income Phase
“Put all the nation’s units from the Place Units Box of the Production chart onto the map.”

Am I required to this, or may I?

Page 47, 11.1 Place Units: “Place all units that are in the Place Units Box of the Production Chart onto the map.”

It seems clear that I must place them and cannot hold back units in reserve, correct? The reason I ask is in my current game, I held back on placing my destroyer and submarine as USSR. I thought I was being clever and giving myself strategic flexibility to place them later in any theater I needed them. Now, rereading the rules, I feel I am not actually allowed to do this.

No. Page 32, 7.4 Lend-Lease, “A player may lend-lease: …One military unit.”

Note the list of “Units” starting Page 49, 12.2 Units.

Note the list of “Facilities” starting Page 53, 12.3 Facilities.

@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.

@trig Wow! You are incredibly observant! I agree with you that it seems like an error and should be 13.

@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.

@didier_de_dax Can you give me an example? Do you have a rule reference? I could definitely be wrong, my friend! 8 )

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.