Posts made by HBG GW Enthusiast

@noneshallpass Excellent point. Your point about the Major Power clause is conclusive. Brilliant, as always, my friend!

@trig Wow! Once again, Trig’s mastery of the rules is revealed!

Page 49, Militia, “Militia can only move within a Major Power’s Home Country.”

Militia cannot use strategic movement if they aren’t in home country. A great example is the Tannu Tuva militia. Tannu Tuva is not home country for the USSR, so you cannot move the militia. Because militia can only move “within” home country territories, I don’t see how one could move militia by transport. If you moved militia via strategic rail movement, it would need to start in home country, end in home country, and trace a path through only home country territories.

I don’t know of a specific rule forbidding Spanish nationalist or republican militia from moving and attacking in Spain, but I think there should be such a rule due to the precedent of Chinese CCP and KMT militia. Chinese militia cannot move within China until after China evolves to a major power. This would suggest to me that Spanish militia cannot move and attack in Spain. You could make an argument that since there is no defined list of Spanish home country territories, then the Spanish militia is not allowed to move. I guess that’s where I’d come down on that particular issue.

I have found militia you gain from aligned minors to basically be permanent garrisons. You cannot move them. One option is to upgrade them to infantry (Page 47), but remember this requires a supply path. If the USSR wants to make use of the militia in Tannu Tuva, it will require that a rail be built into Tannu Tuva. Since that territory is mountainous, such a rail would cost 4 IPP, as much as 2 militia! So the only thing that makes sense is to leave the militia in Tannu Tuva as a permanent garrison unit.

Can militia be built from factories?

Noneshallpass responds NO, "Of course, they do not require a factory, but can be built in any land zone, even in a territory containing a factory.

However, I think that normal restrictions would still apply, even if you have a factory (number per turn up to IPP value, min. 1. Max 1 in captured land zones)."

Bretters opines YES, “Militia CAN take up factory slots- if they are taking up factory slots, they are not bound by the you can build x amount of militia per turn in a given territory. that number is based on placing militia and NOT using a factory to produce the militia.”

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!

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

@delaja If you look at the National Reference Sheet for Free France, at the time Free France is formed, Free France chooses a capital.

Then, when Paris is liberated, this rule applies: Page 45, Capturing an Enemy Capital, “If a nation relocates its capital, it can be moved back at any time if again in Possession.”

I think the word, “can” would indicate voluntariness on the relocation of the Free French capital back to Paris. I’m not positive about this, but I’d argue that Free France doesn’t have to move their capital back to Paris again, so they would not lose their income or have to relocate their capital again.

One other interesting question is if Free France becomes a major power (when Paris is liberated), if the Axis recapture Paris, does Free France lose its major power status, or, like China CCP/KMT, once it becomes a major power again, does it remain a major power?

@misck It is my understanding that Free France still exists, and has now evolved to a major power. Free France never surrenders. I know it says “effectively becomes France again” on the National Reference Sheet for Free France, but that “effectively” word, at least to me, means that Free France is still the never-surrendering-Free-France and not that they turn into 1940-like France that would be willing to surrender and form Vichy France.

Thanks for starting this thread, General Hand Grenade! Good luck!

I listened to your video and complied the optional rules which will be used in the Spring Offensive.

2021 Spring Offensive Optional Rules Used
Canada at War
1.8 Mountains
1.9 Deserts
1.10 Jungle
1.11 Marsh
1.12 Rivers
1.13 Tundra/Ice
1.15 Combat Moving Through Canals
2.1 Variable Game Ending
3.4 Nation-Specific Victory
9.7 Screening Forces
11.2 Motorized Upgrade
13.3 Chinese Victory
15.2 Suez Reroute
15.6 Forcing a Straight
15.10 Strategic Naval Moves

@trig You are incredibly clever! First, I hadn’t even considered the possibility of the USSR lend-leasing on turn 1! I assumed we were only talking about the USSR lend-leasing the turn after a successful “Spreading Influence.” But you are talking about the USSR committing on Turn 1 to lend-lease an Infantry and then if the CCP succeeds, the infantry can arrive that very turn! If not successful, the infantry remains on the production chart, ready to go. Respect for your outside the box thinking. 8 )

@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.

@trig said in The FAQ Thread:

…As a note, this is not the best strategy, as it turns the northern two territories KMT. (I think. I don’t know if this is ever stated though.)

You had it right, Trig! The National Reference Sheets for both China CCP and China KMT, Page 2, Warlords, “If a warlord is attacked by either Chinese faction, it and all its remaining land zones and units align to the other Chinese faction if unconquered by the end of the Combat Phase.”

…I would lend-lease one unit as the USSR, as to start with, you can only send half the receiver’s income. (Which would be 2*1/2=1)

If China CCP uses “Spreading Influence” to successfully take over the Hopeh/Peking/Suiyuan warlord, then their income would jump to 6.

@trig So if I am reading the map correctly, the only places this rule applies are the borders between 1) Romania and Yugoslavia, 2) Romania and Bulgaria, 3) Amur and Northern Manchuria, 4) Amur and Eastern Manchuria, and 5) Amur and Primorsky-Krai. Do you see any other rivers that are actually ON the border?

@trig said in A list of terrains on some of the harder-to-see land zones?:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
@noneshallpass
Basically, to “form the border” a river must be on the border. The black lines that designate the border must be on either side.
The v2.2 rules say thus:
“If the river is a zone border (bounded on both sides by a border line) river rules apply to whichever side is attacking as if the river was located in both land zones.”
that appears to have slipped through the cracks in v3.

For instance, Rumania and Bulgaria have a joint river border.

I hope that is clear.

Oh! I never saw version 2 rules! This has blown my mind and I’ll have to revisit this tomorrow! Thanks, Trig!

@vondox Correct! I recommend the CCP spends the 1 IPP to up your chances to 1 or 2 to succeed. And I recommend going for the warlord that has 3 territories to your East (one is Hopeh). If you get the one in six chance of success, you will then have 4 territories and then your chances of recruiting more warlords increases dramatically. That first success is the key. Also, note that if you succeed on getting the Hopeh warlord, you will gain Peking which has a minor port for a small amount (max 3 IPP) of lend-lease from the USSR.

@noneshallpass said in A list of terrains on some of the harder-to-see land zones?:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

If the river is not on the border, then the only thing that matters is where the river is in relation to the roundel:

Yes! You and I are on the same page my friend! So, my question is do you think the examples I gave are examples where the river is on the border? Is the river on the border between Rhodesia and Angola? I say no. Is the river on the border of Northern Yakutia and Eastern Yakutia? I say no. What say you? 8 )

@vondox said in The FAQ Thread:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast I have a couple of questions that I would like to get answers on.

Question 1: The rules state that IF the CCP possesses a land zone adjacent to a Soviet-possessed land zone in the production phase it MAY purchase artillery and AA guns. These must be placed in this adjacent land zone.

My assumption is that this is a special form of LEND-LEASE just for the CCP. It does not indicate how much of either the USSR can purchase, so it could buy 1 or 3 and place them along the border with the CCP. I would also assume that on the CCP players turn would treat that it is a version of lend-lease and become CCP property that can be moved on the CCP non-combat movement phase? Regular LEND-LEASE can only arrive via a port or a rail line and there are no rail roads leading into China and what ones do go through Manchuria.

I am I correct?

Noneshallpass had excellent answers to your questions and I thought the only one I could add to was Question 1. One thing is it seems you think the USSR is purchasing the artillery and AA guns. When you write, “…it MAY purchase artillery and AA guns” the IT is China CCP, not the USSR. The USSR could decide to lend-lease units to China CCP, but that would be limited by the lend-lease rules (so, for example, if the CCP held Sinkiang and the USSR built a rail between Kazakhstan-Turkestan and Sinkiang).

Some rivers form the border between two territories and affect units crossing in either direction. An example is the Dnieper between Kiev and Eastern Ukraine. It doesn’t matter which side of the black border line the river runs - it’s the actual border and affects attacks from either direction.

Then there are rivers that do not form the border and only affect attacks from outside the territory, coming in. An example is the Amazon in Amazonas. If someone was attacking from Venezuela into Amazonas, they would face the river penalty. But if someone was attacking from Amazonas to Venezuela they would not suffer the river penalty.

My question is about when the distance from the river to the border becomes so large that we no longer declare the river to be “forming the border.” For example, the border of Rhodesia and Angola. Is the river denoted the Zambesi? The Lungwebungu? Is that river supposed to lie on the border? I don’t think so, but just wanted to confirm. At first, it is on the border, but then it falls away and the distance becomes too great. I would think if someone attacks from Angola to Rhodesia, they face the river penalty, but not vice versa.

What if the distance from the river to the border becomes a little smaller than that? Take the Lena river on the border of Northern Yakutia and Eastern Yakutia. I would judge the distance from the river to the border to be too far to “form the border,” but perhaps I’m misunderstanding this? Again, I’d suggest if someone attacks from Northern Yakutia to Eastern Yakutia, they would face the river penalty, but not vice versa.

But how about the Lena river on the borders of Angara, Irkutsk, and Buryatia? Now, the river is getting closer to the borders. Lake Baikal clearly separates Angara from Buryatia. It seems like the distance of the Lena from the border between Angara and Buryatia, then continuing between Irkutsk and Buryatia, should be the breakpoint for how distant a river can be from the border and still be able to define the river as “forming the border” so the penalty applies both ways. But as the Great Lebowski pointed out, that’s just my opinion, man.

@trig I agree - not adjacent. My son thought it was though and wanted to move an infantry from The Northeast to Ottawa.

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