Posts made by insaneHoshi

Good answers! Now for more pedantic questions I thought of:

• If the U.S.S.R. is attacked by Major Power it goes to full income. Does this refer to originally owned USSR land zones, or any owned land zone with or without USSR Units. In the Operation Frostbite YouTube game, the USSR player took Romania and Slovakia. The Germans counter attacked Slovakia, does the USSR player now have full income? One could say that since the USSR is now at war, they don’t get their peacetime increases, but how is that functionally different from say Germany declaring war first, but not attacking?
• On a similar note (and this is just me being dumb most likely) where does it say a nation goes to wartime income if attacked/DOW’d (Of course the USA goes to full income if japan declares war, I just cant see that anywhere).
• USSR’s Ice Free VP is as follows “Score 1 Victory Objective if the U.S.S.R. possess one of the following (a) a Major Naval Base with a sea zone # of 8 or greater or (b) Crimea and Istanbul.” While it is obvious that the intention is that any Black Sea Major Naval Base doesn’t count unless Istanbul is soviet occupied, however rules as written don’t actually seem to restrict this, as the Black Sea has sea zones of 31 and 32 and any naval base there would count (rules as written). Also this means both Leningrad and Vladivostok count towards this VP (despite them not exactly being Ice Free Ports; which is a bit weird in my eyes.).

@didier_de_dax said in Katyusha:

Or, does that mean that the USSR are limited to build only 2 katyusha per turn (when the advanced artillery technology has been researched) ?

This is the correct interpretation.

Good answers all around. However can you provide further detail on:

@noneshallpass said in The FAQ Thread:

Only Major Powers may lend-lease (0.9 Glossary). KMT or CCP becomes a Major Power once its land zone IPP values add up to 13 IPP.

Just because they may lend lease, doesn’t mean they can. Since the CCP and KMT lack an explicit permission to do so (like all other nations) on their sheet, one could say they might not be able to.

No, you have to decide what it does and declare your interceptors (Table 9-9).

I see no where in Table 9-9 where it says scrambling to intercept and defending a territory are mutually exclusive.

Planes in a sea zone with a carrier are on the carrier and may also be considered to be on MAP. Planes in a sea zone with no carrier can only remain there on MAP

I don’t think this is a sufficient answer. This interpretation means you can combat move a carrier 3 spaces away to a submarine (despite the carrier not being able to attack the sub, combat could occur and thus its combat movement), bring a plane, is that plane now “on a carrier” and thus on maritime air patrol? I don’t think its the intention to have carrier based aircraft be able to move 3-4 spaces on a carrier and attack submarines.

Why would you want to do that?

The normal Enemy of my Enemy routine. There are situations where it might be beneficial to give your enemies units to attack the other nation. For example, Germany and the USSR could find themselves at war and stalemated on the eastern front. The USSR could come to an agreement with the Germans to give them a transport so that they might go sealion the UK.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in The FAQ Thread:

Sea Zone 25 and Coastal Artillery at Narrow Crossings

Also if there is coastal artillery on the two crossings in the English channel, can its port (which sits between them) be blockaded?

If a submarine …

IMO 0.5 states that when a submarine submerges during a combat movement, it can not participate in a combat until the next combat movement phase. This means it can not block or unsurface in the non-combat phase.

My questions that have been floating about my mind:

• Chinese VPS: Since KMT and CCP share home country territories, does either faction holding on to territory subtract VPs from the other? Does this effectively mean that China VPs for either faction if all or nothing and is that intentional.
• “An Attack on China” in order for the warlords to align, China (Warlord or KMT or CCP) need to be attacked. Does this mean that if the KMT goes to war with Japan, Japan cant counterattack without causing the warlords to align?
• Can either Chinese faction Lend Lease? When they are a major power?
• Can a Fighter participate in intercepting a bomber and a battle defending a territory in a single turn
• When do aircraft count as being “On a carrier” when it comes to auto MAP and the optional Carrier planes retreat rule.
• Can a fighter scramble to defend: the strategic bombing of a facility with AA, the strategic bombing of a facility without AA (railway), an unescorted convoy line, an escorted convoy line, an AWS convoy line?
• Can you lend lease to nation yours is at war with (if all other conditions are met)?
• Can Russia game its income by declaring war on Germany as soon as possible, and then declaring war on every single neutral around its home country to force them to become German owned and get like 8d12 income in July 1939

I think it would needlessly complicate things. If your are playing with Soviet guage in its home country, you’re playing with it in their home country.

However if you were to house rule it, you would have to keep in mind rail isn’t built in a territory, its built on a boarder. Getting into West Ukraine would need one narrow gauge on the boarder, past that would probably need on on its eastern boarder, and one in the next territory too.

@misck Another option is for UK to build a railway to Aby. Then you can use the British major port.

@captainnapalm Do you mean FF doesnt match France’s? I think FF not having a strategic naval movement is intentional.

@noneshallpass said in Turkey At War:

Once it has Aligned

But the word aligned as per the main rulebook explicitly means that they are in effect one nation?

@hbg-gw-enthusiast I think it should be errata’d the subject of what counts as “An aircraft on Carriers.” Imo they should say that aircraft are only “on carriers” all the time save combat movement and combat. It would solve a couple other questionable areas as well.

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

then during non-combat I can treat that sea zone as empty? Could I move beyond the submarine then to another further sea zone? If my CV is two away from the submarine, the destroyers enter during combat movement, the submarine submerges, then I could move t

As per 0.5, When a submarine submerges, they are allowed to share sea zones with other vessesls. Thus submarines can not participate in combat until the next players combat phase. This means that you can non combat into zones with submerged submarines since combat can not occur.

Just the additional 1 IPP.

While we are here, Does turkey still collect income when they are neutral and not aligned?

And once they are aligned, does that pot go to the major power and they can now attack together (in effect one nation)?

@sjelso It can not. There isnt really any impression that it could?

1. I think you are asking, why you would leave a plane on maritime air patrol? A) any sub that moves though a zone that has a plane on MAP gets attacked (well defended at), and b) MAP adds a bonus to convoy defence if I recall correctly… But yes more often than not its advantageous to take your planes off MAP at the end of your turn.

2. It cannot. MAP must be cancelled in the non combat phase before it can be placed on MAP in a different zone. Remember you put a plane on MAP and cancel it in the same turn.,

@jbuckbuddy said in Alternative to AA gun fire being modified:

so if AA guns were attacking wouldn’t they be affected?

Because when shooting planes, the AA gun doesn’t explicitly shoot at its attack/defence value.

The rule for an AA Gun is “An attacking or defending AA Artillery rolls one die for each opposing aircraft up to a maximum of three rolls and hits on a roll of “3” or less.” Note that here it doesn’t say “Gets three attacks” or " rolls at its attack value"; Its AA shots are explicitly at 3.

This means that its attack and defence value is completely incidental from its special AA ability.

Whether this is the correct interpretation of the designers intentions is up in the air, but RAW AA guns’ aa shots are not affected by terrain. However their attack and defence values would still be affected, so if there were no aircraft and they were going into mountains, they would get one shot @ 2.

AA guns aren’t affected by terrain modifiers as far as I can tell (well not their 3 shots @ 3). Are you saying they should be?

OOB rules for 2-player

Where are these?

@sjelso Then just rule that anything that is declared on by the allies/comintern goes axis. EZ PZ

@sjelso If you let the Allied/Commintern Player attack themselves, that’s kind of broken is a two player game and should be forbidden.

@sjelso said in Spanish Civil War - 2 players - Issues:

If Soviets/Republicans win they can just open up a space for the Americans to invade

How would they do this? A Republican Spain does not align to the USSR by default.

@kmtnt Yes, they can take multiple territories, and yes it is a strong ability, but keep in mind it is a one off thing usually used on France and Poland who are doomed to fall.

One thing to consider that may lessen the impact of a Strategic Rockets (to lessen the impacts of any buff) would be to subject them to interception from Jet Fighters (which has some historical justification).

The way that certain technology in this game partially counters other technology is something that I really like in this game, and doing this would be something similar.