Topics created by mrgoatcheese

Hi all,

As someone who usually plays the Axis, I found that airborne units are insanely effective. You can pretty easily snipe places like Transcaucasia (5 IPP and aligns Turkey) with 1-2 airborne and some air support. It can get pretty dumb.

I would recommend that airborne units need to match 1:1 with the IPP value of any non-island territory unless the territory is being simultaneously attacked by your land units or adjacent to a territory being attacked by your land units.

Basically, this would reign in exploiting airborne (can’t snipe London, Moscow, Berlin, with solely airborne unless there is a tonne of them which is unlikely due to the nature of airborne troops.

I think this would be a simple rule to implement that would prevent cheesing.

Please feel free to critique this or add to it.

Sorry if this has been suggested before!

I think that the game could benefit from a land unit scramble option into adjacent land zones from cities or a FOB.

I noticed a potential need for this when I was playing Germany and I had fighters in Paris so that I could better defend the French region. I was annoyed that I couldn’t have my armoured units (mech, med. tanks, etc) stationed there like IRL to respond to a seaborne invasion.

I think the rule should be either:

Up to three armoured units (or units with a movement of 2) can scramble out of a city to defend an adjacent territory. or; Instead of a city perhaps a FOB can be added into the game to act as a land unit airbase for scrambling purposes, or even movement purposes as well (I think that the game is too short and land units movement needs a buff, perhaps +1 movement from an HQ could help).

I think this would add quite a nice dimension to the game. Making cities more important and making it easier for nations to go on the offensive by not needing to stack as many units on every territory (think Japan on the Chinese coast).

Maybe the incoming scrambling land units can defend at a -2 on the first round of combat (minimum 1 defence) to simulate them coming late to the battle (not as fast as fighters).

Please feel free to critique this or add to it!

@mrgoatcheese Thank you!..I though I was the only one that thought it is crazy not to have a proper Index. I have created one and will be posting when I get all the entries I want/need. It drives me nuts when rule books do not have indices.

HGB just posted an Errata Sheet to the rules :

Page 48:

Remove “CCP” from this sentence in 11.5:
“Controlled Minor Powers, including Abyssinia, CCP and those in the Spanish Civil War do not get IPP income”

(CCP both collects income and gets a recruitment roll)

Hello GHG, the problem we have is that the rules (in this case the Great Britain National Reference Sheet) clearly state that the Dutch colonies only become controlled or aligned to the British at the end of the combat phase :

“DUTCH COLONIES If Axis or Comintern declares war on the Netherlands, Netherlands becomes Controlled by or Aligned to Great Britain at the end of the Combat Phase. Once Aligned, it may distribute this income as it sees fit to itself, FEC or ANZAC.”

In your answer, you mention “As soon as the Dutch are are declared war on they come under the control of the British”, so that could be during a combat move against the Dutch and not only “at the end of the Combat Phase”.

However, if submerging subs is considered an integral part of the decision process of rolling and choosing casualties, then I agree with you.

You’re welcome.
In some ways GW-14 is the next evolution of V-3 as far as development. Almost all of the game mechanics are transferred from one game to another. As we are play testing and developing it we are constantly referring to the rulebook for 36 for how to resolve situations/rules in the game and then copy and pasting them into the 14 rulebook. It is a different game for a different time period though so much of it is new. I wouldn’t be surprised if more of the concepts in it are transferred to the next edition of 36 and/or some of the expansions. I’ve been looking at these rules for quite a while now and I didn’t realize that it wasn’t in any of the other rulesets until this.

I’d actually discussed this in the below thread way back in 2015 haha.

link text

Hello everyone,

I think having contested land zones, with perhaps 3 rounds of battle per turn per zone, would add a nice layer of depth to this game. It would be similar to how Axis and Allies D-Day would do it.

Perhaps there could be a supply limit to each zone and the attacker/defender would suffer debuffs if they went over the cap. Factories or forts could increase the supply limit, or something like that. I won’t go into depth cause it’s 99% not gonna happen but I think it’s a cool idea.

The allowance of enemy combatants remaining in the same zone even at the end of the combat phase (contested zone) could allow for interesting frontlines. The 3 battle limit would allow for armoured units to still utilize the blitz as well.

Furthermore, planes could have to be stationed in airbases and could make multiple sorties during their attack and defence phases depending on their range. So for example, a plane based at an airbase within range of 2 zones being attacked could partake in both battles assuming that the plane survives the initial battle(s).

Another idea would be to allow subs and bombers to be put into a strategic war box that abstractly represents convoy raiding and strategic bombing. The units would not be on the map and could not partake in battle whilst in the strategic war box, and perhaps even be forced into that box and not allowed to be on the board.

To do any of these I believe that incomes would have to be adjusted to be higher, or the turns would have to be put down to 3 month ticks.

These are just random ideas that you can tear apart or add to. None of them are fully fleshed and I haven’t considered any balancing issues.

Under the current rules it doesn’t say that you can’t do it. However, V-3 rules have a separate reference card for Free France which states that Free France cannot research Technology.
That’s not the only change. It says that FF can place units at any Allied factory and that FF can invade Vichy territories.

@cdatkins74

I’m still going to try it for the memes. I’m fully aware of any strategic concerns. Making China a major power by upgrading the Jehol factory would be hilarious and therefore 100% worth the attempt.

@mrgoatcheese

Expanding on what GHG said here. The Home Country does not expand. It is only their original territories connected by land to their capital.

Russian Militia may move/attack within any original USSR territories once at war with a major power. They may never move/attack anyone outside of any of their existing original territories.

That is definitively the official rule, as they’ve been asked that question before!

I believe they are trying to accomplish too much in too few of words.

The basic rule for Lend-Lease Supply Path: “Lender’s Major Factory to Receiver’s Home Country.”
Since as you mentioned, FEC is not Home Country it cannot receive Lend-Lease.
Also, FEC’s Capital is technically London, so its Capital cannot be captured.

To compensate for this, the game designers added the exception “The FEC capital is Calcutta for purposes of tracing lend-lease and capture of enemy capitals.”

Meaning that for the FEC Calcutta is duel purpose acting as Home Country in terms of Lend-Lease only, and as their Capital in terms of capturing FEC’s Capital.

IMO, the Rule should be written as “Calcutta is FEC Home Country for purposes of tracing lend-lease, and the FEC Capital for purposes of capture of enemy capitals.”

But to answer your question, the lend-lease to FEC ENDS in Calcutta.
As in normal Lend-Lease rules, if the shortest path of Lend-Lease goes through another Indian Port, then along undamaged railroads to Calcutta, then yes it can go through that Indian port.

In my opinion:
The spirit of that event is to decrease Britain’s and France’s Peacetime income, delaying their entry into the war.
If they are already at war I don’t think the SCW would “decrease democracies’ appetite for war.”

If it were me I would leave the UK and French income alone, and decrease the US income by 1.

Hope this helps.

Ya my bad. Forgot it had to fly out if it becomes Vichy if it could land there while French