Best posts made by Noneshallpass

@insanehoshi said in The FAQ Thread:

On Lend Leasing.

Are you able to lend lease special units, ie Katyushas, SMLF, USMC?

Normally you are allowed to build 2 of each special force per turn. If you build two, are you able to lend lease a third?

I don’t think that these are adressed specifically in the rules, but :

• The definition of lend-lease in the Glossary (0.9) is a system in which you “produce units for other nations”, so only the build table of the producing Power is relevant and there is no restriction on lend-leasing special units. This is one of the interesting aspects of lend-lease to allow powers to acquire units that they normally could not (see also the Player note on Page 33). This allows the USSR to lend-lease fighters to the CCP, for instance.

• The “Max 2 of each type per turn” on the NRS makes no distinction based on where that special unit will be going, so your are limited to producing two per turn, either for personal use or lend-lease. Remember that lend-lease is also declared in the Production Phase (7.9). See this as limited ressources for training and producing special forces, so giving one unit away does not magically increase your production capacity.

For isolated territories or islands, Militia are often the only option.

They are also an option for controlled minor powers and the CCP who have recruitement rolls, as they can choose 1 Infantry or 2 Militia. Depending on the situation, the Infantry is not always the obvious choice.

They are best when paired with other units, as they can soak up the hits while your other units can hope to survive and have better defense rolls. It also helps if they are in a city.

You will sometimes get lucky and take our one or two attacking units with militia, but even in great numbers, they can be easily wiped out by a dedicated attacker.

In small numbers, they mostly serve as a deterrent to the free capture of the territory or half-hearted amphibious landings. Litteraly “better than nothing”.

Still, once in a while, it is very satisfying to take out a SNLF and foil an amphibious assault with a single militia.

Note that there are A LOT of rules and exceptions for building and moving militia. They are very easy to overlook.

@insanehoshi

There is a reference to Minor Power Home Countries in rules 9.24 and 11.5.

In the Glossary, it specifies that “For a Minor Power the Home Country includes the primary nation but not its colonies, islands or conquered land zones.”

So yes, they do have a Home Country, so they can receive lend-lease (rule 11.4), but the rules also state that Mililia may only move within a Major Power’s Home Country (rule 12.2).

Here is how I proceeded.

I already owned the A&A Europe 1940 first and second editions, so with the pieces from all these sets, I had a good base for France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and USSR, plus the Chinese infrantry for KMT.

I also own the A&A pacific with red chinese soldiers that I am using for the CCP infantry (there is also one Pacific edition where the japanese pieces are red).

This still leaves a lot of pieces to buy from HBG or to scavenge from other sources (cavalry, neutrals, militia, air transports, medium bombers, coastal subs and battleships, TBDs, light cruisers, tank destroyers, advanced mech and artillery, SP-artillery (basic and advanced), motorized infantry (trucks), etc.).

Some powers have specific and different sculps available, but not all, so in the end you will need to paint pieces and still use some kind of tokens/markers to distinguish some special units.

As @Ghetty pointed out, if you can get your hands on HBG « wrong colour » pieces for units that you have to paint anyway, that is a good option to obtain cheap pieces. Their spare pieces from old A&A Games can also provide a cheaper option and can be purchased individually, but are not always available. For instance, I built almost all my Canadian forces for the CAW expansion with older « celery » color british units and painted what was missing.

I also bought some scupts from I will never grow up games. Unfortunately, I find that the 3D printing leaves a lot of visible « fibers » and the plastic is very brittle and small details can easily break, such as tank barrels and ship towers. IMO, the best sculpts from them are the German trucks which can be used for Motorized infantry (especially if you don’t own A&A Battle of the Bulge for the trucks).

I think that you have to see Global War as an ongoing project, as there will probably be new pieces available over time that can replace your generic units or markers.

I would not advise anyone to try to get « everything » before playing their first game. You have to go by steps and find out over time what you are missing and what can be improved.

On the third question, since the general rule is that militia may only move within a Major Power’s home country, I think that they cannot move within Spain since it is not a Major power, regardless of the fact the it could be considered home country (rule 11.5 states that recruited militia should be placed in a Minor Power’s home country, so even if not defined for lack of a NRS, Minor Power seem to have home countries also).

The same goes for the fourth question. These are aligned Minor Powers, not Major Powers and even if the militia is replaced by the controlling Major Power’s units it is still not in the Major Power’s home country.

Rule 11.4 seems clear about Interdiction. The lend-lease is subject to « a convoy raiding die » (singular).

If the conditions are met, each Power rolls only one D6 (but repeat for each qualified seazone if needed) but there are no additional dice depending of the number of subs/MAP/warships presents in the sea zone for the purpose of this game mechanic.

I add than once there is a successeful interdiction in any seazone, it is useless to roll the for the other zones, as the lend-lease unit is eliminated - He’s dead, Jim.

According to rule 9.23, France gives its IPP to the conquering player (usually Germany) and all other powers lose their IPP to the bank.

As to where is the capital, it is in the territory with the brightest roundel when there are multiple territories (rule 1.3).

I did not find where it would say that CCP has no capital, but since it only has one territory (Shenshi) it is hard to determine if the roundel is bright or muted or if it is even relevant, since the bright/muted rule only applies to nations with more than one territory.

It does make me realize that in 20+ games where Nanking always fell, we never took the IPP away from the KMT… oops.

@Chris_Henry raises a valid point that since CCP and KMT share the same Home Country, it would only be logical that they also share a capital in Nanking.

Another argument for Shensi not being a capital is that it is not a city like most capitals in the game (but there are exceptions like Northern Iran).

And I am still not convinced that the CCP roundel on the map is as bright as the one in Nanking, especially if you compare it to the HBG CCP roundels where the red is much brighter.

After all these posts, this would seem to be fairly straight forward questions for the FAQ :

Q. Is Shensi a capital for the CCP ?
A. Yes or No

Q. If Nanking is captured while occupied by the CCP, does the CCP lose its IPP to the bank ?
A. Yes or No

And I may add :

Q. If Nanking is captured by the CCP in the Chinese Civil War, does the KMT lose its IPP to the bank ?
A. Yes or No

@trig said in The FAQ Thread:

a) Must the money for upgrades (specifically SS upgrades) be set aside at the start of the turn to save of use for upgrades?
I think yes due to 11.6.

No, you must declare and pay for the upgrade in advance and if you cannot place the upgrade at the end of your turn, it remains on the production chart (Rule 11.2). You cannot save IPPs then randomly decide to spend them on upgrades at the end of your turn.

b) Do captured Major shipyards act as a minor shipyard?
I think yes, from the analogy of factories.

Since Rule 12.4 only refers to captured factories, I would not extend it to other facilites “by analogy”.

c) If the CCP of KMT attack the other, does it negate the truce?
I think yes. Nonaggression is one of the provisions of the pact.

Obviously, this ends the truce.

d) Can the CCP and KMT resign the truce after it has been broken?
No clue on this one.

Not explicitely covered by Rule 13.3, so I may be wrong but this feels like a one-time deal. Like to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact or the Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. Nothing prevents the players from not attacking each other once more, but they would lose the advantage of defending together and moving in the same territories.

e) Can you take the militia from a recruitment roll and split them between two zones?
If no, can the CCP do it?
I think it is no, yes. See 11.5 and the CCP reference sheet.

Rule 11.5 does say “place in a land zone” which suggests that it must be the same zone for both, while the CCP NRS does say “in any of those territories”, suggesting a possible split. Rule 13.3 for the SCW says “place in any land zone” and Rule 14.4.3 for Vichy says “can be placed in any Vichy possessed land zone”.

Despite the inconsistencies in the wording, I have a feeling that all recruitment rolls were meant to be subject to the same rules. Well spotted. Definitely one for the FAQ.

Personally, I don’t understand how a serious judgement could be made on the balance of such a complex game after playing just a couple of runs. I have started only about ten games since I got Global 1936 v3 (most aborted before 1945), but there are so many options and possible strategies that the outcome is never predictable, especially starting in 1936.

This feels much different from A&A where, as you keep playing, you just improve on what you consider to be the optimal strategy for the Axis or the Allies and then it comes down to the luck of the dice in a few key battles. Either Germany takes Moscow or the American overwhelming spending power prevails in good time…

Another factor to consider is that there are so many rules and exceptions in Global 1936, that the first games will inevitably be riddled with errors on the part of the players. Each time we play, we realize that we forgot about some rule or other (i.e. minor ports don’t give a movement bonus, you can’t upgrade your factory in India, KMT militia cannot move in home country unless it becomes a major power, you need to damage the airfield before a city is considered to be encircled, and many, many more).

Everyone is free to tweak the game with home rules, but I think you need to master all the basic rules first. To me it’s like saying, having played a few games of Chess, “Humm, the Queen seems really OP, so let’s replace a pawn with a third Knight”!

Yes, the chance aspect of tech rolls is a part of the unpredictable outcome. For instance, playing Germany with early access to Panzergrenadiers and Wartime income makes for a much different game that when you miss out on these important rolls. The many expansions and optional rules available can also affect how your game plays out.

Finally, due to the pandemic, I have only played the game with 2 players so far, so the Allies and Comintern are always coordinated, but I know this game was designed to be a 3 player game and I can’t wait to try with this very different dynamic.

Yes, rule 9.6 says that naval transports must be chosen last as casualties unless the Attacker applies Target selection.

He can choose to target the transport carrying the armor, but you can’t choose an empty transport as the other casualty.

@caesar-seriona I agree with you and we play almost the same way, but we do not give the Axis the option to remove the French flag until they reach home port and they can also be attacked by Free France since they are at war.

In the current rules, the word “sail” does not make sense for teleportation and neither does “once per game (or immediately)” for passing enemy ships. If the other interpretation is the correct one, then the rules should simply say:

“Once all the naval units on the board have been reassigned, the Axis players can decide to relocate any or all of their converted ships to their Home Country by placing them immediately in sea zones 13 or 15 (for Germany) and sea zones 38 or 56 (for Japan). Ignore all normal movement restrictions.”

That means what it says and says what it means.

The Great Britain (v3.5), FEC (v3.4) and ANZAC (v3.2) National Reference Sheets all mention that “British Commonwealth includes Great Britain, FEC and ANZAC. These share the same turn, war status (…)”, as @GeneralHandGrenade pointed out.

Rule 2.3 for 1936v3 states that “Great Britain determines when the Commonwealth declares war”.

You will also notice that only Great Britain has a “Declaration of War” section on it’s NRS and that FEC and ANZAC do not, as they cannot declare war on their own.

You will also find in the Glossary (Rule 0.9) under Income that “Peacetime Income is the income a nation receives until they are at war with a Major Power (…)”.

When Great Britain is at War with a major Power, so are FEC and ANZAC and they all become eligible to collect their individual Wartime Bonus Income (Rule 5.4).

Therefore, to answer the question, once FEC and ANZAC are at war (because Great Britain is at war), they no longer receive their Peacetime Income, but instead the full value of all territories that they possess, plus any Wartime Bonus that may apply.

There are many legitimate questions about the rules that may arise even in different situations, even when a lot of effort went into drafting, play-testing and proof reading the rules. I have played almost 20 times since I got this game and we got at least one thing wrong every single time.

Sometimes a question is covered by the rules, but the person asking the question simply missed it or misread it. There are a lot of questions in this forum that can be answered by simply pointing out the relevant rules.

Sometimes a rule is subject to more than one interpretation as written, but the context and the other rules will guide us to the correct interpretation. This is a good category of questions to put in the FAQ.

Sometimes the rules contradict themselved or may even appear very clear to some, but following them goes against what the game creators intended. It’s almost impossible to figure this out by yourself as a player unless you have access to the creators of the game to discuss it. This is when the rules need to be changed or clarified in the Errata, pending updated versions of the rulebook or reference sheets.

@manincellv’s original question was a good one and spaked a good debate but has now been aswered by the updated Errata.

I do agree that “well historically such and such happened” is not really the best argument to explain the rules , especially if the historical explanation appears to contradict the game rules. Historical context can be instructive to put some rules in context, but not to rewrite them.

That being said, this forum is a great place to ask any questions that we have about the rules and obviously the creators are paying some attention since most debated questions so far have been answered either in the FAQ or Errata. Let’s keep it that way.

That way, all facilites under constuction are subject to strategic bombing or capture.

There is also an optional rule (15.8) to declare multi-stage ships under construction. It’s more realistic that way.

Considering :

1- That the Diplomacy Chart has different starting positions for all Major Powers, both Axis (Germany, Japan, Italy) and Allies (USA, UK, France), and the USSR.

2- That rule 2.3 of the Expansion states :

" If the player’s roll is successful, the player moves his roundel one position and moves one roundel from any other Major Power from another Alliance down one."

It seems pretty clear that each Major Power is completely independent and that there may be multiple members of an alliance attempting to influence the same country at one time.

So only the nations matter.

Note that Free France may only declare war on Italy if it has declared war on another nation during the game (Free France NRS v3.2).

We don’t even get to debate issues anymore as HBG is too efficient on the Errata or FAQ !

Okay, I have been keeping quiet about the Dutch questions because I have been playing with the Netherlands Fight Back Expansion for a while and had not gone back to the basic rules for some time.

I think that the relevant rules to consider are:

Great-Britain NRS (v3.5) :
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.

Peactime Income Increases
Germany or Italy declares war on any neutral nation in Europe : +2D12 (each time)
Japan declares war on neutral (including China) : +2 (each time)

ANZAC NRS (v3.2)
Axis or Comintern declares war on The Netherlands East Indies : +3 (once)

FEC NRS (v3.4)
Japan declares war on any nation : +2 (each time)

US NRS (v3.4)
Japan declares war on British Commonwealth or France : +5D12
Japan declares war on any other neutral : +2D12 (once)
Germany declares war on British Commonwealth or France : +5 (once)

France NRS (v3.5)
Germany or Italy declares war on any other nation : +2D12
Germany or Italy declares war on British Commonwealth : France moves to wartime Income
Japan declares war on neutral nation or China : +1 (each time)

Rule 4.4 :
Once Aligned a Minor Power and its units become part of the Major Power for all purposes and ceases to exist as a separate nation for the rest of the game.

The obvious danger to avoid for the Axis is that a Japanese attack on an Aligned Dutch West Indies (i.e. for all purposes Britain), will trigger the +5D12 for the USA. So Min. 5, Max. 60, AVG. 32.5) and you are also declaring War on the Commonwealth.

However, if Japan attacks a neutral Dutch instead, the effect is far less imposing (+2 GB, +3 AZ, +2 FEC, +2D12 USA, +1 France). Min. 10, Max. 32, AVG. 21.

On the other hand, if Germany attacks an Aligned Netherlands (i.e. Britain), the Commonwealth and France can go to War, but the USA only gets +5.

If Germany attacks a neutral Netherlands, the effect is GB +2D12, France +2D12 and no effect on the USA.

Save for the 5 US increase, the German invasion will likely mean war with France and GB in both scenarios.

If the Axis want to coordinate an attack on the Dutch, I think that it’s much better for Japan to go first and Germany second than the other way around. You are trying to delay the US coming to war, which is the game changer in Global War.

And to answer the @manincellv questions :

If the Dutch Align with the British upon a declaration of war by Germany and subsequent capitulation, does:

1. Does the UK now control all Dutch ships and forces in
   A. English Channel and
   B. Dutch East Indies and can now move them?
   Yes to both (Rule 4.4)

2. Are all these units replaced with British units?
   Yes (Rule 4.4. and Appendix B(2))

3. Does the UK collect income from the DEI?
   Yes, if it is in control of the territory (Rule 11.6)

4. Do the Dutch make an recruitment roll?
   No, only Controlled minors do this (Rule 11.5 and Table 4-2) unless otherwise stated in the rules

5. How does this rule 4.12 Minor Power Colonies affect above?
   In your example it doesn’t since the DEI are already Aligned to Great Britain

That is true for a lot of expansions. There is a lot left to interpretation when new rules and gameplay mechanics are introduced in only a few pages.