Posts made by Noneshallpass

Yes, since Anzac has a Home Country, it can upgrade its minor factory and move milita and build anything on the Commonwealth’s tech tree, provided that it also has the required infrastructure (such as a Major Shipyard for some types of warships).

If Anzac upgrades to a Major Factory, this also gives an additional tech roll to the Commonwealth.

Remember that “British Commonwealth includes Great Britain, FEC and ANZAC. These share the same turn, war status, technology marker, per-turn limits on technology development, per-turn lend-lease limits, as well as strategic rail and strategic naval movement limits.” (G-B, FEC and Anzac National Reference Sheets).

Only FEC has the restriction that it cannot build units made available to Great Britain after acquiring technology (i.e. advanced artillery, adv. mech., heavy armor, jet fighters…). This does not apply to tech that does not require specific builds (i.e. long range aircraft, radar, adv. sub. warfare, advanced factories…) which benefit all members of the Commonwealth.

Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but the rule mentions both “land zone” (second bullet) and “neutral minor power not Adjacent to Soviet Home Country” (third bullet). These are two different things.

Turkey is adjacent to Soviet Home Country, even if all of its land zones are not.

Therefore an attack on Turkey (even in Anatolia or Istanbul) is an attack against a minor power that is Adjacent to Soviet Home Country.

The same logic would apply to Poland or Finland.

I never played v1 or v2, so I cannot compare with the older rules, but for the USA and Great Britain, the conditions for declaring war to the Comintern are in the National Reference Sheets :

"Yes, under any one of the following circumstances: The USA (or G-B) is at Wartime income and
• Germany or Japan has surrendered
• USSR Currently Possesses an original Allied land zone.
• USSR has Attacked a neutral minor power not Adjacent to Soviet Home Country.
• USSR declares war on an Allied nation

In your Spanish Civil War example, the USSR did not attack Spain.

In your Turkey at War example, Turkey is Adjacent to Soviet Home Country (via Transcaucasia).

It’s a valid question.

A funny way to answer would be that it depends on what miniatures you use. Table 12-1 of the v3 Rules states that Infantry Class is “Any unit represented by a soldier (infantry, marine, militia, airborne, etc.)”. In our game, we use HBG’s Axis minor soldier with a Panzerfaust, so it’s definitely an Infantry unit!

However, the SS Panzer Grenadiers are clealry in the Specialist Infantry class, as you rightly point out, on the Germany National Reference Sheet (v.3.3), same as the other specialized infantry units for Japan (SNLF), FEC (Ghurka), USA (USMC) or the Commonwealth and Italy (Colonial inf.).

They are a elite infantry unit. The fact that they only become available with Advanced Mechanized Infantry seems to me like a game mechanic to delay their arrival on the battlefied, not a definition of their unit class. In reality, the Panzer Grenadiers units were organized in combined arms formation, so there is also a logic to the fact that they cannot be build before you have obtained that technology. They would really be overpowering otherwise.

In addition, if they are not infantry-class, I believe that they would have been listed under the Tech Advances table, just like the Katyusha Rocket Artillery for USSR that requires Advanced Artillery.

The +1 attack bonus that is given by Artillery pairing applies to all infantry-class units under Rule 12.2. I see no reason exclude the SS Panzer Grenadiers from this, just as it could benefit Mountain, Marine, Airborne Infantry, Colonial Infantry, Ghurkas, SNLF and USMC.

However, Motorized and Mechanized Intantry are in the Vehicle class, as per Rule 12.2. You question makes me realize that they should not benefit from being paired with artillery despite their name.

Finally, Naval Transports can carry either two infantry-class units or one infantry-class unit and one other land or air unit (who does that for air units?). It should transport two SS Panzer Grenadiers, same as two Marines.

Hello Phil,

It is clear that you cannot capture anything with air units since they must save enough movement to return to a Friendly land zone or carrier during the non-combat movement phase (8.3 and 10.3 of v3 Rules).

However, I believe that you are right that the the rulebook takes for granted that you must have at least one attacking land unit left in the zone to capture a new territory. The rules mention “capture” or “conquer”, but I don’t think they explicitely state how this is done.

Obviously, if all attacking lands units are destroyed, you cannot capture the territory. No matter how many attacking air units survive the battle, they cannot land there.

Just like in A&A, you sometimes have to decide if you will scrap a fighter to leave one infantry alive to take a new territory.

AA Artillery is a land unit, part of the Artillery class (12.1).

However, it’s worth noting that fortifications are placed across a border and protect from attacks across that border (Rule 12.7), except for some Special Fortification Zones where the fortification protects the entire zone (12.8). The Maginot Line also has its own rules (1.23).

Therefore, if you can get your planes to attack from an unfortified border, the fortification bonus for the AA would not apply.

The same is true for the attacking land units if they can flank the fortified border.

Hello,

According to the v.3 National Reference Sheets, Mechanized Infantry is not available before July 1939 and Medium Armor before July 1940, except for Germany which can build both as early as July 1938.

Furthermore, you cannot research technology beyond stage II before July 1939 (Rule 7.6 and Global War Tech Sheet v3.0).

There seems to be an effort in the rules to keep the pre-war technolgy in line with history, but there is no such restrictions for Self-Propelled Artillery and Tank Destroyers.

It seems funny that somewhat advanced units that were uncommon before WW2 are not subject to similar restrictions.

One player in our game suggested that they should not be available before Medium Armor, but there is nothing in the rules preventing, say, France and the USSR to stock up early on Tank Destroyers in anticipation of the German invasion. Target selection for Tank Destroyers can really be devastating for the German blitzkrieg.

Do some of you use house rules to delay the availability of these units in your games?

Yes, CCP can try to influence any Warlord according to the CCP National Reference Sheet, provided that it is in an adjacent territory :

“During the Place Units & Collect Income Phase CCP may make one influence roll on a Warlord land zone adjacent to a CCP possessed land zone. If the roll is less than or equal to the total number of land zones the CCP Possesses, all remaining land zones and military units of that warlord align with CCP immediately. CCP may spend IPP up to the amount of the influence roll to increase the chance of success. Each IPP spent adds +1 to the influence roll.”

If you don’t pay to increase the chance success, then it’s a very low chance proposition on the first turn (1 out of 12). If you spend your IPPs, you can bring it up to 1 out of 6 (for 1 IPP) or 1 out of 4 (for 2 IPP).

I agree with you that it you don’t succeed on the first or maybe second turn, chances are that a Japanese attack will have turned all the Warlords to KMT. I think that is meant to happen in most games.

I would not presume to tell you how to play your games. House rules can be fun. It’s just that I find it premature to change the balance of such a complex game after a single playthrough. That being said, try it and let us know how it goes.

You don’t have to change the rules to give Warlord territories to the CCP. If the KMT attacks a Warlord, then all his territories turn to CCP:

“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.” (KMT and CCP National Reference Sheets v.3.3).

We do it regularly in our games. You only need one KMT unit to attack the Warlord and you can even retreat after the first turn to obtain the desired result. If you are lucky, no unit is lost in the process.

However, in the end, I don’t think you will get much more play out of the CCP with this strategy because the Japanese will just be pressured to attack and destroy the CCP sooner that it might have otherwise.

This is a very complex games with many rules and exceptions (as this Forum often shows). I would bet that you missed out on a lot of rules in your first game (I have played over a dozen and we still make mistakes). It’s much too soon to be tweaking the rules of the game. You should try to master them first.

Hello,

Most light cruiser types are available from HBG, but some will need painting. Apart from the ones at setup, we don’t tend to build many new ones in our games. Some players paint the tip of their ships with different colors to distinguish them. I don’t but we get used to the different models over time.

I don’t recommend changing the rules of the games after only one game, but I get your point that the Comintern player has much to do until he is at war.

Our South American pieces also gather dust, but the game is also based on history, so you can’t expect Japan to invade Brazil !

Keep at it. It’s a great game.

If you look at the Global War Tech Sheet, it’s pretty clear:

« When a nation develops Improved Construction technology it gets the following advantages:
All facilities and ships cost -1IPP per cycle. Instead of saving 1 IPP per cycle, a player may pay for the first two construction turns at the same time: A facility that costs 5/5/5 could be built for 10/5. Minor Shipyards can produce 2 units per turn. Major Shipyards can produce 8 units per turn. »

Section 7.8 of the Rules is almost identical, but is more clear that it gives only an example « Thus, a facility that costs 5/5/5 could be built for 10/5 ».

While the example only covers a 3-cycle facility (x/x/x) the rules also work perfectly for a 2-cycle (x/x) facility or ship, and still give you the option to combine the first two construction turns (out of two) if you waive the IPP saving.

This makes it a very strong technology to research, especially for a US, British or Japanese naval strategy.

According to rule 1.3, the territory with the brightest roundel determines the capital, so that would be Calcutta for the FEC.

According to rule 9.23 a nation that loses its capital loses all its cash IPP to the bank, even if it does not surrender.

So the FEC would not surrender but lose all IPP, making any new construction impossible, even where no factory is required (militia, ghurka…).

However, losing Calcutta will not cause the FEC or Great Britain to surrender. They would have to lose London and all four alternative capitals, including Calcutta.

Hi, the v3 Rules 1.7 to 1.12 describe the effect of each terrain type for both “Combat” and “Movement”. Combat obvioulsy applies to the Combat Phase, but for Movement, there is no distinction made between combat movement and non-combat movement.

Plus, in real life, a mountain or a marsh is not easier to cross just because it’s a non-combat movement.

In short, I don’t see a rule that would support your opponent’s interpretation, even the ones that you quoted.

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.

Actually, for the Dutch Colonies, it’s at the end of the combat phase that they become controlled or aligned (Great Britain National Reference Sheet, v3.4).

Until then, section 4.5 of the v3 Rules mentions that you have a limited decision-making. The definition of Control in the Glossary (0.9) adds: “This typically includes rolling for that nation’s units in battle and choosing their caualties in combat and if they survive long enough for you to do so, to manage their forces and make recruitement rolls (Table 4-2)”.

Since they bothered to mention that you have to wait until the end of the combat phase for the control or alignement to take effet and nothing in table 4-2 mentions that you may submerge neutral subs, I would interpret this as Britain not having the option to submerge them during the Dutch combat phase, as they are not yet under their control or part of their alliance.

Again, if you are playing with the Netherlands Fight Back expansion, then it’s different because they are already a minor power and may build units and move forces from the beginning of the game. So the Dutch player can make all decisions that are normally available during combat.

@Imperious-Leader Are you in the right forum? The title is the name of the expansion for the Global War game. Not a personal political statement…

Hello,

Can anyone confirm what the Finnish inital set-up is supposed to be for this Expansion?

The rules mention:

4.1 Finnish Forces: Replace all Finnish forces with the following:

• Location Nome Karjala 2x Utti Jaeger, 2x Sissi Militia, Change three Elite 3/5 infantry
  to Utti Jaeger.
• Southern Finland Change one elite 3/5 infantry to Utti Jaeger.
• Lapand: 1x Utti Jaeger

If I’m told to replace all Finnish forces, to me that means to wipe the map clean and put only the indicated units instead.

What do the words that I put in italics even mean?

What is “Nome”?

The Utti Jaeger are the Elite 3/5 infantry ski troops according to rule WW1.1. What am I supposed to “change” in Karjala and Southern Finland?

Does this only make sense to those of you who speak Finnish?

Hello,

In this expansion, the v3 rules mention that:

“2.1 Soviet-Japanese Border Clashes: The USSR and Manchukuo may take Northern Manchuria and Chita from one another during border clashes without being at war.”

My first question is do these battle still take place under the normal border clash rules, taken from Japan v3.4 or USSR v3.3 National Reference Sheets, namely “Either side may attack units on the other side of a jointly held land border in 1 round of combat but all units must start in an adjacent zone (aircraft may not be brought in from different zones)”?

The mention of border clashes in rule 2.1 above would suggest to me that these restrictions do apply, but it’s hard to wipeout any significant defence in a single round.

My second question is what happens to the USSR’s peacetime income if Japan takes Chita before the USSR is at wartime income? USSR stats at 8 IPP but controls much more territory value. Does it go down one IPP for the loss of Chita or is this loss compensated by the other territories that USSR still holds? I don’t believe that this is covered by the rules.

Lastly, what does “Like a Torpedo Boat Destroyed” mean under the stats for the River Patrol Boat on page 5. Is this a typo? Did they mean that RPBs have the same stats as Torpedo Boat Destroyers on can be represented by TBDs instead of the Patrol Boat blue marker?

But if you play with the Netherlands Fight Back expansion, the British player no longer takes over the Dutch colonies when the Netherlands is attacked (NFB 4.2), so the Japanese attack would be against the Netherlands (2D12) not Britain (5D12).

Another fine example of being wrongly influenced by Axis and Allies in this game. In A&A Global, the submarines have first strike on each round of naval combat. Thanks for the clarification GHG.