Posts made by Trig

@imperious-leader
That’s called the FEC…

@chris_henry
That said, since there is not prohibition against combat phase at peace, the point is moot. I would consider it that you go through all the phases, but there is just no combat to be done. Not that it doesn’t happen.
Why torch forts? Because you can! (Also this brings up a question. Are partially built forests destroyed when conquered? I would be inclined to say yes, but realism in me says no.)
As for the “own” I was thinking about the possibility of dropping an airborne or something in a enmey factory or airbase or such, and then torching it. For instance if Germany forgets to put something in Western german and there is an airborne in Leningrad… bye bye major factory.

@captainnapalm
That is currently the RAW. (+FAQ) You can enter, not get shot at, and then leave. However, if you cross by the guns when you leave you get shot at.
However, though this works, it is clunky. The other alternatives, such as whenever entering the zone are way to OP. My solution and current house rule is to make a “roundel” in the sea zone and say that that is where all the ships are. Then from that roundel, if you pass the gun, you get shot at. It eliminates any zone within zone-ing, which can be good or bad depending on your perception.
I think you have to decide with your group how you want to play. I would err on the side of the rules, annoying though it is, and just get a marker like Gen M said.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
Good points.
Another question about the diplomacy side of this. Can you you torch facilities during peacetime? I think not.

On the USSR sheet it says:
“SCORCHED EARTH:
Can destroy its own facilities during the Combat Phase of its turn. No land unit is required.”

“Facilities”
What does that include. I know that it means factories, naval bases, etc, but does it include rail? Fortifications or Coastal guns?

“Combat phase”
I would assume this means any time during the phase. This could allow for the capture or a territory and then torching all the stuff in it.

“Its own”
Does this mean any facility anywhere? Or just in home country or starting territories?

What are your thoughts?

@noneshallpass
It looks like Jinx got his wish!
Here are the ones I see:

• The balance provisions have changed. Germany now gets 2 subs, not 4, but gets a sub discount and “wolfpack” bonus.
• Canada’s bonus income has changed, and is lesser in scope and harder.
• Canada’s wartime income is 6. (Map change from v2)
• Canada gets NO peace time bonus increases.
• The Veteran guard have been buffed +1 on defense.
• Surrender conditions have changed.
• The BCATP is now limited to two nations per turn, and the delivery process is clarified. (It moves via lend lease)
• The “remote terrain” rules have been removed.
• Volunteer army has changed. Units may now move outside of Canada before being at war. Volunteer army also only applies to Canadian home country.
• There is something about “takes up a factory slot” on the QOR and the Patricia’s. Not sure if this means the facotry where built or the Canadian factory.
• Their special units are now (mostly) only available once at war.

Disclaimer: The following is (mostly) personal opinions
Things that I have noticed that should be changed or addressed still:

• Canada does not get a shipyard still!
• The 1939 setup has 4 germans subs. Should be fixed. (Also says locked until at war. German starts at war in 1939.)
• Does that UK militia in Canada become Canadian in the 1936? The infantry in 1939? Clarification needed.
• We still have v2 setup chart styles. (Facilities) and place names as well. (Rules, not sheet)
• We still have Imp Shipyards on the Corvette entry.
• For Canada’s bonus, does Asia include the USSR? or the Middle east?
• On the overview in the rules, it states there is peacetime bonuses.
• On the sheet, there is no build table besides the special units.

That is what I have seen. I am sure there will be more.

@captainnapalm
1: See from Hoshi below. There might not be many, but I am sure they will come up.
2: Yes, that sort of idea, though in the Channel, I would put the “roundel” in the southern (channel) side. You go through none or both of the crossings. Those two crossings are so close together. They are basically just a 4 crossing that goes to two ports. It would be unrealistic to put the roundel between them. The Channel is the bigger of the two sides, and the more likely side for a fleet to be parked on. See here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1CEgx4Z2et2e6QkxhHWFMb3vTa6uJ8PXY&ll=51.36987064258579%2C-0.19830579999998044&z=6
for a map of the sea zone and a possible other fix

@captainnapalm
I don’t want a roundel per say, but a “locater” (or just the sea zone number) so one can tell where to measure from. In this case I am referring to the use of the roundel as a way to figure out terrain and such, not as a mark or ownership. It is a good system and could easily be applied to sea zones.
Currently, with all the sea zone numbers in the bottom corners, you don’t know where to measure from when figuring out terrain for amphibs or such. Also, if used, this could allow an easy solution to the coastal gun problem. If from roundel to roundel you cross the crossing, you get shot at. Also, now we can add reefs!
That is why I want a “roundel” at sea. Even just moving the numbers would help, and solve several problems easily.

@insanehoshi
That is a good one. Another option if you want a magnetic board is magnetic paper. I believe here is it around 10€ for 10 sheets, and a standard G40 or 3x6 map is about 30 sheets worth. It isn’t the strongest though. Metal tables are also an option. :)
@Linkler
I see your idea, personally I quite enjoy the current ascetic, and like the gradient.
On forests, I can see the idea, but it would definitely need a good purpose it, and there would be a bunch. I am designing another game with forest terrain and we are having fits trying it get it all.

@linkler said in v4 Map Improvements:

• Why do we need colours on the map at all? Everything is marked with roundels already

Why? Because some of us like being able to see at a glance what nations’ starting territories are? Also, memorizing roundels is hard? And colors provide greater territory distinction and a better overall effect.
We aren’t Sired Blood here.

Apologies for stepping on anyone’s toes, but I despise single color maps. It is a waste of what could have been great and just doesn’t work.

@fdr No.
This is illegal according to section 8.10 and 9.7b
“If the screening force wins…the moving force immediately moves into the next sea zone where it may conduct a second regular combat OR a amphibious land (but not both).”
It is a way to slow down your enemy and keep them at arm’s length, but is quite costly in sea power.
Also you cannot screen and move more than one space. For instance, after Screen A, you could not move two spaces to fight enemy C. (You can move to B and then land on adjectn land zone D, if there is no more stretching forces.

@gen-manstein said in Version 4?:

@trig said in Version 4?:

@chris_henry I know there was definitely a few set up changes from V2. The french got an extra BB, the cruisers got divided up, and I think the British “Force H” got moved from 80 to 79. Some of the build queue stuff changed as well. Plus of course the added territories in Greece, Japan, London, Tobruk, etc. Nothing major.
My wishlist for v4 includes:

• Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all
  I noticed that too. Maybe on my next map make routes but can only hit in certain areas based on history.
  I mainly want this for the Coastal gun and terrain question, about where ships are. It just makes sense that we can use a existing system from the land and move it to sea. Also, now we could add reefs and sea terrain :)
• A better Strategic naval move system
  .
  How would you like to have this ?
  Mainly just an ability to move all ships, or move w/o transports, longer distance, etc to better reflect the speed at which ships move! I’m not sure, but it could definitely be improved. I need to try some things out. A air ferry thing would be cool too, seeing as we have a speed move for land and sea as well.
  .
• More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
  **Agree here. At least I have on my map only 1 move period through Asia and Russian Siberian territories to the coast.
  **
• On more sea zone from the US to HI. They are almost as far away from HI as HI is from Japan.
  Yes. Should be the same for both countries or just 1 sz closer for US if possible. Depends on miles.

Yes> They are 3,855.98 mi from Tokyo and 2,393 mi for San Fran. At least 22 and3 >

• Damage costs for capital ships
  Yes

I use 1d6 for thins

• Supply, defending retreat, in port, shipborne AA rules. All just good ways to add some accuracy to the game.
  **How would you use your shipborne AA ? I have in my game.
  **
  Mainly as a form of defense aginst air attack. A plane can attack ship with them shooting back at lower values. Would give some more accuracy.
• Battlecruisers!!! And not those mislabeled things we have now. I want the Hood and Kongo and well, that is about it. Maybe Yavuz.
  Sweet

I would like a system much like a BB but without any hitpoints, would be a fun unit.
k
Sorry for the bad text near the middle, my computer is acting up. Will redo on a ddifferent device.

@chris_henry said in Version 4?:

Thanks @Trig . I thought there were some changes, maybe I misunderstood insaneHoshi’s comment above!

No, that was my problem. I misread his statement as what he wanted not what he expected. Hence my list. I doubt even half the things I say will get changed, but it is worth getting them out there.

• More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.

To your point on territories, specifically in Yugo, China, and Iran. First, it sounds like the Croatia at War Expansion is something for you! Do you use it? True it’s not base game, but getting that expansion probably quells your concerns there? I agree with China, I think some of those warlord territories could be split in two, at least. I don’t know how much Iran matters overall. I think that area is largely a sideshow compared to the others. At what point do they stop splitting? You could argue Africa should more or less double it’s territories as well then, same with Canada. But I do get what you’re saying.

My thoughts are this: If you can get the space, make more territories. If possible, make the sizing as realistic as possible. For instance, the Belgian Congo is the same size as much of western europe, which is over 20 territories. That is not necessary, but 2 or 3 might be nice. And there is space, considering that almost nothing happens there and the armies involved are quite small. similarly, you could cut down Quebec of Northwest territories, or add in more territories in Siberia (or especially Western Kazakhstan. That thing is bloated.) Tsinghai or Tibet could be two territories. Even Iran could get another territory, Southeastern Iran or something. I could list a bunch of places but you get the idea.

On Yugo, I like the idea from the expansion, but I think a better solution would be to make 2 or 3 territories in the base game. A northern Croatia and a southern Serbia, possibly adding Northern Macedonia if needed. (Slovenia is just too small.) The expansion also only takes effect after the conquest, and the point is to make it a little longer to conquer Yugoslavia and show their historical problem of a decent army but a huge border. (Also, Greece is about 1.5 times smaller than Yugo, but gets 4 territories. Really?)

• Japan being able to take planes on their sneak attack

I don’t follow here. You’re talking about the Japanese Special Ability, right? Nothing says Japanese planes can’t partake. It in fact says that all Japanese planes get first strike. Maybe I’m misunderstanding?

Mark just answered this, and I would just love an ability to either give the plans a +1 or let them ride carriers or something. There are a lot of Sneak attack possibilities where it is called off b/c the planes can’t reach. this just seems unrealistic, b/c one of the biggest reasons for Japan to do well early on was air superiority. (Pearl Harbor anyone?) Not a big deal, but it is annoying.

Overall, I have great respect for the designers, this is just a list of things think could be improved or added. I look forward to v4, and can’t wait to see what they pull out next.

@chris_henry I know there was definitely a few set up changes from V2. The french got an extra BB, the cruisers got divided up, and I think the British “Force H” got moved from 80 to 79. Some of the build queue stuff changed as well. Plus of course the added territories in Greece, Japan, London, Tobruk, etc. Nothing major.
My wishlist for v4 includes:

• Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all
• A better Strategic naval move system
• More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
• On more sea zone from the US to HI. They are almost as far away from HI as HI is from Japan.
• Japan being able to take planes on their sneak attack
• Damage costs for capital ships
• Supply, defending retreat, in port, shipborne AA rules. All just good ways to add some accuracy to the game.
• Battlecruisers!!! And not those mislabeled things we have now. I want the Hood and Kongo and well, that is about it. Maybe Yavuz.

@JbuckBuddy
@Noneshallpass

Ok, FAQ is up

"Q: Is Burma considered an Indian province / part of India? Can FEC build Gurkhas there?

A: Yes."

@noneshallpass
@JbuckBuddy

I also don’t know. My thought would be Benagal and all continental land zones to the west. This was the historical limit of “Indian” jurisdiction. Burma and Ceylon were ruled as separate colonies. I can’t find any info on Gurkha marshalling areas however. I believe this is the interpretation I have seen Ozark Outpost and RC play with, but I am not sure on that.
In all, though I think this is the best option form a historical standpoint ( a common design feature) I think an FAQ Is needed.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

Sorry for the later reply.
I like this! My suggestion would be to have that sub moving through Suez wait to enter 83, and then raid in it. That would show you can seperate moves, and don’t have to do them sequentially.
You should probably also mention scrambling and maybe something with MAP, do cover all the bases. Maybe there is a plane on MAP in 82 or something to do with that in another spot? Just to show how this also applies during wartime moves after the DOW.
Also, what was the point of the transport in 85? I didn’t see where that came up.
Overall, looks good! I would also probably mention some other possibilities, if say, GB does DOW and how that would work with screening forces.
I really like the use of this system for all moves, and will definitely “house rule” it in.

@didier_de_dax
@HBG-GW-Enthusiast
I completely agree with you both. I have great appreciation for his and other designers work, I just wish that they would lay down the rules more clearly when we ask questions. (for instance, giving us a step by step way to navigate this problem of moving navies. [like the perfectly good way they already have in the rules * cough, cough *{I’m getting sidetracked here}]) Clarity and mutual understanding are the most important parts of this process, and so when we can break down barriers to those, it makes this so much easier.

On the spirit of the rules: I think this is a valid concept, but it needs support, just like any other proof. Examine the whole of the rulebook, and look for overlapping connects. The designer’s notes in particular a good here. It cannot be used as a absolute “this is how it is.” The spirit of the rules to me can be a support, but cannot be your argument.

Sorry for that semi-rant, but is there any more questions on this that I missed?

Thanks for coming in here, @HBG-GW-Enthusiast. You tend to explain things far better than me.