Posts made by Trig

Disclaimer: According to one of the designers, GHG, the overarching philosophy of rule intrestetation is “If the rules don’t say you can, you can’t.” My personal philosophy is that the rules are the most important part of game play. When in doubt, go with the exact wording of the rules. I try to look at this without the old A&A rules stuck in my head, so that I can see the rules for what they say, not what I think they say. Therefore, I am attempting to find all these such rule changes, omissions, etc in the v3 rules. Once they are found, the designers may do what they want with that information. Some may be unintentional, other very much so. I will fully support any clarification, but until then, the RAW are the ultimate authority.

In the course of the current YouTube war, Operation Winter Solace, there have been many rule questions that have come up. One recent one is completely redefining the way we think of carriers.
In A&A, carriers may be used to “catch” returning airfact by building a new carrier. (here is a great video from Young Grasshopper explaining carriers in G40-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AgcrHfjqpI&t=2732s) In GW36v3, it seems that many carried over assumptions on how carriers work from G40. However, according to the rules, it seems that that is not the case.
First if one looks in Non Combat movement, section 10.3 clearly states:
“Aircraft returning from combat must use their remaining movement points to return to a friendly land zone or carrier.”
In combat move we get:
(8.3) “Aircraft must save enough movement points to return to a friendly land zone or carrier during the non combat movement phase.”
Both of these explicitly say that aircraft must land during noncombat. According to 7.1-
“They [Units] will not be placed till the Place units and collect income phase of the turn.”
In section 11 (Place units and collect income phase) there is absolutely nothing that references aircraft, even in subsection 11.1 (Place units) where it says:
“Units must be placed at a factory you have possessed since the start of the turn”
In the entirety of that section, there is no reference to aircraft. Even in the 4th paragraph, where it states the “Ships and submarines may be placed a Major or Minor shipyard…” there is no mention of aircraft.

With all this evidence in mind, we construct our theory. Planes, during the combat movement phase, must plan out their route such that they may return to land or a carrier in noncombat. Newly bought carriers are not placed till after noncombat, so they are not valid landing spots during non combat, thus meaning that they cannot be used to guarantee a landing zone. We then look at a placed carrier. Since a plane must land in noncombat movement, you cannot fly an existing plane to land on a carrier, as the rules do not say you can do this. You cannot place a plane on a carrier, as they rules say they must be placed at a factory, and they are not listed as an exception. Thus, we reach the disputed and seemingly heretical conclusion of:
“Newly bought carriers may not be used to guarantee landing spots or have planes placed on them after they are built.”
In effect, this means that any carriers you build will be sitting naked for at least one turn until the next non combat phase in which a plane may land on them.

This may seem crazy, but it is what the rules say. This is how I see things, if I am wrong, please point out where it says so in the rules.

So here I stand, and I can do no other,
-Trig

Note: All of this ignores optional rule 15.3 (advanced carrier rules) which says:
“When an aircraft carrier of any type is placed on the board, it must be either a) placed with at least one aircraft also purchased that turn, or b) at least one aircraft from an adjacent landzone must be immediately placed on it, otherwise it may not be placed”
If used this seems to override the standard rules to allow planes to be placed directly on carriers, or be moved onto them from an adjacent territory. However, one must also use the remaining provisions of the rule which go on to state that a carrier must alway have a plane on it otherwise it has to return home.

@sjelso I say yes, and also, historically, Iraq had sea access but no port, which is what it looks like on the map.

@sjelso Yes, it is listed as German, and foreign units get repartied at the end of the SCW.
“As soon as the Civil War ends, Foreign units are immediately repatriated to their home country and Event Marker units are removed from play. Italian CTV & Foreign aircraft return to their Home Country by Supply Path.”

@imperious-leader What size font do you want?

@sjelso Correct, you cannot scramable from carriers.

@kmtnt I thought I remembered a rule that if you did not cross the border (ie in a border clash), you are not subject to terrain, but I cannot find it. Therefore I would assume that you count the terrain modifiers, and I will tell you if I find anything.

@misck
This victory objective represents the Soviet desire for a port that was ice free in the winter, allowing year round trade. If you look at the map, Sea Zones are numbered from east to west, starting in the North. This means that any sea zone with a number higher than “8” was liable to be frozen part of the year. None of this has any importance to the game, but gives historical context.

The objective itself is rather straightforward. At the end of the game, look at the map. For all the Soviet major naval bases, look at the number of the sea zone they border. If at least one of those sea zones has a number greater than 8, the Soviets get a victory point. For instance, at the start of the game, the soviets would get this objective or controlling the major port in Primorsky Krai bordering Sea Zone 38. Or for the major shipyard in Leningrad that borders sea zone 16.
Hope that helps!

@sjelso I would assume it can move within the battleground of Spain like other Italian units.

@captainnapalm I would have it like this
New unit-

Strategic rocket
Vehicle class
Move: 0
Attack: carpet bombing (1@2)
Defense: N/A
Cost: 3
Once this unit attacks, this unit is eliminated after one round of combat.
This unit may engage in SBRs with one dice. It can neither be intercepted or shot down by AA fire.
This unit may only be moved by naval transport or Strategic Rail movement.

@captainnapalm Maybe, but not in real life!

@captainnapalm
I was proposing no facility, as that limits the utility. 3 might be the best bet. I also prefer to try and tweak as little as possible, so fixing the cost seems to work well.

@captainnapalm I think it is per nation, as nations roll independently. If you think about, the US wouldn’t be too happy with the UK influencing Brazil.

@captainnapalm I most definitely agree. I think that the single use unit works well, as it allows you to use them in spots other than home country, which was a huge deterrent in v2. I think a price of 4 could give the best result. You have a 50% chance of breaking even or winning, and 50% chance of losing. Compared the a strategic bomber, which has the same effective range, and rolls 2 dice at 3 times the price, and can get shot down, but is multi use; I think rockets could be a viable option. 3 might work, but it could also be too cheep, and I err on the side of caution.

@insanehoshi
It can, but I would say that immediately is better than waiting and holding to troops in limbo. They just have to retreat to a territory where a battle is not occuring. This means they could get hit by blitzes, but I think that is reasonable. I also prefer voluntary retreat as it should be an option, not a necessity, and you should pick whether to fight with your heavy hitters, or run and possibly die without taking anything with you. As an attack, it forces you to bring more force to try and decisively beat your enemy before they can run.

@sjelso Denmark is something I also wouldn’t take till later, but the Netherlands can be a pain very quickly after Japan attacks. Norway may be risky by sea, but only 2 airborne are needed if given long range air support. If done during lightning war, Norway can be rather easily and quickly conquered.

@sjelso Norway and Denmark are a good place for Germany to take after going to war. Then there is no IPP roll and it gives extra money, some bonuses, and a VP for Denmark.

@insanehoshi I agree, though I think you should retreat to a adjacent non embattled territory immediately. This would be very interesting for Blitzing, as one could retreat to get a better shot at the tanks.

@sjelso I think that in 2 player, China will always suffer. I don’t think there is a way around that. However, you could force a battle every turn, or something such. I think the best thing is a player who is good at solo games. In a solo game, you want each side to win, and player the best for that side when it is their turn. The Allies/Commie play could do this in China, though it is not ideal. It all comes down to the purity of essence and how well you wish to play.
The Japan control is annoying, as if you look at the current Youtube game, that shows the problems you can get is the CCP is controlled by Japan. It basically gives then no incentive to attack China, and then they can use the CCP to steamroll the USSR or FEC.

@sjelso Maybe, though it might be simpler to just make a combined Allies commie victory conditions, or to use the OOB VPs for the Axis with a time condition like in BBR. Those are better suited to the map, and I believe that some of the BBR ones could be very hard for the Axis to hold in this game. In G40 the score usually goes up for the Axis till about turn 10, then starts dropping. In 36, this is more around '43 or '44. If you cut it shorter it might work.

@aftertaste I also think the current rules are a bit annoying, but it is a balance. If you make the rockets too cheap, they are just a effective way to blast a weaker opponent. If they are too expensive, then they just are never used.
I think that is done as a one shot model, the cost should be 3 or more likely 4. That way you might reap some benefits.
If done as a facility, I think a lot of testing would be needed to find the right cost though I think you are close. Another option would be to pay, say, 1 IPP for each attack
I would be cautious about the movement, as it is very restricting for nations who do not have home countries close to the battle, like the US or Japan.