@insanehoshi
Interesting.
I’m wondering if a expansion could be made with the interwar naval treaties. For instance, before the game the Japan, UK, US, France and Italy players get to decide whether or not to have the London and Washington treaties, and then that would change the setup. And then during the pregame the second London treaty and Anglo German treaty could be available to sign. The treaties could play around with income or availability of units, and force sizes and such.

Posts made by Trig
-
RE: Expansions
-
Expansions
I made some graphs about the different expansions. You get interesting results.
See here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YwY6SYtQShAG5TmDxT7E3kAQ9QOs4emkyx2H6K3gTVU/edit?usp=sharingIf you were looking for new expansions, what would you want?
I think defiantly more for France and Italy and the Cominntern, but not just new units.
Ideally some form of scheme or depth addition. Or even something for the CCP or Republican Spain.Note, this data is old, from around Apr 2021. I haven’t taken the newest expansions into acount.
-
RE: Vichy France vs Free France, Which is Light Blue?
@hbg-gw-enthusiast I agree. Also, the HBG Vichy army is in light blue.
-
RE: Do the Chinese lose their money when you take their capitols?
@hbg-gw-enthusiast I believe that there is a difference between nationalist Spain, where we see all dull roundels, and the CCP, where we see a single bright roundel.
We see one bright roundel in Madrid.
Here we see several brighter roundels. One in Shensi, one in Nanking, one in Beijing, one in Tsinghai, on in Tibet, one in Yunan,… basically one per warlord or side. I think that in this case each has their own capital, and don’t share one in Nanking, as it could also be in Peking, or Yunnan, etc. -
RE: Do the Chinese lose their money when you take their capitols?
@hbg-gw-enthusiast I believe that the CCP capital is Shensi, like any other minor power with only one land zone. Also, its roundel is brighter than normal.
-
RE: Searching for Memo G!
@hbg-gw-enthusiast
I’ve linked @Ghetty who I believe is Memo G himself. -
RE: The FAQ Thread
@insanehoshi My thought is that since AAA is a land unit, anything referring to “land unit” such as terrain or forts, applies. Also, it is listed as having an attack and defense value on the battleboard and rulebook, so I would say that it does have an attack and defense.
-
RE: The FAQ Thread
@gnomegrabbin Only controlled minors and the CCP get rolls. Abyssinia and Spain are just examples of this. if they are not controlled, they do not get a roll. Abyssinia doesn’t get a roll if the war ends.
Recruitment rolls are always associated with a controlled power whenever found in the rules. When the war in Spain is over, the sides are not controlled anymore. -
RE: Danish straits and "warships" meaning
@didier_de_dax Warships is defined as just “surface ships with an attack value.” That does not ever include subs. Surface warships is just bad wording, being redundant.
-
RE: Attacks on a Territory by Two Powers Not Allowed to Attack Together
@insanehoshi True, but the Chinas and the USSR and USA are able to align and not attack together. They are aligned once both at war with a nation (Usually Japan). They can only attack together once a the China is a major power.
As for Germany and Vichy, then yes. I forgot that one.
As for Turkey, I think it can attack with Italy (or France or the USSR) once aligned.
Edit: Good point with the minor power.
That said, this doesn’t matter for the FAQ. We still need to know about if they are aligned.
-
RE: How many times can a Lend-Lease Delivery be Interdicted?
@theveteran That was what I said, but I would like to see an FAQ.
-
RE: Attacks on a Territory by Two Powers Not Allowed to Attack Together
@insanehoshi Good point. The question here is now, can they do it if aligned? And then, do you do it as two separate combats, or some other way?
I feel like the recent FAQs keep missing the meat of the question.
Edit: Also, it is impossible for any two nations to attack the same land zone in the same turn if not aligned, as they would both need to be at are with the same power. So the circumstance in the FAQ is impossible. -
RE: Danish straits and "warships" meaning
@didier_de_dax In this case, I believe it it doesn’t matter
“Submarines may move through closed straits but not closed canals.”
So that UK sub can go through.As for the “surface warship” I believe that is just an emphasis. It is just redundant.
-
RE: How many times can a Lend-Lease Delivery be Interdicted?
@trig the FAQ is up, but it is stil unclear.
Q: If lend-lease delivery passes through three sea zones which each contain submarines of a nation at war with the sending Major Power, how many times do you roll for interdiction?
A: Three
Does this mean you roll for each sub, or for each sea zone with a sub?
Or, if you have two subs in one zone and one in another, what do you roll. 2 dice or 3 dice?
-
RE: Attacks on a Territory by Two Powers Not Allowed to Attack Together
@trig Or not.
FAS is up:Q: Can two nations that share turns (i.e. KMT and USA) attack the same land zone if they are not Aligned?
A: No.
-
RE: Attacks on a Territory by Two Powers Not Allowed to Attack Together
@hbg-gw-enthusiast I have done the last. One power attacks first, and then the other. Similar to when you carpet bomb and then ground attack a territory.
-
RE: How many times can a Lend-Lease Delivery be Interdicted?
@hbg-gw-enthusiast I believe you roll for each sea zone.
“If the route pases through a sea zone that contains either:
A sub… a plane on MAP… a fleet of at least 3 surface warships…
The lend lease is subject to a convoy raiding die roll…”I think the “at least” under surface ships makes it once per sea zone for that, and I believe that since the sea zone is mentioned overall and not the units, it is the sea zone that matters.
-
RE: Tundra and Ice question
@nathan-greve said in Tundra and Ice question:
We are playing a game using all the optional terrain rules as well as the German Special Operations expansion and we’ve run into a couple situations where we need to understand how tundra works. There isn’t much in the rules. As far as I can tell the only relevant text is
“1.13 Tundra/Ice [Optional Rule]:
Some northern land zones have tundra and ice.
These land zones are impassable and cannot be
moved into by land units. Air units can fly over this
terrain but cannot end their movement there.”- Is there a difference between ice and tundra? This seems to suggest that, despite a visual difference on the map, there is no functional difference between the two.
Correct - Greenland’s coast appears to be non-ice mountain terrain. Am I seeing that wrong? Can ground troops be stationed on Greenland?
I believe Greenland is Tundra, as its roundel is in Tundra. - Iceland, however, appears to be entirely tundra. Does that mean that an amphibious invasion in impossible? If so, then we are confounded by section 1.4 of the German Special Operations expansion which indicates the possibility of invading Iceland.
“Seelöwe. Operation Sealion was Germany’s code name for the invasion of the United Kingdom. The following supplemental plans were intended to reinforce the main landing. Must conduct a landing in England and at least one of Iceland, Ireland, or Scotland.”
Remember, most expansions are from v2, where Tundra didn’t exist. In this case I would go with the base rules.
4) The northern coastal borders of USSR and Canada, as well as the northern and western border of Alaska are tundra. Does that mean that those territories are immune from amphibious invasion across those coastlines?
Yes
5) Are troops prevented from being non-combat moved from those territories to naval transport in the sea (because they’d have to move across the tundra border?).
Yes
a. Specifically In the case of Alaska I want to ultimately move US troops into Russian territory. Can I rail deploy them along the river that empties into the sea as I load them into the transport?
I don’t think so. If there was a port you might be able to use SNM though.
6) Can a facility be built in a tundra zone?
a. The rules state that air units can’t land there. This would eliminate the useful of an airfield there. . . unless an airfield overrides that prohibition.
It doesn’t override that prohibition. Also I don’t know of any restrictions, but it is useless.
b. A port could conceivably be useful. Some expansion allow for facilities in Antarctica (base 221, sub base, etc.) but I’m not sure that that is allowed ONLY for those expansion of if a sub base could be built there without the expansion. Also, Antarctica isn’t tundra so it isn’t quite an apple-to-apples comparison.
I would say a port might be useful (ie Archangel, Iceland)
Thanks for any help guys!Note: I really don’t like Tundra rules and personally don’t play with them. They just don’t seems realistic or fun. I am taking suggestions on how to improve them.
That said, all answers above are from the OOB rules. - Is there a difference between ice and tundra? This seems to suggest that, despite a visual difference on the map, there is no functional difference between the two.
-
RE: What happens when a french troop is on a territory that is turned vichy
@board-3659 Nothing with the Vichy rolls. It just doesn’t suffer desert penalties.