Posts made by Warwick

Gargantua,

Isn’t the Subs in convoy boxes modifying lend-lease part of an optional rule?  I believe lend-lease as written a 1 goes to the Axis, 2-4 lost, 5-7 50% lost, and 8 or higher 100% passed through.

I have come to Axis&Allies from more “serious” war games like World in Flames. These types of games attempt to simulate the political realities of the war. If the UK invaded South America and militarized these conquered regions the US would have gone into isolationistic hibernation. In fact, we might have invoked the Monroe Doctrine and declared war on the UK.

If you want to follow a more historical path then simply add these powers to the Allied side following Japan’s use of its sneak attack. Many of these powers declared war on the Axis following this event. Heck even Argentina will eventually declare on Germany and Japan.

Flip to Pro-Allied after Japan Sneak Attack and US in the war
Mexico
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil
Peru
Liberia

Flip to Pro-Allied once Holland falls (Poor Belgium doesn’t even get a space :) )
Belgium Congo

Chile remains Strict Neutral

Saudia Arabia flip Pro-allied once Germany attacks someone.

Portugal should provide its IPC (1) to Germany once France falls. (Germany influence Portugal to sell its Tungsten to Germany.)
Allies can not declare war on Portugal. However they may treat the Azores as a pro-allied space. UK has 500 years of alliances with Portugal and had agreements with Portugal regarding the Azores.

Mongolia flips to Pro-Russian if Japan and Russia are at war. Russia may not activate pro-allied nations.

Since I am not a veteran A&A I am not sure the effect on play balance, however it is simply wrong to allow UK to activate or invade regions in South America without a penalty to US entry.

Is there a reason for Corinth being considered an island rather than connected to the mainland?

If the subs fire in the First Strike phase they are detected for that round of combat.

The planes would fire on the subs once and then in the second round the surviving subs could submerge.

I do not have any official ruling however that event occurred in a recent game my group played. We ruled that once Vichy government fell all Vichy territory not occupied by Axis forces reverted to France. All moneys were collect into France while Paris was liberated. Then all territories reverted to Free French rules once Paris fell again. (UK collecting the money and FF forces conduct moves with UK)

The reasoning behind this is the initial establishment of Vichy resulted in extraordinary times. The German’s had just conducted the most successful military campaign in history. The French military was in a very difficult place. Once a government was established in Vichy an actual French government called upon its military forces to stand down. While Vichy was a German puppet it was still a French government. Once Vichy collapses it would never have risen again.

I can not find the 7.1 rules and setup. Have they been published?

I may have missed this rule but what is the difference between a sub and a coastal sub?

Is it bound to move in sea zones that touch a coast? Is it bound to only the coastal waters of its home nation?

Thank you for any clarification.

What is the status of Eastern Poland and the Baltic states according to the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression pact?

Both of these areas should be occupied by Russia as part of this pact but neither put up much of a fight when the Soviets invaded. However in the game they are garrisoned by a handful of infantry which technically turn UK. We played that the pieces are eliminated at the end of any player turn where the Axis controls Warsaw. Control was transferred to the Russian.

How is the Russian half of the of the Non-aggression pact enforced?

Not sure if these were excluded due to balance issues however Italy and Japan both fielded paratroopers.

In fact, Italy was the first nation to perform a paradrop in 1927. They deployed the Folgore Division which was similar in size to the German paratrooper wing.

The Japanese deploy 3 battalions (1 regiment) which is 1/3rd to 1/6th of other axis force sizes. They were restricted to the SNLF and conducted drops in support of amphibious actions at Menado and West Timor. Given there small size and their poor equipment they may exist below the scale of Global War, however given the number or troopers other nations can deploy the Japanese would be able to deploy at least 1 paratrooper. The poor equipment was due to Japan’s poor understanding of doctrine regarding paratroopers, at the time they were formed no one had conducted a combat drop. They were thought to need very light weapons for more a more garrison style role rather than machine guns and mortars for heavy action.

For what it is worth I tend to go off the set-up sheets.

If we interpret the 15 turn limit to reflect the length of the war then each turn is about 5 or 6 months in length. Pearl Harbor would then occur on the 5th or 6th turn of the game. Further given the US entry function (2D12 a turn) the US will be neutral until the 7th turn of the game. If you factor in +5 for an attack on France and a +10 attack on Russia US entry aligns along a turn 5 or 6 as well. Therefore I think the turn 8 is the clear choice. The extra turns allowing Japan to surprise counter-attack into 1942.

Given the heavy nature of the edits on the Russia set-up sheet the 80 IPCs seems correct. Implied in the number of edits is the revelation that Russia was getting prison-raped in their play-testing sessions. I have never played Global 1939, in fact the map and pieces are in the mail right now. As soon as I have them I will try a session using the set-up sheets “as is” with a focus on a strong Barbarossa. If Russia can trivially brush it off then I will think there is a problem. If Russia and Germany become involved in a brutal slug fest that could break either way then I will think it is perfect. :)

Other observations from the wording of v7.0 rules…

Naval Base - First sentence contains the word “adjacent” I believe this should be dropped. Naval bases should only effect the sea zone they are in.

Further the first sentence should be changed from “… the movement allowance of sea units …” to “… the movement allowance of friendly sea units …”

Having the Japanese navy gain the benefit of the Singapore base while invading Java and Singapore occupied by UK troops seems just wrong to me :)

Also the rules as they are written allows an enemy navy occupying the sea zone covered by a naval base to fight off attacking air units using the naval bases AA regardless of actual ownership of the naval base.

Fortification - This section also has a phrase that I believe needs review, “….for every Infantry defending covered by the Fortress (up to 10) the attacking units get a -2 to attack.” This phrase would result in a -2 per Infantry to all attackers. So if 3 Infantry defend all attackers get a -6. This is not what is intended and the example in the rules clears this up. I would suggest the following language “…for every Infantry defending covered by the Fortress (up to 10) an attacking unit get a -2 to attack.”

Also I think focus is lost over when a Fortress works or not. Singapore was famously captured by the Japanese via a land assault from the jungle bypassing Singapore’s fortifications. However strictly interpreting the rules if Japan assaulted Singapore from the land only the extra 2D12 the fortification provides would be nullified. The -2 per infantry effect would remain. Specifically I am looking at this wording…

“Any hits scored by the fortress must be assigned to eligible attackers. For instance, if the Fortress only defends from the sea zones, a unit amphibious assaulting must be chosen.”

This addresses the extra dice the fortress generates but says nothing regarding the -2 Infantry effect. I believe both benefits are intended to be restricted to those attacks the fortress defends against.

Lastly, no mentioned is made of the effects of fortifications built within the game. I assume all of these are of the “defends against any attack” type of fortress but a clarification the rules would be nice.

EDIT Actually one more thing … I think there is benefit to introducing unit types. In the rules only infantry benefit from the -2 a fort produces, however infantry is a type of military unit as well as a specific piece that can be placed on the board. In the case of forts I believe the rules mean infantry as a type rather than a A&A piece. Therefore, Marines, Airborne, Berg. Guards, and Commandos can all gain the benefit of forts. Again a clarification would be beneficial.

Thank you

As per the example on page 26 of the v7.0 rules each nation rolls each turn adding the results together.

To repeat the example

Turn 1 - Russia roll an 8 off 2d12. Collects 8 IPC for turn 1
Turn 2 - Russia rolls a 10. Collects 18 IPC. (8 from turn 1 + 10)
Turn 3 - Russia rolls a 5. Collects 23 (8 + 10 + 5)

If the Russian did not spend any of these IPC he would have 49 IPC to spend on turn 4.

I would like to point out a flaw in the wording of this rule though.

“Starting on Turn 1, Russia will roll 2D12 at the end of each turn to determine its income level…” - v7.0 Global War pg 26

This should read (in my opinion)

“Starting on Turn 1, Russia will roll 2D12 at the start of the Collect Income phase to determine its income level…”

The example makes clear when to do the roll and can be inferred from the original wording but the second seems more clear. (Again in my opinion)