Scramble from adjacent land zones

@adalwolf sweet, thanks - sounds good 👍

@adalwolf said in Land Unit Adjustments:

@rellhaiser I would say on a 10-12 All Calvary are forced to retreat during a battle, both attacker and defender, but no limit on purchases. They are not limited to 2. This gives them a little risk bringing them into battle.

The idea was that you could retreat one of your Cavalry / Armored Cars every turn you battled in that territory - this just gave you a way to have some units slip out from a losing battle. There’s nothing saying you couldn’t have a set of rules that allowed a player to retreat all of their Cavalry / Armored Cars any turn they liked - I just wrote a different set of rules. You do you.

-M_R

@theveteran No problem.

Ok, now back to mountainous borders. I’m not saying terrain is magically flat if it is friendly. The way you can be certain that I don’t believe that is to scroll back and read where I said if the armor were in Northern Italy and moving through a friendly Southern France, it would not be allowed to continue on to Aquitaine the same turn.

I’m saying that when a land zone is friendly, then border terrain doesn’t start affecting you until the moment you cross the border. And the river rules give a hint that my perspective may be the correct one.

Sidenote on Game Design: There are two ways game designers can approach movement costs: walls or quicksand. With the walls approach, you are not permitted to move unless you have sufficient movement. If I understand Global War’s system, it is a quicksand one. You are allowed to go in, but then get penalized and stuck. This is the way I conceptualize it. I may be wrong, but I know Morten’s approach in general is to give the player choices with consequences. Other game designers forbid players from doing things.

FAQ up on Macedonia:

Q: Is Yugoslavia adjacent to Thessaly?

A: No, Macedonia is between.

@sjelso Correct, you cannot scramable from carriers.

@adalwolf

I attacked Poland (and warsaw) in July ‘39, the turn After I attacked Paris

@turndown4rip Interesting. I believe in your scenario combat would have to happen.

You say above that the UK would wait to declare war until that moment. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn’t already be at war though. The moment Germany attacked France, the UK would have gone to full wartime income. While true, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the UK has to actually declare war on the Axis at that moment in time. And per the rules, as you’ve surmised, they can declare war at any moment during any portion of anyone’s turn.

All that said, I’d have to imagine a German player will have already hit the UK fleet in the Atlantic somewhere, making war already a thing. But I may be getting off topic a bit, as your scenario is technically plausible!

I guess with your situation above, the UK has declared war after Germany’s combat movement phase. So no combat would happen on Germany’s turn. But when the UK’s turn came around, the UK could choose to move it’s ships out of the shared seazone and away from combat. If they left the ships in that zone though, combat would occur. You couldn’t just decide to leave your ships in a contested territory while at war and not have combat occur.

To your Dutch query, I’d have to agree with @ArtilleryAficianado. While you’re correct that those are valuable resources the Commonwealth as a whole losses out on, the Japanese would also be hurt as well by never having all that income, or the bonus income that comes with it. I think that would balance itself out that way. Plus, I think a smart Axis player would effectively negate the Allies from gaining much of that income. A smart move would be to wait to attack the Netherlands itself as Germany until Japan is simultaneously ready to take the DEI, to stop the very issue you bring up of the Commonwealth gaining that income!

Hello everyone,

I think having contested land zones, with perhaps 3 rounds of battle per turn per zone, would add a nice layer of depth to this game. It would be similar to how Axis and Allies D-Day would do it.

Perhaps there could be a supply limit to each zone and the attacker/defender would suffer debuffs if they went over the cap. Factories or forts could increase the supply limit, or something like that. I won’t go into depth cause it’s 99% not gonna happen but I think it’s a cool idea.

The allowance of enemy combatants remaining in the same zone even at the end of the combat phase (contested zone) could allow for interesting frontlines. The 3 battle limit would allow for armoured units to still utilize the blitz as well.

Furthermore, planes could have to be stationed in airbases and could make multiple sorties during their attack and defence phases depending on their range. So for example, a plane based at an airbase within range of 2 zones being attacked could partake in both battles assuming that the plane survives the initial battle(s).

Another idea would be to allow subs and bombers to be put into a strategic war box that abstractly represents convoy raiding and strategic bombing. The units would not be on the map and could not partake in battle whilst in the strategic war box, and perhaps even be forced into that box and not allowed to be on the board.

To do any of these I believe that incomes would have to be adjusted to be higher, or the turns would have to be put down to 3 month ticks.

These are just random ideas that you can tear apart or add to. None of them are fully fleshed and I haven’t considered any balancing issues.