• @vondox said in The FAQ Thread:

    @hbg-gw-enthusiast I have a couple of questions that I would like to get answers on.

    Question 1: The rules state that IF the CCP possesses a land zone adjacent to a Soviet-possessed land zone in the production phase it MAY purchase artillery and AA guns. These must be placed in this adjacent land zone.

    My assumption is that this is a special form of LEND-LEASE just for the CCP. It does not indicate how much of either the USSR can purchase, so it could buy 1 or 3 and place them along the border with the CCP. I would also assume that on the CCP players turn would treat that it is a version of lend-lease and become CCP property that can be moved on the CCP non-combat movement phase? Regular LEND-LEASE can only arrive via a port or a rail line and there are no rail roads leading into China and what ones do go through Manchuria.

    I am I correct?

    Noneshallpass had excellent answers to your questions and I thought the only one I could add to was Question 1. One thing is it seems you think the USSR is purchasing the artillery and AA guns. When you write, “…it MAY purchase artillery and AA guns” the IT is China CCP, not the USSR. The USSR could decide to lend-lease units to China CCP, but that would be limited by the lend-lease rules (so, for example, if the CCP held Sinkiang and the USSR built a rail between Kazakhstan-Turkestan and Sinkiang).

  • @hbg-gw-enthusiast I appreciate the replies to my questions. Thank you.

    One follow-up… But I think I already know the answer. The CCP starts off with only 1 territory. It’s only hope of really expanding it’s territory is to to ‘influence’ a warlord to join them and by doing so gain another territory or two. It’s original territory generates 2 IPPs. So they are very limited on options… Either use it to build infantry or militia or use that income to improve their rolls for recruiting a warlord.

    There is no ‘path’ or option for the USSR to send aid ( lend-lease ) IPPs to the CCP until they gain a port, or have a control a rail line that has an unbroken line back to the USSR which, would need to go through Manchuria.

    So, there is no option for the USSR to send them any lend lease IPPs, correct?

  • @vondox Correct! I recommend the CCP spends the 1 IPP to up your chances to 1 or 2 to succeed. And I recommend going for the warlord that has 3 territories to your East (one is Hopeh). If you get the one in six chance of success, you will then have 4 territories and then your chances of recruiting more warlords increases dramatically. That first success is the key. Also, note that if you succeed on getting the Hopeh warlord, you will gain Peking which has a minor port for a small amount (max 3 IPP) of lend-lease from the USSR.

  • @vondox Correct, on turn one, there is not way for the CCP to get lend lease - without attacking something.
    They can attack Hopeh, take out the militia, and then receive a lend-lease infantry from the USSR there through the minor port. As a note, this is not the best strategy, as it turns the northern two territories KMT. (I think. I don’t know if this is ever stated though.) (Note 2: Lend lease is sent at the end of the turn, after territory is captured, so this is legal.)
    Other lend lease options include asking the KMT (a long shot) or attacking Tsinghai and Mongolia and building railways. If you take Peking, you could also ask Japan to lend access, but that is another unlikely option. (Or just use the port there.)
    In short, the CCP is not immediately open to lend lease, but a crafty player can remedy that quickly.

    EDIT: Aslo, I would lend-lease is unit as the USSR, as to start with, you can only send half the receiver’s income. (Which would be 2*1/2=1)

  • @trig Scratch that. Hopeh doesn’t have a port. My bad.

  • @trig said in The FAQ Thread:

    …As a note, this is not the best strategy, as it turns the northern two territories KMT. (I think. I don’t know if this is ever stated though.)

    You had it right, Trig! The National Reference Sheets for both China CCP and China KMT, Page 2, Warlords, “If a warlord is attacked by either Chinese faction, it and all its remaining land zones and units align to the other Chinese faction if unconquered by the end of the Combat Phase.”

    …I would lend-lease one unit as the USSR, as to start with, you can only send half the receiver’s income. (Which would be 2*1/2=1)

    If China CCP uses “Spreading Influence” to successfully take over the Hopeh/Peking/Suiyuan warlord, then their income would jump to 6.

  • @hbg-gw-enthusiast The spreading influence point is true, but only applies from turn two. At the time the USSR prepares the lend-lease on turn one, (Production phase) the CCP’s income is only 2.

  • @trig You are incredibly clever! First, I hadn’t even considered the possibility of the USSR lend-leasing on turn 1! I assumed we were only talking about the USSR lend-leasing the turn after a successful “Spreading Influence.” But you are talking about the USSR committing on Turn 1 to lend-lease an Infantry and then if the CCP succeeds, the infantry can arrive that very turn! If not successful, the infantry remains on the production chart, ready to go. Respect for your outside the box thinking. 8 )

  • Can militia be built from factories?

    Noneshallpass responds NO, "Of course, they do not require a factory, but can be built in any land zone, even in a territory containing a factory.

    However, I think that normal restrictions would still apply, even if you have a factory (number per turn up to IPP value, min. 1. Max 1 in captured land zones)."

    Bretters opines YES, “Militia CAN take up factory slots- if they are taking up factory slots, they are not bound by the you can build x amount of militia per turn in a given territory. that number is based on placing militia and NOT using a factory to produce the militia.”

  • What happens if Aircraft Scramble to an adjacent zone, and their starting zone is captured?

  • @insanehoshi This is such an interesting question!

  • @insanehoshi All combat movement happens simultaneously. The attacking player has to announce all combat moves first and then the defending player then declares their defensive reactions, such as scrambling.

    In your example, the attacking player would have had to declare attacks on both land zones and then the defending player has the option to keep his planes in the land zone that the air base is in and defend it OR scramble and assist the adjacent land zone and defend there.

    It would be poor gaming in my opinion if a player decided to attack one land zone, the defending player then makes a choice to scramble to that land zone and defend and then a few minutes later the attack player then announces his is attacking the land zone the planes came from… That doesn’t make sense.

  • @vondox Vondox, note you said the defending player has the option to scramble and assist the adjacent land zone, but it doesn’t have to be a land zone. It can scramble to any adjacent zone (even sea).

    I might be wrong, but I don’t think Dan is worried the defending aircraft could participate in both battles (I think the 3 of us agree they can’t). To clarify Dan’s question, what happens if the scrambling aircraft survive their combat, but their starting land zone is captured? If they participate in the adjacent combat and die, there is no confusion.

  • @hbg-gw-enthusiast My belief would be the planes would be lost. Unless it could find an adjacent land zone that is 1 away from it’s current location land/sea zone to land. Scrambling is a rushed operation as planes expend a lot of fuel to reach and find the enemy and engage in combat. Versus a normal combat movement where the planes might be loaded with extra fuel and would fly at a more economical speed and height to maximize fuel consumption.

  • @vondox @insaneHoshi
    I would agree. Just like in A&A, or when a carrier is lost, I would assume that the planes have one move to find a space in which to land.

  • A question on opening and closing the Burma Road

    Say If Japan takes Burma, can japan willingly keep it open for the KMT?

  • '18 '17 '16

    @insanehoshi No.

    Read 1.17 on page 11. What you’re suggesting doesn’t satisfy the conditions for the road to be open.

  • A question about Narrow Crossings.

    Say you (as Germany) want to invade London from Europe using marines using the Narrow Crossings, and British ships are present in the English Channel.

    Can you declare a combat move into the seazone to clear the british ships and on the same turn declare a combat move with the marines into london under the assumption you can clear the channel?

  • @insanehoshi I would say no. You have to announce ALL of your combat moves before moving. So in your example… you would announce that either ALL or a part of your naval surface/subs/air will be attacking the British fleet in the channel. As WELL AS, landing an amphibious force. This part I am bit unsure about is this BUT I think this is correct. The assumption is that screening forces are all defending ships. The defending player can NOT leave back a lone DD or cruiser while the remaining ships engage the screening fleet. Otherwise a rule-wise defending player would simply throw a single DD at the attacking screening ships who then can’t participate against the landings and then the British player can pounce on the transports and kill them all.

    So, IF the Germans WIN the screening battle then ALL transports can proceed with the landings along with any German ships that were NOT part of the screening forces. However, if the Germans lose the screening battle then all of the transports and forces with those transports can not proceed to the landing. They are just stuck in the same sea zone along with any surviving British sea forces.

    I think that is how it works…

  • @vondox said in The FAQ Thread:

    So, IF the Germans WIN the screening battle then ALL transports can proceed with the landings along with any German ships that were NOT part of the screening forces. However, if the Germans lose the screening battle then all of the transports and forces with those transports can not proceed to the landing. They are just stuck in the same sea zone along with any surviving British sea forces.

    Oh if they had transports the Germans can land A OK ( because we have rules for screening forces).

    I am talking about where there are no transports (and thus no naval units to screen for); They are going to make it over using the narrow crossing. Logically you could do so using a similar method, however i don’t think the rules state this.

  • @insanehoshi You have to look at page 12 in the rule book, 1.12 on narrow crossings. So long as their enemy ships in the channel ( British ) you can NOT cross the channel using the narrow crossings rule. If he had a coastal artillery based in Southern England ( which is always a good thing to build I think ) it will prevent any such crossing automatically. Along with a plan on MAP or any enemy ship.

    So the ONLY way to combat move across the channel would be to eliminate all enemy coastal artillery units, MAP planes and surface ships before you could use the narrow crossings rule and the same thing would apply to my previous post. You HAVE to announce ALL combat moves from the start of your combat movement phase so if you decide to engage the british fleet with your ships and your ships fail to eliminate the British then your troops are stuck on the beaches of France for another turn. You can’t decide after the failed sea battle that “okay, that didn’t work so now I will use my troops to strategic move to this location”

    The ONLY time you get to decide to during combat to do something ‘else’ with your troops is to either retreat from battle as the attacker OR to blitz provided your combat forces meet the requirement of blitzing.

  • In the British reference sheet, it states that Great Britain may declare war on an Axis power if that nation has declared war on any other nation during the game. Does this include the Axis power in question being at war at all, even if it was the opposing nation that declared war first?

    Here’s the scenario in our game: Italy has never declared war on another power. The USSR has just declared war on Italy, and now Great Britain wants to use that as justification for attacking Italy. Is this allowed? Or does Italy need to be the one to make the declaration of war?

  • '20 '16

    @nicbot23 Not allowed. Just as the rule reads, Italy must be the one declaring war. That aggression would justify it. In your example they have shown no aggression to justify a British declaration of war.

  • When cant the M-R Pact be signed. Say USSR has taken romania and finland and Germany has taken all of poland. Can the pact still be signed?

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17

    @insanehoshi Interesting. I suppose from what I see in the rules, the only thing I can think of for when you can’t sign would be if a state of war already exists between Germany and the USSR. Even then, I don’t think it says that explicitly, so I may be making assumptions! It would seem weird to be able to sign after a state of war already exists though.

    I suppose situations like what you describe would only serve to either make the potential signing more or less enticing, depending on your point of view? Like, if Romania and Finland have already fallen, maybe nothing stops you from signing, but is it really worth doing so now?

    Will be curious on the answer here.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys