Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move


  • Hi,

    i have a question about submarines. If i declare war with italy on the UK. Can my subs move to attack UK ships that are behind the suez channel. I think its possible because they can submerge through the channel. Am i right with this?


  • Hi,

    For questions about canals and straits refers to rule number 1.15 on page 10 of the rulebook : https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/assets/images/GW1936 Rules v3.pdf

    All differents canals and straits have particular rules that are summarize on the table 1.1 and 1.2 on page 10.

    For your particular question : the owner of the suez canal can close it to enemy nations (The great britain considers a nation as enemy, only when they are at war together). So, when you declare war to Great Britain with Italy and try to cross it with your ships, the Great Britain can decides to close it and you can’t attack the ships.

    Your submarines can’t cross canals if they are closed by the owner. They can only cross straits even if they are closed, for example : Gibraltar and the Danish straits (I’m not sure for this last strait, maybe someone could clarify this ?, because of its particular status).

    Also, remember that the turkish straits count as a canal.


  • @didier_de_dax Correct on the straits.
    Note, Italy can chose the declare war on the the UK after they move through the canal. Italy moves though, then they declare war and the UK can close the canal, after the Italians are though. (Of course, if possible, the UK can declare war before the Italians go through.)
    Also note, according to an optional rule 15.something, you cannot combat through neutral canals. this would take away Italy’s ability to move through the canal when going to war, which I prefer, as it is less gamey.

    I hope that makes sense.


  • @trig

    Italy can chose the declare war on the the UK after they move through the canal

    After they non-combat move through the canal correct? Italy cant make a combat move through the suez against the UK before declaring war.

    Also if they non-combat move into a SZ with a British fleet, they don’t then fight combat, they share sea zones as per .7


  • @trig

    So as you say :

    Italy can pass the canal without declaring a war and then declare war and resolve the combat. And all this actions in the same turn ?

    I don’t think that the rules allows it ? as some says in the commentary section of the General Hand Grenade video here :
    https://youtu.be/Kz5Kl9oOZSA

    • “Page 37, Clarifying Ordering Effects, does say the Attacker must announce their intentions first.”
      -Also, how the italian fleet moves during the combat movement phase in the same sea zone of the britain’s one without declaring war at the beginning of the movement and without a combat ?
      And then the Italian declares war and the combat is resolved.

    For me, it’s two different phase and the non combat move takes place before the combat move in this situation (something that never happen normaly). I don’t understand how is it possible ?

    Finally, the Great Britain can decides to declare war on Italy (if he has the requirement listed on his reference sheet) as soon as the italian is starting to move his fleet ? (even if it’s the italian turn, according to the rule 5.5 on page 25). In that case, the italian navy cannot cross the canal and finish his movement.


  • @insanehoshi said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

    @trig

    Italy can chose the declare war on the the UK after they move through the canal

    After they non-combat move through the canal correct? Italy cant make a combat move through the suez against the UK before declaring war.

    Also if they non-combat move into a SZ with a British fleet, they don’t then fight combat, they share sea zones as per .7

    Italy (or any other nation) can make any combat move before going to war. For instance, escorting is a combat move that does not necessitate war. Other combat moves may cause war, but the movement is not a declaration of war, it is the combat that will occur.

    Short version- Ships can move without being blocked, stopped, etc on the turn they declare war. GHG made a rather bad video about this, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz5Kl9oOZSA&t=409s) but it gives you the general idea, just read the comments by @HBG-GW-Enthusiast for details.

    Basically, you can move, and then the DOW only happens when you reach the zone where combat is happening. See also page 37 (Clarifying order effects) for the details.
    Since you are not at war when moving, you are not subject to the restrictions on the canal.

    Makes sense?


  • @didier_de_dax said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

    @trig

    So as you say :

    Italy can pass the canal without declaring a war and then declare war and resolve the combat. And all this actions in the same turn ?

    I don’t think that the rules allows it ? as some says in the commentary section of the General Hand Grenade video here :
    https://youtu.be/Kz5Kl9oOZSA

    • “Page 37, Clarifying Ordering Effects, does say the Attacker must announce their intentions first.”
      -Also, how the italian fleet moves during the combat movement phase in the same sea zone of the britain’s one without declaring war at the beginning of the movement and without a combat ?
      And then the Italian declares war and the combat is resolved.

    For me, it’s two different phase and the non combat move takes place before the combat move in this situation (something that never happen normaly). I don’t understand how is it possible ?

    Finally, the Great Britain can decides to declare war on Italy (if he has the requirement listed on his reference sheet) as soon as the italian is starting to move his fleet ? (even if it’s the italian turn, according to the rule 5.5 on page 25). In that case, the italian navy cannot cross the canal and finish his movement.

    First of all, it is a combat move because you are going to make it a combat move. It is not the move, but the phase that determines the combat or not. For instance, if you move in combat movement, you have to end it in combat. (or a combat move) Since you are in combat move, you will have to declare war at the end of it.

    Second, the “combat” is declared when you enter the sea zone. You know there is a combat that will happen, but the combat is declared when you enter the zone.

    Yes, if GB can declare war, then they may at any point, and that would stop the Italians using the canal if they are not though. That is why you need to pay attention to what others are doing. (Do note that GB often is not able to DOW Italy. They cannot do so unless Italy has declared war on another nation during the game. [Abyssinia doesn’t count, as they were at war at the start] Often, this is not the case, so GB wouldn’t be able to DOW.)

    Is that more clear?


  • @trig

    That 's more clear, but its very complicated to explain as I see.

    Specially the clarifying order effects of page 37 doesn’t sound very clear in this context.


  • @didier_de_dax In this case, here is what would happen

    (1) Italy starts combat move, and moves his fleets from Italy into sea zone 81. He announced his intent to keep moving. (2) He then moves through the Suez in to Sea Zone 82(?). They announce that they are going to keep moving. He is not at war yet, and can do this. (3) Italy then moves into sea zone 83(?) off Aden and ancouse that they are fighting the fleet there. That is now a DOW ad they are at war with the UK. (4) They then a move any land attacks, or some air attacks into UK zones.

    Possible changes.

    • If UK had been able to DOW Italy, (perhaps because Italy DOWed a neutral first this turn) they could have at any point. (Maybe when they entered 81 or tried to move through Suez)
    • The Italians could have moved a land attack first. If they did so, once they entered a UK land zone, it would be a DOW. If that happened, they couldn’t go through Suez.
    • Similarly, if the Italians goofed up and DOWed the UK before step 2, then the canal could be closed.

    Is that more helpfull?


  • @trig I’m still going to have to disagree. I don’t think movement is done in discrete steps, ie one zone after another, but it’s done all at once (save screening forces). 8.2 states that “A player moves all units that are conducting combat,” you can’t be conducting combat until you are at war with a nation. You are either at war with a nation or you are not; there isnt a middle ground where you a pseudo at war (ie at the end of a combat move but not the beginning). You did say before that escorting is a combat move, and this is true, however in 83 there is no Italian line to escort.

    Furthermore an Italian Navy can not combat move into 81, or 82 as no combat is taking place in that zone, those are non-combat moves.

    Finally your example breaks down at 3) because according to 0.5 Sharing Zones:

    (b) Major Powers that are not at war with each other may freely share sea zones and do not affect each other. There are instances when units that are at war might share a sea zone such as

    • When naval units of Major Powers that are not at war suddenly come to war.

    In these cases, units do not participate in combat until one power makes a new combat move during combat movement phase against the other units in that zone.

    In your example after they move into SZ83, it is too late to declare war and conduct combat as, due to 0.5 they are allowed to share sea zones despite being at war.

    As @Didier_de_Dax pointed out “The Attacking player must always announce his intention first”, saying im going to attack that fleet over there is a Declaration of War.


  • Hello Trig,

    i also have to disagree here. You can only make a combat move if you declared war. You have to be at war to do a combat move its the combat phase. You can only move units in combat phase when you attack. So you have to be at war. You cant move your unit in combat phase and then declare war. This would be a non combat move. All other interpretations would be gamey and break the intention of the rules.

    But thx for all your good replys. But im not sure if you really unerstood my question. I do know that you cant move through for example the suez canal if you are at war with UK. But is that really also the case for submarines because they can submerge. So i thought you can dive through the channel in combat move to attack ships. Is this false?


  • Hey,

    I don’t know who is right or wrong about this debate. But I think that : if we are all speaking about it and have different opinions about this type of move, then the real problem is that there is a lack of clarifications in the rules.

    We need a precision from the game developper and maybe a video that explain it more precisely.

    Maybe should we create another topic for this particular debate ?

    For your question @alphaaeffchen :
    The subs can only cross a closed strait but not a closed canal. Like I said in my first answer on your topic : rule 1.15 C), page 10.
    Also, remember that the turkist strait are considered as a canal (despite the word strait in the name of the location).


  • @insanehoshi
    @AlphaAeffchen
    @Didier_de_Dax
    @HBG-GW-Enthusiast
    @GeneralHandGrenade
    @Noneshallpass
    @Munck

    I have called in the calvary. Let’s hear some more opinions.

    That said, here is my counter rebuttal:

    • "I don’t think movement is done in discrete steps, ie one zone after another, but it’s done all at once (save screening forces) 8.2 states that “A player moves all units that are conducting combat,”
      “As @Didier_de_Dax pointed out “The Attacking player must always announce his intention first”, saying im going to attack that fleet over there is a Declaration of War.”

      8.2 refers to the phase. NOT the individual movement. All units are not moved at the same time. Order matters in this game due to the concept of immediacy.
      See again page 37 “Clarifying order effects”
      “So when moving into a new zone the attacker announces if a unit will be blockading, raiding, going on escort duty, starting a MAP, etc.”
      The intention is not stated at the start of the move, but at each zone. You don’t have to say “I’m fighting that fleet” until you reach the zone with that fleet. Until then, in the preceding zones, you say, “I’m going out here to keep moving on to fight something, or escort, or raid, etc”
      6.2 also states that a player may resolve the actions during a phase in any order (unless stated there)

    • “you can’t be conducting combat until you are at war with a nation. You are either at war with a nation or you are not; there isn’t a middle ground where you a pseudo at war (ie at the end of a combat move but not the beginning). You did say before that escorting is a combat move, and this is true, however in 83 there is no Italian line to escort.”
      Please explain to me where you found this belief, other than G40. You can certainly conduct combat moves before going to war. Since you can combat move before war, it follows that you may make any combat move, only to declare war later by another combat move, or a continuation of that move. (Also, they are not escorting. The lack of a convoy line serves only to eliminate that choice, not deny all forms of combat move. )
      See the example in 5.5, where there is a British seaplane on MAP before it goes to war. MAP is a combat move.
      See also 8.1:
      “it is automatically assumed that a nation is declaring war when it attacks another nations land zone or units…”

    • “Furthermore an Italian Navy can not combat move into 81, or 82 as no combat is taking place in that zone, those are non-combat moves.”
      Please inform me why we cannot now attack any units further than one space away? Also, when you escort or blockade or go on MAP, there is not necessary combat occuring. Are those moves then illegal? (Also, how do you know there is no combat taking place? They could be going to convoy raid until they say otherwise.)

    • “Finally your example breaks down at 3) because according to 0.5 Sharing Zones:
      ‘(b) Major Powers that are not at war with each other may freely share sea zones and do not affect each other. There are instances when units that are at war might share a sea zone such as When naval units of Major Powers that are not at war suddenly come to war. In these cases, units do not participate in combat until one power makes a new combat move during combat movement phase against the other units in that zone.’
      In your example after they move into SZ83, it is too late to declare war and conduct combat as, due to 0.5 they are allowed to share sea zones despite being at war.”

    Let me show you page 37, (8.10) "Clarifying Order Effects. "
    “So when moving into a new zone the attacker announces if a unit will be blockading, raiding, going on escort duty, starting a MAP, etc.”

    See also 8.1
    “…it is automatically assumed that a nation is declaring war when it attacks another nations land zone or units…”

    And see 0.5 “Sharing Zones”
    "There are times that units of different nationalities may share land of sea zones, other than combat"

    And further down:
    “…Units do not participate in combat until one power makes a new combat move during the combat movement phase…” (It is still combat movement phase)

    And the example in the same section:
    “The USSR and the Germans are not at war and their ships are in the same sea zone. Then Germany declares war on the USSR. Germany could attack the Soviet ships, move out of the sea zone, or stay in the same sea zone and do nothing.”

    Is that enough proof?

    • “In your example after they move into SZ83, it is too late to declare war and conduct combat as, due to 0.5 they are allowed to share sea zones despite being at war.”
      Allowed to is not has to. See above

    • "You can only make a combat move if you declared war. You have to be at war to do a combat move its the combat phase. You can only move units in combat phase when you attack. So you have to be at war. "
      See above again. Escorting and MAP can be done when not at war. It is the interaction with enemy units, not the status as a combat move that determines that state of war. Your way is an G40 rule.

    • “We need a precision from the game developer and maybe a video that explain it more precisely.”
      Well, we don’t have precision, but we do have a quite flawed video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz5Kl9oOZSA&t=409s) on the topic. It will give you the idea. I do hope for an FAQ on this subject.

    See also this thread: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36890/the-faq-thread/51
    That post has the best summary of this issue, but most of page 2 deals with that as well.

    I hope those proofs, as well as the weight of the consensus of the community and designers, shows you that one can combat move through a canal when going to war. (assuming optonail rule 1.15 is not in effect.)
    -Trig

    @AlphaAeffchen, sorry for hijacking the thread. Subs may not move through channels if they are closed, as canals are so shallow that you can’t submerge in them. (for example see the recent suez blockage. You couldn’t submerge a sub in water that shallow. This is stated in 1.15.
    (You may move a sub through a closed strait however, as they are deeper and bigger.)

    PS: All of this ignores optional rule “combat moving through canals” which bans any combat move through neutral canals. I highly encourage playing with this rule, as it emilanted this situation.
    That said, the existence of this optional rule (which modifies or changes a base rule) shows that this move is legal in the base game.


  • @trig

    Hey Trig,

    thy for your long answer. I think u maybe right. But than i would play with the optional rule because otherwise it would be too gamey for me. I dont think that the rules want you to do that. Thx for your grat answers. Have a nice weekend.

    One thing for fun i ordered the new Midway game from HBG. The pieces are wasome and can be used in Global war. Also the game looks pretty good if you only have a day free for playing, this game is really good for it.


  • Hey @Trig,

    At first, thank you for your detailed answer and for taking the time to do it.

    The problem with the video of GHG that you have posted is that: “the video is rather bad”, as you said earlier on the topic. So it’s not very clear and there is some errors (we can see this in the commentary section).

    The FAQ thread link doesn’t help me to answer the questions I still have, so here it is:

    I understand that orders maters and that all units attacking in different combats don’t move at the same time.
    If I understand it well, for example: a japan fleet attacks an FEC navy (near Australia) by passing thought an ANZAC navy, it create a state of war between the two opponents when the Japanese fleet is in the same sea zone as the FEC (because Japan did not tell is intention before). And after that, the Japanese player also announces that he will conduct a land battle against FEC in Burma. The combats are then resolves in the order of the attacking player (Japan here).
    But if the Japanese player announces the land combat in Burma (creating a state of war between the two opponents) before announcing the naval battle with the FEC. Then, the naval battle with FEC is stopped by the ANZAC navy and the naval battle between Japan and ANZAC takes places instead of the one with FEC.

    Or maybe the screening force rules could be use there? One part of the Japan fleet fight with the ANZAC and the other part fight with the FEC? Even if there isn’t naval invasion occurring.
    (I think that the screening forces rules didn’t happen there, but I prefer to make sure, so I ask).

    Then, you say that the player should announce what is he doing with his fleet, each time that he enter a new sea zone right? (not at the beginning of the move).
    So, during the combat move phase, the attacking player move his fleet on the same sea zone as his opponent, he announce that he will conduct a blockade (for example) on an enemy naval base in another sea zone (the naval base should be controlled by a nation which the attacking player is already at war before the start of the movement or he could also be a naval base controlled by the player who will defend against the attacking fleet?).
    After that, his move continue and when he enters in the sea zone where the attacker wants to fight the enemy fleet, the war is declare.

    But this only works if there is a trade route to raid, to escort, or a naval base to blockade in a sea zone within the range of the navy, right? Or not necessarily?

    Let’s take a concrete example to understand my question better: (I will try to upload an image of this situation to make it more clear).
    The Japanese player wants to attack a US destroyer in sea zone 42 with its destroyer that are in sea zone 56 (bay of Tokyo, so they benefits from the +1 naval movement of the major port in the sea zone). US and Japan are not already at war.
    So, during the combat phase, he intended to pass by the sea zone 39, 40 that contains two US destroyers and 41, before finally entering in sea zone 42 at fight the US destroyer that is alone and so declares war.

    In order to pass the two destroyers that are in sea zone 40 without fighting, he has to pretend that he will raid, escort on a naval route or blockade a naval base. The problem is that there isn’t such trade routes or naval facilities within the range of the two Japanese destroyers when they enter sea zone 40. So are the Japanese destroyers still able to continue their movement? Even if they can’t pretend to raid, escort in a sea route or blockade a naval base to within the range of these boats.

    “6.2 also states that a player may resolve the actions during a phase in any order ».

    This rule is useful when there is a city that could be encircled before attacking it. The attacking player choose to resolve the combat that allows a city to be encircled first, then the attacking player resolves the combat against the city that is now encircled (because there isn’t airbase or naval base undamaged there), so the malus of encirclement applies to the defender in the city, right?

    Example 1.jpg


  • Just got back from a week long vacation and am very interested in this thread. Will respond in the morning after some sleep!


  • @didier_de_dax said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

    Hey @Trig,

    At first, thank you for your detailed answer and for taking the time to do it.

    I agree with Trig’s long, detailed post, 4 above this one.

    I understand that orders maters and that all units attacking in different combats don’t move at the same time.

    Agreed.

    If I understand it well, for example: a japan fleet attacks an FEC navy (near Australia) by passing thought an ANZAC navy, it create a state of war between the two opponents when the Japanese fleet is in the same sea zone as the FEC (because Japan did not tell is intention before). And after that, the Japanese player also announces that he will conduct a land battle against FEC in Burma. The combats are then resolves in the order of the attacking player (Japan here).
    But if the Japanese player announces the land combat in Burma (creating a state of war between the two opponents) before announcing the naval battle with the FEC. Then, the naval battle with FEC is stopped by the ANZAC navy and the naval battle between Japan and ANZAC takes places instead of the one with FEC.

    This is true. You have it correct.

    Or maybe the screening force rules could be use there? One part of the Japan fleet fight with the ANZAC and the other part fight with the FEC? Even if there isn’t naval invasion occurring.
    (I think that the screening forces rules didn’t happen there, but I prefer to make sure, so I ask).

    In the 2nd situation where Japan declared war with the movement into Burma, the Japanese fleet can choose to engage the ANZAC fleet with a screening force and hold the other naval units out to proceed on to engage the FEC fleet if the screening force succeeds against the ANZAC fleet.

    Then, you say that the player should announce what is he doing with his fleet, each time that he enter a new sea zone right? (not at the beginning of the move).

    Correct.

    So, during the combat move phase, the attacking player move his fleet on the same sea zone as his opponent, he announce that he will conduct a blockade (for example) on an enemy naval base in another sea zone (the naval base should be controlled by a nation which the attacking player is already at war before the start of the movement or he could also be a naval base controlled by the player who will defend against the attacking fleet?).

    You don’t have to be at war before the start of the movement. You could be at peace and pass through other fleets or a canal, then enter the sea zone where you will blockade. At the moment you enter that last sea zone where you will blockade, the attacker has to announce intent first and that blockade announcement will be a declaration of war.

    But this only works if there is a trade route to raid, to escort, or a naval base to blockade in a sea zone within the range of the navy, right? Or not necessarily?

    Well, the examples you give do work, but I disagree with your use of “only”. There are other things you could also do. For example, you could attack another naval fleet or do other hostile things like an amphibious invasion. It even works if the defending player has a plane on MAP in that sea zone and the defender could declare war on you!

    I think I understand your confusion. You feel like you need permission from the “rules” to be allowed to move a unit during combat movement. That isn’t how I think about it. I think about it as the defending player is giving the attacking player permission to move during combat movement. When you are not a war with a particular potential defending force, you need to move during combat movement if the defending player might declare war on you to prevent your further movement or you might declare war at the end of your movement.

    I totally agree that in version 4 of the rules, we should strive for clarity on whether my understanding of the way it should work is correct. In my conceptualization, even if you were just moving through the Suez canal when you are not at war with the Commonwealth, it would happen during the combat movement phase because you would enter sea zone 81 and announce, “I intend to move through the Suez canal into sea zone 82. Do you declare war and stop me?” But this is just how I conceptualize it.

    Let’s take a concrete example to understand my question better: (I will try to upload an image of this situation to make it more clear).
    The Japanese player wants to attack a US destroyer in sea zone 42 with its destroyer that are in sea zone 56 (bay of Tokyo, so they benefits from the +1 naval movement of the major port in the sea zone). US and Japan are not already at war.
    So, during the combat phase, he intended to pass by the sea zone 39, 40 that contains two US destroyers and 41, before finally entering in sea zone 42 at fight the US destroyer that is alone and so declares war.

    In order to pass the two destroyers that are in sea zone 40 without fighting, he has to pretend that he will raid, escort on a naval route or blockade a naval base. The problem is that there isn’t such trade routes or naval facilities within the range of the two Japanese destroyers when they enter sea zone 40. So are the Japanese destroyers still able to continue their movement? Even if they can’t pretend to raid, escort in a sea route or blockade a naval base to within the range of these boats.

    No, you don’t have to pretend to raid, escort or perform a naval blockade. You make your announcement sea zone by sea zone, as you enter each new sea zone. You enter sea zone 39, but there are no enemy units present and you want to keep moving. Since there are no enemy units present, you don’t need to announce anything because there is nothing the defending player can do to stop you. You then move into sea zone 40 where there are enemy units present. Now, there IS something the defending player can do to interfere with your movement, so your intention becomes important. The attacking player says, “I intend to move to sea zone 41. Do you want to declare war, defending player?” If no DoW by the defending player, then you move into sea zone 41. Again, there are no enemy units in sea zone 41 and there is nothing that can be done to stop you from entering sea zone 42, so it’s not necessary to announce your intention. You enter sea zone 42. Because you are the attacking player, you announce your intention first upon entering sea zone 42, saying, “I declare war on you and attack this destroyer.”

    “6.2 also states that a player may resolve the actions during a phase in any order ».

    This rule is useful when there is a city that could be encircled before attacking it. The attacking player choose to resolve the combat that allows a city to be encircled first, then the attacking player resolves the combat against the city that is now encircled (because there isn’t airbase or naval base undamaged there), so the malus of encirclement applies to the defender in the city, right?

    Correct and an important tactic!

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Huh ? Lost in paradise !


  • Ok this is starting to make sense to me now.

    I have one last stickler, though. If the British fleet is in SZ 82, and you have to declare your intent when before entering a zone, doesn’t that mean, the italians cant attack the fleet in SZ82. The moment they are entering 82 from 81, they declare their intent and the Suez closes?


  • @insanehoshi said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

    Ok this is starting to make sense to me now.

    I have one last stickler, though. If the British fleet is in SZ 82, and you have to declare your intent when before entering a zone, doesn’t that mean, the italians cant attack the fleet in SZ82. The moment they are entering 82 from 81, they declare their intent and the Suez closes?

    Well, if you look at the wording on page 37, Clarifying Ordering Effects, the key phrase is “…when moving into a new zone…” I define this as the fleet has just moved into a new zone, not, as you put it, “…before entering a zone…” So you enter into sea zone 81 and you announce, “I intend to move into sea zone 82, do you want to declare war on me and close the Suez canal?” The Commonwealth is in a precarious position. Should they declare war and prevent you from moving in, but suffering the penalties of declaring war? [Side Note: It’s hard for Great Britain to declare war on Italy if Italy is still neutral. Their National Reference Sheet specifies they can only declare war on Germany, Italy or Japan if those nations have already declared war on another nation.] If Great Britain does not or cannot declare war, then the Italians pass through the canal and are now entering sea zone 82. Upon entering sea zone 82, they now have to announce their intentions. If they announce they intend to attack the British fleet in sea zone 82, then that is a declaration of war by the Italians (but they already passed through the canal).


  • @hbg-gw-enthusiast

    Hey,

    First, thank you very much for your answer. I think that it will help a lot of people (and I) who doesn’t understand properly the thing about declaring war and the naval combat associated.
    This thing is very complex and by taking a concrete example and describing step by step each actions, you explain it very clearly.

    Also, I would like to say that : Unlike GHG in his video “GW36 declaration of Wars” and the recent “Channel update” of the 30th april, you are not bored by answering questions and debating. It should be recognized.

    I think that, he is taking these questions too personally. A lot of people have nothing wrong with him and he explains us a lot of good thing.
    But, when we are asking questions and advancing arguments he seems angry because we don’t listen to his holy voice. Also, saying “I speak with the game designers a lot, so I’m right and you’re wrong”, isn’t enough to prove that you’re right.

    We all make mistakes and the discussions help the game designers to clarifying the rules, in order that they could be more understandable by the majority of players in the futur.
    And thats what you put in words when you say : "I totally agree that in version 4 of the rules, we should strive for clarity on whether my understanding of the way it should work is correct. "

    Finally, peoples try to justify their explanations of the rules by saying : “It work that way, it’s the spirith of the rules”. Sorry, but how could we know this so called “spirit of the rules” ? we only have the rulebook, some FAQ and errata as ressources. And, there isn’t a “spirit of the rules” categorie on these sheets.
    So rather than keep saying “its against the spirith or interpretation of the rules”, it’s better to take the time to explain or if necessary, correct the formulation of the rules, making an errata, etc …


  • @didier_de_dax What kind words, my friend! I want you to know that GHG has answered hundreds and hundreds of questions. He is actually a very friendly and helpful person, Didier! 8 ) He has poured probably thousands of hours into Global War and has done so much to advance the game. I am very grateful for all GHG has and continues to do for this game that we both love.

    Sometimes we can answer questions definitively. We just quote a rule and there really isn’t any dispute. These are the most straight forward and I have found Trig and Noneshallpass to be tremendous assets here. They really have a deep knowledge of the game.

    Sometimes, the rules aren’t as clear as we would like them to be. People are confused by the wording or there are two different sections of the rules that are in conflict. Then we need help from the game designer to provide clarity. I’ve been very impressed with how rapidly the FAQ and rules errata have been updated. Respect! It’s fantastic to have quick response times for these kinds of issues.

    And sometimes, the game evolves. A player starts using a new tactic (like the USSR invading South America to get America into the war early), and the game designer needs to respond to take corrective action. I’ve been a rules editor for even more complicated WW2 games than HBG’s Global War '36, and in my experience, it can be disastrous to be overreactive and make changes to the way the game is played without playtesting and a period of contemplation. If you respond with “evolutionary” rules changes too quickly, and then have to modify that change, it gives the playing community whiplash as the rules change this way and that. Morten is very good about taking his time and playtesting with his group before making these kinds of evolutionary changes. I think we should be patient and understanding in these kinds of changes. We want fast responses for the easy stuff and slow, thoughtful responses to complicated/evolutionary issues.


  • @hbg-gw-enthusiast

    I agree with want you say !

    I know GHG is doing an important task by answering a thousand of questions, I’m the first to say that he is very helpfull : “he explains us a lot of good thingS” (I should not forget the “s” there).

    I was just pointing that his reaction wasn’t appropriate, nor helpfull for the community, when he say that he will no more answer questions because peoples disagree with what he was explaining (some says that the explications wasn’t clear enough and if we compare with your last explanation the last was way more comprehensive and clear).
    What kind of childish blackmail is that ? 😂

    Also, my last post is not intended to criticize game designers and their work.
    I greatly support your opinion when you say that they need time and playtest. I wasn’t asking for more rapid answers, but more comprehensive and complete explanations.

    I think I’m not the only one who prefers a long and detailled clarification about a rule or a concept, rather than an expeditive : “Listen to me, I speak with the game designers, you don’t understand the spirit of the rules” ; “if you disagree with me, you are wrong”.
    Come on we can take the time to have a real discussion and understand all the aspects.

    Of course I’m not speaking of questions that can be answered quickly, but more complex and particular situations like we had discussed here.


  • @didier_de_dax I totally agree. And I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t critical of you, Didier! Online communication is so difficult because people can’t hear tone of voice or see our facial expressions. 8 )

    I’m not criticizing the game designers or their work either, my friend. We’re on the same page and this very forum is the perfect place for us to have these discussions.


  • @didier_de_dax
    @HBG-GW-Enthusiast
    I completely agree with you both. I have great appreciation for his and other designers work, I just wish that they would lay down the rules more clearly when we ask questions. (for instance, giving us a step by step way to navigate this problem of moving navies. [like the perfectly good way they already have in the rules * cough, cough *{I’m getting sidetracked here}]) Clarity and mutual understanding are the most important parts of this process, and so when we can break down barriers to those, it makes this so much easier.

    On the spirit of the rules: I think this is a valid concept, but it needs support, just like any other proof. Examine the whole of the rulebook, and look for overlapping connects. The designer’s notes in particular a good here. It cannot be used as a absolute “this is how it is.” The spirit of the rules to me can be a support, but cannot be your argument.

    Sorry for that semi-rant, but is there any more questions on this that I missed?

    Thanks for coming in here, @HBG-GW-Enthusiast. You tend to explain things far better than me.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 2
  • 4
  • 15
  • 18
  • 2
  • 3
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

35
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts