Topics created by sjelso

No. The capturing power would just keep it, as the original owner (France) does not exist if still Free France and Japan is not the original owner.

Nice to see people are using the admiral version of SCW and some of you get the choices that were made. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
And yes, Army of Africa were used as shocktroops. 3/3 vs 2/4 is still similar total value of stats but for a smaller unit size. The air transport can not be sunk. And lend lease an airborne with the Axis and Republicans need to take care of not being surrounded by leaving too many spaces empty. I would appreciate playtesting results. Designers can miss things in initial game testing. I am only human after all, don’t put the blame on me 😉

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Yep, my bad…got confused on the borders. Thanks!

The US NRS says France, not Free France. They are not the same power.

Note that Free France may only declare war on Italy if it has declared war on another nation during the game (Free France NRS v3.2).

@aldrahill said in Slowly house ruling GW36 into a G40/BBR/GW36 hybrid for 2-players:

@gen-manstein Finding this card confusing - so this is to roll for the ability to influence neutrals and turn them to your side?

Why not just do it so that 1-6 = pay bank for loses, 7 = pay 1 extra, 8 = pay 2 extra, 9-10 joins your side, 11-12 = joins your side plus reserves called up.

What are the numbers in the brackets on some of the countries mean?

You get all 3 territories in Saudi Arabia

@sjelso
GW is a 3 player game. Naturally everything is broken if you make it a two player game without severe adjustments.

@sjelso said in Does Iraq have access to SZ 84?:

@gen-manstein That works. Which map is that?

Its my 41 game map.

@trig Ok…that helps justify the up front 4 IPP in support.

@sjelso Correct, you cannot scramable from carriers.

@sjelso
If you have any more questions on the Admiral version of SCW, just ask. I designed it and would eventually like to adjust it to version 3.1 if there are more things not clear.

@trig This is why we have adapted the BBR VP conditions and made other changes. Attacking a neutral in Europe by the Axis only results in one dice before 1939. We found the penalties for attacking Neutrals limits the Axis and causes the same scenario over and over again. Anyway…trying to adapt for 2-player as best we can.

@sjelso Denmark is something I also wouldn’t take till later, but the Netherlands can be a pain very quickly after Japan attacks. Norway may be risky by sea, but only 2 airborne are needed if given long range air support. If done during lightning war, Norway can be rather easily and quickly conquered.

That way, all facilites under constuction are subject to strategic bombing or capture.

There is also an optional rule (15.8) to declare multi-stage ships under construction. It’s more realistic that way.

@noneshallpass All excellent points and provide a new perspective on what has been an overlooked unit in our games. Thanks!

@noneshallpass You are correct. A Strategic Bomber has no ability to attack a ship in any way, shape, or form in the game so it is obviously impossible to use them on MAP. MAP is a combat move and you can’t make a combat move if you have no ability to conduct combat.

Thanks for asking the question. We have added it to the FAQ.

@sjelso said in Gibraltar - Does Axis control and closure deny UK of 6 IPC?:

If the Axis control and block Gibraltar does that cut off the 6 IPC from the Mediterranean convoy line?

Are you using optional rule 15.2?
15.2 Suez Re-Route
If Eastern Egypt or Gibraltar is Enemy-possessed, the British IPP in the Meiterranean cannot be the subject of Convoy Raiding. Instead, reassign the British IPP by adding 3 IPPs to the East African Line and 3 IPPs to the West African Line.

If you are not using optional rule 15.2, the 6 IPPs are not “cut-off”, but can easily be raided every turn.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast The fortifications are more that just a solid wall. Any unit no matter how it attacks is subject to the fort rules if it crosses that border. In the case of Malaya, that includes all borders as you rightly pointed out.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast I think it should be errata’d the subject of what counts as “An aircraft on Carriers.” Imo they should say that aircraft are only “on carriers” all the time save combat movement and combat. It would solve a couple other questionable areas as well.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in Subs, Destroyers, MAP and other ships:

then during non-combat I can treat that sea zone as empty? Could I move beyond the submarine then to another further sea zone? If my CV is two away from the submarine, the destroyers enter during combat movement, the submarine submerges, then I could move t

As per 0.5, When a submarine submerges, they are allowed to share sea zones with other vessesls. Thus submarines can not participate in combat until the next players combat phase. This means that you can non combat into zones with submerged submarines since combat can not occur.

@caesar-seriona Actually, it works well. Japan gets CCP until the Chinese Civil War ends or they declare war on China. Creates a real war. The CCP is trying to kill as many troops on either side. The Nationalists are trying to preserve as many. We play the long-game but I understand why Japan may leave China alone (same in G40).

HackAMap.png

@sjelso

Great ideas. Thanks.

Special Report: War Room - Behind the Battle for Bryansk!

Behind the Battle for Bryansk is an in-depth look at the units, dice, economic value, losses and surviving units across the battle and how these affected the Axis decision to call it quits.

For those interested in some of the mechanics and nuances of War Room:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTo2xImd8Bc

Battle Board with Dice.png

Slide2.PNG

@koala Thank you…