@kmtnt I thought I remembered a rule that if you did not cross the border (ie in a border clash), you are not subject to terrain, but I cannot find it. Therefore I would assume that you count the terrain modifiers, and I will tell you if I find anything.
Best posts made by Trig
-
RE: Border Clash
-
RE: Scramble from Carriers?
@sjelso Correct, you cannot scramable from carriers.
-
RE: Does Iraq have access to SZ 84?
@sjelso I say yes, and also, historically, Iraq had sea access but no port, which is what it looks like on the map.
-
RE: Aircraft carrier rules in v3- a New Way of Thinking.
@munck Thank you for confirming my assumption. This is most definitely not Axis and Allies.
Just to confirm, you cannot place airplanes on a carrier immediately after it is built, correct? This is the part that seems to be causing to most contention. -
RE: Rules and reference sheet discrepancies
@captainnapalm Erata is up:
10.6 Strategic Naval Moves:
Great Britain should be 3 (not 4)
Free French should be 0 (not 2) -
Homemade Reference Sheets
I made some reference sheets for personal use. Here they are if anyone wants them. If there is anything that seems weird or doesn’t make sense, please tell me.
More will be coming out over time if I find them useful.
Wartime and Peacetime bonus income increases and bonuses:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tgyu9eGOb3T2cYL1cXJ5T8hyV5xHd-3eaAcS6gcEVmA/edit?usp=sharing
Victory objectives:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gPI0gxrjsAC8x9-F5fvwCMQQS_bZvD3VOTvF169uJGI/edit?usp=sharingAdded 18/4
Diplomacy:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sgl5mlrFsuXSfGc1U7-vP3Pp9XubWZFVj06lfh8qq-E/edit?usp=sharing
Special Abilities:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13nKSG8m9pwAcWX07QG8mydIf08EGKNB1EW7olFCm-BI/edit?usp=sharing
(Tell me if I missed any of those)Added 22/7/21
Lend Lease
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18YpiWut-o31F5qxSUs0AUtjVFYsG9J0T7-_m36PVvW0/edit?usp=sharing -
RE: USA peacetime increase
@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in USA peacetime increase:
Edit:Turn X
-Great Britain is already at war with Germany. Germany attacks the Dutch. Any surviving Dutch align with Britain.
Correct
-On their turn, Japan attacks the Dutch East Indies, which is a declaration of war on the British. The USA gets 5D12 to their peacetime income.
CorrectAnother Scenario
Turn Y
-Japan attacks the neutral Dutch. Any surviving Dutch align with Britain. Only if Japan is at war with the Commonwealth. The USA gets 2D12 to their peacetime income.
-Britain has a turn and may reinforce the Netherlands with more troops if they have alinged
Turn Y+1
-Germany attacks the Netherlands (which are now British troops if they have alinged).Overall, the theme is this. If Japan is at war with the Dutch and not a major power, then it is only 2d12 for the Americans.
If Japan attacks the Dutch, and they (the Dutch) are aligned with a major power, then the US will get 5d12.
The Dutch can align with the UK if they are both at war with Germany which is the really only bad spot. This would force Japan to attack the UK if they wanted to attack the Dutch.Some possibles:
-
Japan attacks the Dutch in '37. The Americans get 2d12.
-
Japan attacks the Dutch in Jan 39 and the Americans get 2d12, then the Germans attack the Dutch and the British in July 39. Since the Dutch and UK are now at war with the same major power, they align. This means that if Japan wishes to attack the Dutch again, they would have to attack the UK to do so, giving the US 5d12.
-
If Germany attacks the UK and Dutch in Jul 39, then the Dutch aling to the UK. Then, Japan goes to attack the Dutch in 1940. They US would get 5d12 for Japan attacking the UK alinged Dutch.
It is the control and alignment thing. As long as the Dutch are controlled by the UK, then 2d12 for the US. If the Dutch are alinged, then it is 5d12.
Basically, if you go before Germany, or get Germany to avoid the Netherlands, you are doing good. (If you define good as giving the US 2d12.) If Germany goes before you and attacks the UK as well, it is bad. Then the Durch would be at war with the same major power, and would align, effectively becoming British. In that case, Japan would have to attack the British to attack the Dutch.I hope that makes some sense, and I’m sorry for the rambling.
-
-
RE: The FAQ Thread
@generalhandgrenade said in The FAQ Thread:
@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in The FAQ Thread:
The moving player’s intent need only be declared upon entering a sea zone, sea zone by sea zone. The announcement is something like, “My fleet enters this sea zone and intends to keep moving to this next sea zone. Do you want to declare war before I leave?” Then say the British fleet reaches the final sea zone they want and they announce, “We now declare war on Japan and are going to try to perform an amphibious assault with these ships/units.” [If there are enemy naval units, then add, “These units are my screening force.”] So yes, they can move through a Japanese-occupied sea zone peacefully, only to immediately declare war and conduct combat in the next sea zone all within a single turn.
None of this is correct if neither of us has declared war on each other yet. Other than maybe some canals or straits, my naval movements are not restricted while I’m not at war with you. That’s why you have to put some thought into when you decide to declare war on your turn. In some cases, you might want to make some moves, declare war, then finish your moves. The reason is you would move your ships unimpeded, then if you needed to fly your planes over certain territories, you can declare war on those nation(s) and thus complete your moves (you can’t fly over a neutral nation).
Why not? That is what happens. You move through the sea zones, and a nation may declare war with you at any time as you are moving though. This is just the slow way of doing it, for instance if you had a really important turn like Japan’s sneak attack or something. There is nothing in that that refers to restricted movement, just giving the other player a chance to DOW. I find it a much more elegant explanation than “you can declare war at anytime, and then figure out what happens”
(Also, your previous post implied that someone would make their moves while everyone else wasn’t paying attention, or was off doing something different, and then be immune to a preemptive DOW. I find that that just rude and impolite. GW Enthusiast’s interpretation removes that obnoxious loophole.) -
RE: USA peacetime increase
@hbg-gw-enthusiast Excellent answer.
The only addition I will make is that when controlled, the UK move move and fight with the dutch units, but may not do anything that would put them at war with another power (ie attack Russia or something) They could, if Germany got really lucky, sail the Dutch navy all the way to the Pacific, to go fight Japan. Or, once Germany attacked them, fight Germany. They just would never fight with the UK, because the UK would not be at war. I hope that makes sense. If not ignore it.
Also, if Japan attacked the Dutch, it is likely that there are 3 territories left for the recruitment roll. See this sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CCjrtM8TWCyXmzDOslPz2MsG_OTv-UQNe6mL65glRww/edit#gid=0
-
RE: The FAQ Thread
Nevermind. The errata is up:
Page 35: 8.6
“Airbases allows its owner to send up to three Fighters into combat in adjacent zones where its Alliance has at least one Defending unit or facility. Scramble is declared at the end of the Attacker’s Combat Movement.” -
RE: Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move
@insanehoshi
@AlphaAeffchen
@Didier_de_Dax
@HBG-GW-Enthusiast
@GeneralHandGrenade
@Noneshallpass
@MunckI 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. -
-
RE: Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move
@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.
-
RE: Version 4?
@chris_henry said in Version 4?:
Thanks @Trig . I thought there were some changes, maybe I misunderstood insaneHoshi’s comment above!
No, that was my problem. I misread his statement as what he wanted not what he expected. Hence my list. I doubt even half the things I say will get changed, but it is worth getting them out there.
- More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
To your point on territories, specifically in Yugo, China, and Iran. First, it sounds like the Croatia at War Expansion is something for you! Do you use it? True it’s not base game, but getting that expansion probably quells your concerns there? I agree with China, I think some of those warlord territories could be split in two, at least. I don’t know how much Iran matters overall. I think that area is largely a sideshow compared to the others. At what point do they stop splitting? You could argue Africa should more or less double it’s territories as well then, same with Canada. But I do get what you’re saying.
My thoughts are this: If you can get the space, make more territories. If possible, make the sizing as realistic as possible. For instance, the Belgian Congo is the same size as much of western europe, which is over 20 territories. That is not necessary, but 2 or 3 might be nice. And there is space, considering that almost nothing happens there and the armies involved are quite small. similarly, you could cut down Quebec of Northwest territories, or add in more territories in Siberia (or especially Western Kazakhstan. That thing is bloated.) Tsinghai or Tibet could be two territories. Even Iran could get another territory, Southeastern Iran or something. I could list a bunch of places but you get the idea.
On Yugo, I like the idea from the expansion, but I think a better solution would be to make 2 or 3 territories in the base game. A northern Croatia and a southern Serbia, possibly adding Northern Macedonia if needed. (Slovenia is just too small.) The expansion also only takes effect after the conquest, and the point is to make it a little longer to conquer Yugoslavia and show their historical problem of a decent army but a huge border. (Also, Greece is about 1.5 times smaller than Yugo, but gets 4 territories. Really?)
- Japan being able to take planes on their sneak attack
I don’t follow here. You’re talking about the Japanese Special Ability, right? Nothing says Japanese planes can’t partake. It in fact says that all Japanese planes get first strike. Maybe I’m misunderstanding?
Mark just answered this, and I would just love an ability to either give the plans a +1 or let them ride carriers or something. There are a lot of Sneak attack possibilities where it is called off b/c the planes can’t reach. this just seems unrealistic, b/c one of the biggest reasons for Japan to do well early on was air superiority. (Pearl Harbor anyone?) Not a big deal, but it is annoying.
Overall, I have great respect for the designers, this is just a list of things think could be improved or added. I look forward to v4, and can’t wait to see what they pull out next.
-
RE: Double Screening?
@fdr No.
This is illegal according to section 8.10 and 9.7b
“If the screening force wins…the moving force immediately moves into the next sea zone where it may conduct a second regular combat OR a amphibious land (but not both).”
It is a way to slow down your enemy and keep them at arm’s length, but is quite costly in sea power.
Also you cannot screen and move more than one space. For instance, after Screen A, you could not move two spaces to fight enemy C. (You can move to B and then land on adjectn land zone D, if there is no more stretching forces. -
RE: v4 Map Improvements
@linkler said in v4 Map Improvements:
- Why do we need colours on the map at all? Everything is marked with roundels already
Why? Because some of us like being able to see at a glance what nations’ starting territories are? Also, memorizing roundels is hard? And colors provide greater territory distinction and a better overall effect.
We aren’t Sired Blood here.Apologies for stepping on anyone’s toes, but I despise single color maps. It is a waste of what could have been great and just doesn’t work.
-
RE: Scorched Earth
@gen-manstein
“Once at war with a Major Power, U.S.S.R. may use 1 rail move to move a Minor or Medium Factory and 2 rail moves to move a Major Factory. The factory cannot produce any units/tech the turn it moves. It moves in whatever state of damage it has suffered. It must be in – and remain inside - Soviet Home Country”
From: https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/assets/images/HBG/GW1936v3/Ref Sheets/USSR v33.pdf
Please look at the reference sheets next time. -
RE: Free France a Given?
My thought would be that if Germany elects not to make Vichy for some reason, then France is treated like any other power who surrenders.
According to 9.22:
“All player nations have surrender conditions. Refer to each National Reference Sheet for details on if how and when they surrender.”
According to the French Sheet:
“France surrenders immediately when either: a) Paris is enemy-possessed or b) all land zones surrounding Paris are Enemy-possessed. Germany may implement Vichy rule (14.4). Other Allied units in Paris are eliminated.”
Back to 9.22:
“When a player nation surrenders, remove all it’s units from the board unless otherwise stated in the rules.”
It also says in 14.4.1:
"Once France surrenders (whether or not Vichy is implemented) the French player takes command of Free France which includes all French units on the board that are not in French Home Country. (or Vichy land zones)"To me, this seems to say that after France surrenders, Free France gets all of its colonies and units to continue the fight. This would leave the French navy and colonial forces intact, and doesn’t seem to be a great idea for the Germans.
However, some questions:
-
There is no mention of what happens to units in France if Vichy is not formed. Do they go Free French, get removed, stay as neutrals?
-
In the Vichy rolls it seems to mention that all French colonies are rolled, regardless of their current status. For instance, that would seem to mean that if Italy takes Tunisia, then it would also get rolled for. (14.4.2.“French Colonies”)
-
What happens if Italy takes Paris. Or the USSR? I know they get the money, but is Vichy formed? Also, the captured ship, do they go to them or Germany? Also, if the surrender happens on Italy’s turn, say b/c they took Southern France to encircle Paris, can Vichy form? I think not, but it is vague. (14.4.2.“Vichy creation”)
-
Also, according to 9.22, if a major power surrenders, its aligned or controlled minor’s are given to an ally. Does this occur with Abyssinia, or other french minor? 14.4.2.“French controlled & Aligned minor powers” says they go to Free France. What takes precedence?
-
Also, what of the troops from aligned minors? Are they automatically Free like their land, or are they rolleed for? That could cause some interesting results, and would need a lot of tracking. (14.4.2.“French Controlled & Aligned Minor Powers”)
-
Allied units in France if Paris is taken. What happens? The rules say they “move out of France” but how does that happen? Do they just move out in later turns, or are teleported out?
Similarly, what if Axis units are in a Vichy zone, but there is no adjacent axis territory for them to move to? (14.4.2.“Other Forces”) -
Also, it says the place the Vichy army in “Vichy France.” Is that Southern France, or any Vichy land zone, or what? (14.4.2.“Vichy Army”)
-
What happens if France is conquered again? For instance, Paris is liberated and Germany takes it back. Does this all happen again? (Looting, Vichy, etc) Also, what if an airborne takes Paris but it is surrounded by the Axis? Are the conditions reversed and France formed? Paris is liberated, but it is still surrounded. (14.4.1)
-
Does France surrender if the USSR hold Normandy and the Germans Picardy, Lorraine, Southern France and Aquitaine? (Assuming France is not at war with the USSR.)
-
And finally, as a design note, why do the rolls put Niger and Dahomey with French Equatorial Africa, and not French West Africa that they were a part of? Similarly, the Pacific colonies were governed separately. Please give me a reason not to go the historical route.
Those are my thoughts, and I would like to see other’s answers to my question, or other questions you have.
-Trig -