@vondox My underestanding is you can have multiple factories in a space and that would include majors factories as well.

@vondox My underestanding is you can have multiple factories in a space and that would include majors factories as well.

@warwick This question appears to be answered in the FAQ … I just missed it the first time through.

So I have interpreted carrier planes as “on” the carrier if they both combat move into the same space. This means carriers can offensively pursue submarines as the carrier based planes are on maritime air patrol while “on” their carriers. Though it only allows the plane and a destroyer to fire at the sub before it can submerge. WHile watching a stream of a game recently I saw they interpreted rule much more strictly and a plane is only “on” a carrier when it is the non-phasing player.

If a carrier plane and carrier combat move into a space with an enemy sub is the plane considered to be on MAP. Or does the plane have to combat move into a space with a sub and establish MAP then a destroyer can combat move into the space to attack the sub?

@chris_henry How do you stop “double screening” by multiple moves? Take 3 forces A, B, and C. Force A is a standard force attempting to invade Sumantra. They move into the sea zone around Sumantra establishing a screening force and an invasion. Force B moves into the sea zone around Sumantra and announces they wish to continue into the seazone around Calcutta to engage in a naval action. Group C moves into the sea zone around Calcutta and announces a amphibious assault.

If force A wins both B and C complete their moves. The phasing player nominates Force B to conduct their combat first and if they win Force C can invade. Effectively producing a double screen.

If both B and C must contribute a ship to screening in the Sumantra sea zone then a single ship can be assigned and as long as Force A wins the move still completes. The current rules needless complicates movement with this either or logic which is not very enforceable as the rules are written.

I am sorry if I am being pedantic but I do not see anything limiting the addition of a second AA gun.

a. Gun 1 and 2 are AA guns.
b. Gun 1 and 2 roll one die for each opposing aircraft
c. Gun 1 and 2 roll a maximum of 3 dices

Those conditions are all true from my example and match each condition in the rule. Clause b should be modified to include"roll one die for each opposing aircraft not yet targeted by an AA gun". I agree with you how AA guns should be played but I guess my inner rules-lawyer rebels at the absence of the governing rule for AA gun interaction from what is printed on the page.

BTW I would take a moment to thank you for your work on this hobby and you-tube channel. I have enjoyed a lot of the content you have produced.

I play AA guns that way but the phrasing in the book is flawed. There is no mention of how AA guns interact. So unless one has played A&A and used their understanding of AA guns there is nothing in the Global War rules that produce the one shot per plane limit that exists in Axis and Allies. Since I was playing with someone that had not played Axis and Allies using a different game to explain the rules of the one being played was a tough sell.

I hope that the 3rd edition of the game include more complete explanation of the rules and relies less upon Axis and Allies knowledge to fill in the gaps.

@GeneralHandGrenade said in Netherlands joins the Axis:

If you’re not playing the Netherlands at War expansion then you would place a British roundel on all of the remaining Dutch territories including the Home Country in Europe after Japan attacks and conquers at least 1 Dutch territory.

This does not seem to match up to the rule set as of 08/20/2019. Let’s move through a Japanese attack on Java. The Allies (UK and France) are not at war with Japan and the Dutch are neutral.

1. Japan combat moves into the sea zone bordering Java declaring an amphibious assault and a naval combat against the Dutch ships in the sea zone. This is a declaration of war according to rule 8.1

2. The UK enacts the “Dutch Territory” rule as the trigger is “When the axis declares war on the Netherlands” - UK reference sheet v 1.4 This will include Java. Immediacy of action supported by Table 8.1 - Consequences - Available Actions. This states income but outlines that nations may take actions based on declaration of war immediately. The US could close the Panama Canal based on Japans actions and this would occur prior to combat taking place.

3. Japan completes its combat moves.

4. Japan conducts its combats

5. If Japan has taken any territories it places its roundel and adjusts its income accordingly. Rule 9.16

If Japan completes the land attack on Java it will declare war on the UK per rule 8.1 as Java has a British roundel on it and is now British territory. (“It is automatically assumed a nation is declaring war when it Attacks another player’s territory or forces”) The naval forces are still Dutch and that combat can complete without bringing the UK and Japan into a state of war.

I can not speak to the intentions of the rules but their mechanical execution is pretty clear. Japan can sink the Dutch navy but not take land from the Dutch without a declaration on Britain.

If I have 3 FTRs attacking 2 INF and 2 AA Guns how does the first round fire get conducted?

The controlling rule seems to found in Section 12 Units under the Anti-Air portion. “An AA gun
rolls one die for each opposing aircraft up to a maximum of three rolls on a hit of 3 or less.” This means an AA gun firing at 3 planes is a great outcome. (Cost 4 IPP for an average of 7.5 IPP for one volley.) Since no mention is made of multiple AA gun interactions the 2AA guns in my example would role 6d12 hitting on 3 or less. This creates a potential offensive application for AA guns that may not be intended.

During a recent game in China, Japan had marshaled a large force and parked it next to Yunnan looking to close the Burma Road. China had a large stack of defenders plus a fair number of AAs. China launched pre-emptive strikes at the Japanese bringing their AAs plus sufficient INF to absorb casualties. Since Japan had a large air-force the result was a painful loss of expensive air units. The Chinese then retreated.

Is this working as intended?

HBG is the official source and I will modify my play accordingly. Thanks for let me know.

Not a fan of the “Netherlands Fights Back” expansion due to the war declaration changes it makes. In the case you have listed the Allies can declare on the Dutch for 10 IPP and the -8 to US income. German would align all of the Netherlands including the East Indies. If Netherlands was playing as a Minor nation ala China it would need to be shifted to the German play.

A further wrinkle caused by this expansion allows Japan to declare on the Dutch without bringing the UK in the game. Under the “Dutch Territories” special rule we have “When the Axis declares war on the Netherlands, place a British roundel on all Dutch territories”. This would lead Japan to be at war with the UK and the associated IPP increases (including a 2d12 bump to the US for declaring on a minor and the 5d12 for declaring on the UK). However, with this expansion we have this rule “The British player no longer takes over the Dutch colonies when the Netherlands is attacked.” (4.2 Income - Netherlands Fights Back). Without any mention of a British escalation.

The entire treatment of the Dutch is a bit problematic as in the basic game we have gems like this under the FEC peacetime income bonuses “Japanese declare war on the Netherlands (1st time only)”. This strongly implies the ability for Japan to declare war on the Netherlands multiple times without any provisions in the rules for multiple declarations.