Posts made by Warwick

A general question regarding mountain movements effects, when crossing a mountain border does that reduce movement like entering a mountain space? For example moving from Chita to northern Manchuria crosses a mountain border but the Manchurian space is not a mountain area. If a motorized infantry started in CHita would it end its move in Northern Manchuria or would it still have one movement point to spend?

@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.

The relevant rules are unclear. Under the "notes’ section for Russian militia we find the “move 1 within Soviet Home Country” clause. Under the “Mobilize the Reserves” special rule we find “All Soviet Militia have a move of 1 once the USSR is at war with a Major Power.”

Now we have two possible interpretations. First Soviet militia gain the ability to move once at War with a major power within their home country. Second Soviet militia have the ability to move within their country from the start and gain the ability to move outside their country once at war with a major power.

I tend towards the second interpretation as it take each rule as written without adding clauses. The first interpretation requires that"…once at war with a major power" be added to the note section and “within Soviet Home country” added to the special rule.

I do not know the “official” ruling however the direct interpretation of the rules as written would be that once at war with a major power Soviet militia have a move of 1 without geographic restrictions.

My math was flawed as well. While doing analysis I used Auto-sum in excel to calculate my totals but forgot I had used numbers for my header columns. This inflate my average damage by .6 or .7. Very silly mistake. However That would not change my assessment.

Your math is flaw. The median result is zero however since there are no negative results the average damage is as I listed. If the defending escorts rolls a 4 it makes no difference if I roll a 1 through 4 however on a 5 or 6 damage is inflicted. Therefore the average damage at a flat modifier (+0 total) when the escort rolls a 4 is .5 IPC. 1 IPC on a 5 and 2 IPC on a 6 means 3 total IPC across 6 outcomes or .5 IPC on average.

The Germans build an airbase in Normady. This allows them to greatly effect the convoy war. Medium bombers based out of Normandy can wreck havoc on England’s economy through Strat Bombing as well as naval attacks. If the English devote their fighters to CAP then England is undefended and the bombers can strike with limited risk (AA). If England defends the factories then the bombers can hunt escorts supported by subs. If CVs pursue the subs off the special spots you have designated then the Land Based aircraft can scramble to make the fight a poor outcome or launch a counter attack in their turn.

I do not argue that Germany has significant advantage in the Atlantic, rather the rules as they stand allow the Germans to engage in a plan that they can turn to their favor through appropriate application of resources and good decisions.

Light’s can not blitz but I would allow them to support a blitz.

1 Medium Tank could add 1 Mech (as per current rules) and 1 Lt Arm., SPG (arty), or 1 Arm. Car (recon). So the 2 Medium armor would blitz with 2 Lt tanks and 2 mechanized for instance.

On casualties the SPG would support from the rear with indirect fire and recon elements (the light tanks and armor cars) would be used to find the enemy but not engage. The actual fighting would have been conducted by medium tanks and the mech inf. However the reason for the rule is to avoid giving Armor more fodder unit on a blitz.

AN other option is to expand the list of unit that can pair with a medium from just Mech Inf to Mech Inf plus all the addition armor units. This would replace Mech with Armor Cars as they have a 3 attack and cost 3 rather than a 2 attack and cost 4 like the mech inf.

My group will try the rules out and see how they play. Could be fun could be a disaster. :)

The chart with the nations along with special abilities comes from what set of rules? I am not familiar with them.

I play the HBG Global 36/39 version of Global Axis and Allies. (Look away SS before your eyes burn  :-) ) I have several of the additional pieces they make including light tanks, SPG, and tank destroyers  for all nations. One of the problems with these pieces is their increase cost does not justify their purchase over the basic units. (This is true in the SPG and TD case.) I was looking at ways to improve the use of these units. I was thinking of trying the following rule and would like feedback.

“Blitz Support” - any unit tagged with this ability can participate in a blitz but can not initiate a blitz. A unit with blitz support can pair with a blitzing armor at a 1:1 basis. This pairing does not interfere with that armor ability to pair with a mechanized. Support units based on their use during a blitz must be taken last as casualties.

Lt armor, SPG, tank destroyers, and armored cars would all be listed as blitz support. My biggest concern was adding attrition style kills (armored cars cost 3 IPP same as INF) to a blitzing stack so I included a caveat that they cannot be taken as casualties until the end of combat. However this allows 2 Medium tanks to blitz with a 6 unit force now which makes defense in depth issues in Russia much more complicated. I am concern this rule could make a Russian defense much more difficult.

I think I will introduce this rule at our next game and see if the group wants to try it, however I would also like feedback if it is a good idea or completely unbalancing.

We play with Croatia, Netherlands, Manchuria, Spanish Civil War, and the Railroad expansions. We plan to add the DAK and the Turkish expansion in our next game. I like the DAK as it provides Germany to some flexibility to effect the Med theater. The Turkish expansion is nice since it involves all 3 factions.

The “Cavalry” unit represents horse mounted troops so Cavalry seems an appropriate name. These forces fought on foot and traveled on horse back like dragoons but they were still Cavalry.

I think one of a problems with so many units is the fact existing units do the same job but better. The DD is just as dangerous as the CA and the CL, based on IPP cost, and you can deploy more of them for the same money. What good does it do to add a Plan Z with 8 new ships types when you can accomplish the same outcome more efficiently with the basic unit types.

I am not sure where the confusion lies with Japan and war declaration.

“Each nation has different conditions under which it can declare war which are listed on their National Reference Sheet. In some cases, the nation only needs to reach its full Wartime Income level. In other cases there are more conditions to be met. Once you are able to declare war you may do so at any time, even during another player’s turn.”

This is the rule regarding declaring war. Now granted it is poorly word the line “more conditions” should read “different conditions”. However it clearly states the national reference sheet lists the condition to declare war. Japan’s are simple. They can declare war on any nation other than Italy and Germany. Using information from other National Reference sheets obscures the matter. For each nation only the core rules and its reference sheet apply.

Japan has no income criteria to declare war. There is no “governing principle” that a nation must be at full income to declare war, however to execute the war to it fullest extent certainly. Russia can declare on Japan in Jan 1939 if that is a strategically valuable option to the Russian. He must wage that war with 8 IPP per turn plus the d12 after July '39 but he may invade Manchuria and kill Japanese units to his fullest ability.

I will also add my voice in support of a version 1.3 (as well as a 1.4 and 1.5) to clean up different grey area and bad wording.

If you would like to see the extent of the shenanigans that the rules currently allow following an Axis War Dec.

German war dec a minor
Russia …. Declares war on Domincian Republic
Monroe Doctrine triggered
USA responds with war dec on Russia

USA goes to 76 IPC
Russia goes to 45
USA War dec Germany and Japan (probably attacked someone by Germany first attack)
UK War Decs Russia
Uk War Decs germany
France War Decs Russia
France War decs Germany

Germany completes invasion of minor thinking “WTF!!!”

Allies and Soviets all go full production and consume the Axis player before facing down in a final clash of the titans, most likely won by the Allies.

Lets examine a strategy and a set of assumptions…

The situation prior to US entry.
The UK has 2 carriers, one in the med and one in the Pacific. These will need to be pulled from their stations or the Atlantic is defenseless until new carriers are built.
The Axis takes France … this generally occurs in 1938 in our games.
The Axis builds an airbase in Normandy.
The Axis station 2 Medium Bombers and 2 Ftr. Required IPC 21 with 21 existing Air IPC being committed to this operation.
The Axis station Ftr/Float Planes/Medium Bombers on Sardina 2 or so. 11 IPC required.
The Axis builds 3 Subs per turn to support Atlantic operations.

The UK to cover the 7 atlantic convoy spaces require 7 DDs or other vessels. This is the entire DD force the Brits possess plus one Torpedo Boat Destroyer. Since the Lt Carriers will not have DD escorts now and they wish to keep their speed up they will require CAs to protect them. This means your 2 hunter killer groups have an 87% kill rate against subs. It also means that every DD/CA/CVL that started the game is occupied with fighting subs. This is 124 IPC of naval forces tied down in the Atlantic. Now this could be overkill but lets assume a player adopts this strategy to hard stop the German Sub war.

Lets examine the exchanges from the perspective of the UK player
Solo DD escort - attacked by Sub plus land based (of the 7 spaces 5 are in range of Normandy) - -5 IPC per attack
Solo FTR CAP - attacked by Sub plus land based - -5.8 IPC
Solo Sub - attacked by Hunter Killer group - +0.7 IPC
Solo Sub - attacked by Hunter Killer Group (w Brit Sub for casulaties) - +2 IPC
Solo Sub - attacked by CAP - +2.5 IPC
Hunter Killer Group - attacked by subs and landbased air - -25IPC

If the UK player spreads out and covers the convoy lines the German player hits his DDs with his subs. The German play can hit 2 spots easily and the Italian can hit one more. That is 3 DDs a turn lost for an average of one sub, -19IPC per turn. The responding hunter-killer groups pull this average down to a -15IPC net assuming the UK player commits subs to the defense as well. In other words the German Player is spending 15 IPC to attack the Atlantic while the UK player has to spend 30 IPC to defend it. Since the German player generally has 45 to 55 points after the Fall of France this is trivial to maintain. And this is without actually raiding with a sub. Since I am only threatening to raid 11 points a turn. The UK players would be better served ignoring the sub war.

By removing the roll against subs you make any attack on a convoy a profitable venture. With 2 escort on a line a sub will still produce 1.6 IPC of damage, 1 escort is 2 IPC, while 0 produces 2.9 IPC damage. If one escort gets to fire the numbers move to 2 escort - -0.1 IPC … 1 Escort - 0.5 IPC … 0 Escort 2.9 IPC damage though this will vary based on the number of subs attacking the line. If one escort the second sub will not get attacked.

While this is a crude analysis it represents the concerns I would have reducing the damage roll to just the same space. I look forward to any new information your create based on actual game play. Good luck :)