Posts made by Wildcat6305

@GeneralHandGrenade I disagree.
Unlike A&A, I find no mention in the AA section that “each attacking[/defending(in GW)] air unit may only be fired upon once.”
That leads me to believe the key phrase is “An AA gun”. While each AA gun can fire at up to three different air units, it can only fire at the each air unit once. That makes me think that two AA guns can fire at the same aircraft.

e.g. two fighters are attacking, two AA guns defending. Both guns have two shots at each aircraft, for a total of four dice.
Or if you have between 4-6 planes and 2 AA, you roll six dice.

The Coastal Artillery rule is written in the same way.

If you have three tanks attacking one infantry, you wouldn’t roll one die for the tanks. You would roll three dice because they all can hit the infantry.

Rule:
Anti-Aircraft: An anti-aircraft gun (AA) fires specifically at aircraft. It does not Defend facilities from strategic bombing (although facilities have inherent AA guns which function identically to a normal AA gun but do not move). An AA gun rolls one die for each opposing aircraft up to a maximum of three rolls on a hit of 3 or less. The player suffering the hit chooses which aircraft to remove as casualties and those aircraft make their Attack/Defense rolls as normal. AA guns fire on the first round of combat only. The gun may be taken as a casualty in any round. Artillery or AA can move two zones when paired 1:1 with motorized infantry.

It doesn’t say directly, but my interpretation (application of other rules) would be no, you cannot build militia in a territory you just conquered.

I.e. you can’t place a factory and build units with said factory in the same turn. So that would lead me to think you can capture a territory and build militia the same turn. Because militia are recruited from the population you didn’t control at the start of the turn.
Also if you can’t land a plane in a freshly captured territory, how can you recruit militia?

In my opinion:
The spirit of that event is to decrease Britain’s and France’s Peacetime income, delaying their entry into the war.
If they are already at war I don’t think the SCW would “decrease democracies’ appetite for war.”

If it were me I would leave the UK and French income alone, and decrease the US income by 1.

Hope this helps.

While GHG and Munck are correct about income level and declaring war, I don’t think they answered your question.

What you said is correct. Your income on the chart goes up immediately (so you can declare war), but you don’t actually collect the income until the “Place Units and Collect Income” phase of your turn.

I don’t think so. In the notes section for Soviet Militia it says “move 1 within Soviet Home Country.”

I think the only way for it to attack would be if it was recapturing a Soviet Home Country territory.

I believe they are trying to accomplish too much in too few of words.

The basic rule for Lend-Lease Supply Path: “Lender’s Major Factory to Receiver’s Home Country.”
Since as you mentioned, FEC is not Home Country it cannot receive Lend-Lease.
Also, FEC’s Capital is technically London, so its Capital cannot be captured.

To compensate for this, the game designers added the exception “The FEC capital is Calcutta for purposes of tracing lend-lease and capture of enemy capitals.”

Meaning that for the FEC Calcutta is duel purpose acting as Home Country in terms of Lend-Lease only, and as their Capital in terms of capturing FEC’s Capital.

IMO, the Rule should be written as “Calcutta is FEC Home Country for purposes of tracing lend-lease, and the FEC Capital for purposes of capture of enemy capitals.”

But to answer your question, the lend-lease to FEC ENDS in Calcutta.
As in normal Lend-Lease rules, if the shortest path of Lend-Lease goes through another Indian Port, then along undamaged railroads to Calcutta, then yes it can go through that Indian port.

@Chris_Henry
You are correct.

Because the UK is at full income, it can declare war on an axis power that has attacked any other nation, major & minor.

If the Commonwealth gains control of non western hemisphere minors, when the are attacked by the axis.

Note:
Albania is an annexation, and the war in Abyssinia was on going prior to the beginning of the game.

@Chris_Henry
My question for the German player is “why take picardia if you are still going to attack from Munich?” My thought is you take picardia to avoid the maginot line.

@Klaykowalski
On page 5, of the partisans rulebook there is a box that states what partisans are not. One of these is that they “are not counted as regular land units for any reason.” I interrupt that as meaning they do not receive a defense bonus, unless they are specifically mountain partisans.
As attacking penalties, infantry and cavalry are still subject to attacking penalties such as river rules. However, river rules apply when a unit combat moves into a zone. So a solution to avoid the penalty it to noncombat move into the zone and attack the partisan on the following turn. That is how I have been handling the terrain bonuses/penalties.

As for the resource disruption, the partisans only succeed on a 1-3. So you have multiple partisans in a territory to get above 3 IPP loss. I would think that you couldn’t lose more than the territory is worth though, similar to convoy raiding. It doesn’t state that in the rules.

As far as killing partisans, remember that all partisans actions have a failure value. If the partisan rolls that number they are eliminated. Cavalry and infantry can attack partisans, so you have to have several units to increase your odds of hitting them. They are not supposed to be easy to eliminate (between being attack by low % units and their fade ability.)

@Chris_Henry
Here are some observations from watching this play test at GHG’s and the one in March at HBG.

Subjectively: (i.e. you may like the change or not)
The bases will be printed on the new map.
They seem to be tinkering with the “cities territories.”
E.g. London will be have the size it is now, but the UK will have 4 territories instead of 3 making up their home country.

Objectively: (i.e. things that will change gameplay)
They are adding new terrain such as jungle and desert.
I think they are tinkering with the rail gauges.

Overall,
In the current version, terrain is technically an optional rule. So the question to ask yourself is “am I going to play with the new rule set?” If the answer is yes, then plan to get the new map. If the answer is no, then you may have to tweak expansions as they come out to fit your game.
I.e. if they came out with a jungle war expansion, you probably wouldn’t gain any game mechanical benefit from that expansion if you weren’t playing with jungle rules, but you would have new pieces. (Note: the jungle expansion is a hypothetical.)

@Chris_Henry
For Reference:
Maginot Line: Any land attack from Munich into Lorraine crosses the Maginot line. Any land
attack across from Munich or Luxembourg into Lorraine gives all defending land units a +3 on
the first round of combat and gives France two first strike artillery attacks at 6.

I think what you are saying about designating your defenders is correct. I think the French should get to decide how many and which units defend the attacks from each land zone. The combat will have different bonuses and penalties for both sides, similar to if attackers from two different land zones cross different terrains. And conversely, the Germans will have to assign hits from the fortification to the Munich attackers.

Yeah I wish HBG would take a pic with the scupt next to an OOB unit, so you can get a better concept of its size.

So I ended up just buying some more Tigers, painted them brown, and decided not worry about the historical accuracy.

@ShadowHAwk:

@BusaRider29:

@Caesar:

So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

Good point.

Questionalble, would you allow a bomber to station there 1 round if it can take out 1-2 japan transports for free?

Sure the 5 NO is annoying but slowing japan down again is also good as more US stuff goes towards germany afterwards.

The issue here is that the USSR has to be at war in both theaters.
The Russians are allowed to be at war with German and Italy, but not Japan.
So if the Japanesse and Russians aren’t at war, the pacific USSR terriroties are neutral.
And you can’t land or fly over a neutral. So the bigger question you are purposing is do the Russians want to create a second front so, assumingly, the US can harass the Japanesse?

I think it is a cool idea. But have you seen HBG’s game Amerika? It is similiar in concept.
If you are basing the game off the show, you probably need to a Resistance element.

Incase you need more help on assembling Flight Stands. The video goes over how I made my DIY dlight stands, but the concept would be useful when pitting togther your WarTorn set. I had a couple of mods that are different from GHG, and I gave a method to making sure you keep your polarity correct with the magnets. Hope this helps!

https://youtu.be/n7Zscc3WCSM

@Baron:

@SS:

Didn�t see this post yet.
For me

Light Inf A1 D1 M1 C2
Reg Inf  A1 D2 M1 C3
Elite Inf. A2 D2 M1 C4

Light/Reg Inf +1 A with Art
Elite Inf +1 A with Art first round only.

A1 for 2 IPCs makes it the best attacking units, period.

In D8 system,
Cost 2 units can be A1, for 1/8144/2^2=  36/8 or 4.50 attack strength.
Cost 3 units must be A2, for 2/8144/3^2 = 36/9 or 4.00 attack strength.
Cost 3  units with A1, will be 1/8144/3^2 = 18/9 or 2.00 attack strength.
Cost 4 units, even A3, will be weaker than C3 A2 unit:
3/8144/4^2 = 54/16 = 3.375 attack strength.

This means it will always be better for 6 IPCs to purchase 3 A1 C2 units over 2 A2 C3 units.
Still for 12 IPCs, 6 A1 C2 units (4.50) > 4 A2 C3 units (4.00) > 3 A3 C4 (3.375).

Where do you get 144 in your formula?

@Wildcat6305:

We use the army pieces from the 2008 RISK as movement trackers.
I have seen a lot of people use the cities from this game as Industrial complexes and such.
The army pieces are arrows with either 1 chevron or 3 chevrons. So when we move something we place the corresponding arrow piece. Once all the units movement points are spent we flip the arrow upside down.

This is from a thread earlier this year on this topic.

Someone suggested to me the idea of using Global War 1936 lend-lease paths instead of moving units for Tech. It would definitely cleaner on the board. I am just trying to think about the advantages and disadvantages to each method. What do y’all think?

Ok, I went back looked at DK’s thread. I had looked at that sometime ago. Did I read all 30 pages? No, but I looked over the first and last couple of pages.

But what did you think of my idea? Especially the “1)  If at the end of the combat round, instead of them being auto killed. Let it be similar to AAA rules. For one final round, every warship can roll 3 dice each no more than the number of transports, the transports not hit can retreat.”
I think that is a fair compromise. It’s not making the TP op, but it is limiting how many shots can be taken at the TP.

Other one?

First off, I realize I am late to the party on this thread, my apologies.

Secondly, there were a plethora of ideas thrown out on this thread.

I don’t see the crime in modifying the transports rules.
I find it humorous that the main reasons not to let them defend themselves is from a historical/realistic stand point. When in reality, who has ever been able to choose their casualties in a war? So in that regard, a fundamental concept of A&A is not realistic.

In an amphibious assault, the defending forces (including scrambled planes, and naval units) top priority is going to be targeting the landing craft to keep them off the beach, not the naval bombardment.
The infantry units aren’t only representing riflemen in the game. Carriers represent carrier groups, and battleships represent that group. I say all that to say, couldn’t a transport represent the transport and a minimal escort?

A transport loaded with an infantry and a tank is 16 IPC. The same cost as an Aircraft Carrier, who takes two hits. An empty transport may be seen as fodder, but not a loaded transport. To lose one or more loaded transports is major setback.

Defending @1 either on a D6 or D12 sounds reasonable to me. That is an 8% or 16% chance of a hit. Those aren’t great odds.  I don’t care for the AA ability idea, that seems too limited. I also like the idea of allowing them to be taken as casualties during the battle.

A few of ideas I had and maybe a combination of would work:

1. If at the end of the combat round, instead of them being auto killed. Let it be similar to AAA rules. For one final round, every warship can roll 3 dice each no more than the number of transports, the transports not hit can retreat.
2. One unit on the transport and fire once at the end, before the auto kill.
3. For every two transports let one be chosen as a casualty during combat.
4. For every two transports let one defend at 1 during combat.

I understand that a transport shouldn’t be as strong a battleship, but it is an investment when loaded that needs protection.
I have enjoyed reading through this thread.

@Genghis:

yes I could have done that. Could have also upgraded the IC in sydney. You can also just buy strategic bombers and a transport and pick off lone japanese transports and take back islands.

You can’t upgrade Sydney, New South Wales is only 2 IPCs.

Thanks for the suggestions, those are definitely some good ideas.

@Young:

@CWO:

It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China.

Yes, That is oob rules… however, with my token achievement system, the Axis must control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Shanghai and Hong Kong.

I think the main difference is YG’s requirement is for a Victory Objective, not a National Objective. So there needs to be a higher bar. A NO would merely be close the road, but the VO needs to be control all the territories. That keeps the intergrity in the system, because in the European theater it is being slugged out for N. Africa, so you need an equally challenging VO in the Pacific. (Not the those are the only two VOs in the system, just easy examples)

Well after reading page 37, 42, 55, & 56; I have the same questions.

I think the biggest difference is they introduce combat declination for subs and CAPs.
But
2a) I think the answer is no, only CAP and Carrier based Aircraft.
2c) I think no, but it really depends on the answer to 2b.

3a) My paraphrase of a CAP is a prolonged scramble with a few more abilities, minus the airbase requirement.
3b) No, it the CAP may instigate or decline, unless the navy has a carrier. But the CAP stops subs movement through the sz.
3c) I think to your point, it depends on the answer to 2b. I would think the escort rules would govern how many you can have  defending a convoy line.

But I could be wrong on all of what I said. Lol