as topic , thanks in advance for anyone helping answering my questions :
Or do it immediately count as already at war with japan instead when that happens? (or when the above happens declares war in the combat phase of its own turn on japan as to response to japan declaring war on brit and anzac ?)
Is there any OOB rules for Mongolia for Russia , or is it just a strict neutral in a OOB global game ?
Ok why does japan have so much freedom to even declare war on soviets on turn 1 ? (ok more of a game design question)
how does moving your own troops (or your ally’s troops) into the ally’s transport work ? (or vice versa) im confused to when does the unit inside offload or when it can do amphibious assault in that case
Still confused about how ally planes work on your aircraft carrier (or vice versa)
Does your own (or enemy ships) in narrow straits / channels , stop enemy (or vice versa) to cross by land ? (obviously it stops sea units right ?)
when strategic bombing , is it each facility (major / minor / air / naval) base have to roll separately for each bomber ? so meaning for say 2 bases attacking 2 bombers , roll 2 dice against Each bomber ? and not 4 dice and let the bomber player decide what to lose ?
8 ) If at the start of battle , no destroyer is present in the combat but has planes and another non destroyer ship , while the other side has subs , how does the both hits on subs go ? Just taking out the cruiser and leave the planes alone ? Same for the hits from planes , where does it go ?
May I suggest… that you review the Alpha + 3 rules, the latest ruleset from Larry, and start with learning those.
More clarifications are covered, and the game is much more enjoyable.
No. The United States declares war in the Collect Income phase only if the other conditions for declaring war are not met first. If provoked, the US declares war at the beginning of the Combat Move phase, like everyone else. Also, the US is never automatically at war with anyone unless that power declares war on it.
No, it’s a normal strict neutral.
It gives players more flexibility that way.
Units load and offload on their own turn. They may not both load onto and offload from an ally’s transport on the same turn, even if the transport doesn’t move, so they must spend a round on board.
As with land units on allied transports, they move only on their own turn. During the ally’s (carrier owner’s) turn, they remain on board and are cargo. If the carrier attacks, they will not participate in the battle, and will be trapped on board if the carrier is damaged or lost if the carrier is sunk. If the carrier is attacked (on an enemy’s turn), they defend normally.
No, it does not stop land crossing, assuming land crossing is allowed. Sea traffic is affected normally.
The AA fire is done by each facility, so the bombers are divided into groups and assigned to facilities before AA is resolved. Each facility fires only at the bombers attacking it directly.
Only hits from the ships may be applied to the subs. The plane hits must be assigned to either surface ships or planes. On the other side, hits scored by subs must always be assigned to ships (surface or sub).
For more information, see the Pacific FAQ and Official Rules Clarifications for Europe and Global.
- It gives players more flexibility that way.
However, you negate that flexibility to China, and you even negate China to enter India, even if it’s part of a China’s NO :| From a historical point of view, it would be more logical China entering FIC or India than Japan attacking USSR before USA or attacking USSR for that matters :roll:
No. The United States declares war in the Collect Income phase only if the other conditions for declaring war are not met first. If provoked, the US declares war at the beginning of the Combat Move phase, like everyone else. Also, the US is never automatically at war with anyone unless that power declares war on it.
No, it’s a normal strict neutral.
It gives players more flexibility that way.
Units load and offload on their own turn. They may not both load onto and offload from an ally’s transport on the same turn, even if the transport doesn’t move, so they must spend a round on board.
As with land units on allied transports, they move only on their own turn. During the ally’s (carrier owner’s) turn, they remain on board and are cargo. If the carrier attacks, they will not participate in the battle, and will be trapped on board if the carrier is damaged or lost if the carrier is sunk. If the carrier is attacked (on an enemy’s turn), they defend normally.
No, it does not stop land crossing, assuming land crossing is allowed. Sea traffic is affected normally.
The AA fire is done by each facility, so the bombers are divided into groups and assigned to facilities before AA is resolved. Each facility fires only at the bombers attacking it directly.
Only hits from the ships may be applied to the subs. The plane hits must be assigned to either surface ships or planes. On the other side, hits scored by subs must always be assigned to ships (surface or sub).
For more information, see the Pacific FAQ and Official Rules Clarifications for Europe and Global.
Thanks for the help and info ! cheers
- It gives players more flexibility that way.
However, you negate that flexibility to China, and you even negate China to enter India, even if it’s part of a China’s NO :| From a historical point of view, it would be more logical China entering FIC or India than Japan attacking USSR before USA or attacking USSR for that matters :roll:
i agree, this japan on russia thing is poor design as the german player always asks japan to declare war on russia first turn which is always unrealistic yet game changing (russia mostly loses in this case) >< it should have been a rule saying japan cant declare war on russia unless russia and germany are at war already (that makes more sense no ?)
It didn’t end up working the way we’d hoped. That’s why it was changed in the Alpha rules.
- It gives players more flexibility that way.
However, you negate that flexibility to China, and you even negate China to enter India, even if it’s part of a China’s NOÂ :| From a historical point of view, it would be more logical China entering FIC or India than Japan attacking USSR before USA or attacking USSR for that matters :roll:
IMHO? The reason China is limited to China, is because China has no Industrial Complex to capture, so basically, either Japan owns all of China, or China isn’t worth taking.
I’ll gladely allow your Chinese forces to move into any nation’s territory that is beligerant (At war) in exchange for a capitol in Sikang complex with a complex and the ability to capture China’s treasury and prevent them from collecting more money. But I don’t think you, or anyone else, would go for it.
As I have explained before, the reason Chinese movement is limited is to reflect the historical fact that China was also embroiled in a civil war (Nationalists versus Communists) at the same time that it was fighting the Japanese invaders. As such, it had little interest in matters outside its own borders (keeping the Burma Road open for Allied aid being an obvious exception). This restriction keeps China from influencing the game outside of its borders without having complicated rules to represent the impact of this conflict.
Chinese Civil War is in fact represented by the ridiculously small chinese army and patetic China’s income (specially in relation with Japan’s land army or even with starting Japan’s airfleet). Those irreal restrictions of movement for China only hit twice the chinamen, and it’s a total nonsense that they cannot enter India, part of a China’s NO. What if, as usually happens, Japan breaks the NAP anyway and starts eating soviet and now mongolian territories as well? Should China keep her historical restrictions when the situation has become totally ahistorical? Even if Japan can now attack China from the rear? (Novosibirsk per example)
I’d say that at least China should be allowed to enter India no matter what happens, and should be allowed to enter the whole map at least if the NAP is broken or if western Axis countries DOW China
And for the record, I’d prefer as well a Chongquing IC and totally normal rules for China rather than the stuff we have now
@Cmdr:
IMHO? The reason China is limited to China, is because China has no Industrial Complex to capture, so basically, either Japan owns all of China, or China isn’t worth taking.Â
No, the reason is the one Krieg said, like it or not (and I don’t like it). And China is worth taking… you as Japan don’t want chinamen popping free and taking valuable IPC territories like Manchuria or the VCs at Nanjin and Hong Kong. Also, you want to take China to attack the soviets from another front and probably menace Stalingrad without having to take India
I know this isn’t a China thread, but I have to say from a gameplay perspective China works very well in Global. It gives the game more strategic depth when conquering China is not obligatory.
@Cmdr:
IMHO?� The reason China is limited to China, is because China has no Industrial Complex to capture, so basically, either Japan owns all of China, or China isn’t worth taking.�Â
No, the reason is the one Krieg said, like it or not (and I don’t like it). And China is worth taking… you as Japan don’t want chinamen popping free and taking valuable IPC territories like Manchuria or the VCs at Nanjin and Hong Kong. Also, you want to take China to attack the soviets from another front and probably menace Stalingrad without having to take India
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s patoot what China does. I’d rather have India, West India and the DEI than screw around with the Chinese. The obvious exceptions are: Beijing and Hong Kong - which are VCs and I need. But there’s nothing China can really do about me having those two territories unless the game gets insanely long, in which case the odds are good that the Allies have Berlin (which is easier - in my opinion - than getting Beijing with the allies.)
I have found an interesting strategy for dealing with China. As Japan, simply put a minor IC in the territories containing Shanghai and Hong Kong then build 3 infantry each turn there. The rest of your army, navy and air force can go about the business of taking India, the DEI and fighting the US Navy. If you just keep putting 3 men each turn on those two territories, China will never build up enough men to take them from you, so you keep those valuable VCs. Meanwhile, Japan is making more money from it’s other conquests and doesn’t have to waste valuable units trying to beat down the pesky Chinese that pop up everywhere.
As I have explained before, the reason Chinese movement is limited is to reflect the historical fact that China was also embroiled in a civil war (Nationalists versus Communists) at the same time that it was fighting the Japanese invaders. As such, it had little interest in matters outside its own borders (keeping the Burma Road open for Allied aid being an obvious exception). This restriction keeps China from influencing the game outside of its borders without having complicated rules to represent the impact of this conflict.
Don’t forget about the warlord factions!:) Sure they were nominally supportive of Chaing but he had to keep a decent force back just to police his ‘allies’.
