2nd edition NOs

@krieghund said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

@andrewaagamer said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

Two ways to look at this:

Reason A is dominant and supersedes and cancels any other Reason. (Which leads to your ruling) Reason A is limited to the Soviet/Japan conflict and does not override Reason B which leads to my statement.

The first way is correct, as indicated by the phrase, “In all other respects and for all other purposes”.

Ahhh, I didn’t put enough emphasis on “In all other respects and for all other purposes”. That makes more sense to me now.

The tipping point for me is if Reason A is dominant than if any other Allied Power rather than Russia, (US, UK, ANZAC or France), attacks Mongolia, Mongolia WOULD NOT turn Pro-Axis. This goes against every other instance regarding Neutrality in the rules. A standard is if a Neutral is attacked it becomes Pro to the opposing factions.

Yes, that’s true, but Mongolia is an exceptional case. Its ties to the USSR against Japan are so strong that an attack upon it by another Allied power would not change its stance to pro-Axis, and it would remain strict neutral. The same is true if an Allied power attacks another strict neutral.

Wow - that’s cool. THANKS for explaining that!!!

@PainState:

@StuckTojo:

@Gargantua:

I have seen some guys doing all sub bids. If you can get the bid to 30 -� � 5 subs with all major fleets can do alot of damage, and can really assist UK / hamper axis early; And make G1 painful to plan.

1 off canada,
2 off UK with fleets,
1 off gibraltar,
1 with med fleet

Sounds like a sub-standard strategy to me….� � :-P

I’ll be here all week, folks.

LOL

You are very witty good sir.

:-D

PS: is there a cover charge at your next gig?

Nope.  Just keep feeding me whisky.  :-D

Why is it interesting you got a damaged package from Amazon?

:evil:

Answer is no!

Just remember only the Europe rule book has the rules about straits.
Only the Pacific rule book has the China and Kamikaze rules.

Can’t think of any others. You would think both rule books could insert those sections into the global rules section at the end.

My group usually uses control markers for 10, especially in stacks that won’t be splitting up anytime soon (like in Moscow)

@CWO:

@Whitshadw:

Again I love the idea but the way they set it up looks like a 8 year old picked the colors and the map needs a incredible update.

I have a copy of Superpowers, and frankly the only thing about it that I really like are the little white missile sculpts, which I use as A&A atomic bombs.  (I put them horizontally in small plastic stands that I pulled from a different game.)  There are just eight of them, and considering that they came as part of a whole game with lots of other sculpts (none of which I use), this reflects nicely the rarity and high cost of WWII atomic weapons.

Back around the 1980s or so, there was a WWIII-themed global game called Supremacy.  It had some cool features, but it eventually faded from the scene, apparently because of two flaws: a simplistic economic model that could easily be manipulated, and a tendency to “go nuclear” that would end the game (the same kind of problem mentioned by rjpeters).

Funny. I too pretty much bought the game for parts originally and I thought of using the map for my own game idea.

Nice, maybe i can try this HR! Thanks

Thanks.