Retreat rules

This was a rule that was added because of the Axis advantage in earlier games being able to bridge. From Italy to Africa and Japan to Korea, the axis had great advantage with that plus a defense of 1 so I assume transports at 0 forces the axis powers to actually commit a naval defense.

YG, I haven’t seen Low Roller’s document (BGG requires a person to register in order to download files), so I can’t really comment on it – but here’s an idea that you might want to consider for your own rulebook project, since it may save you a lot of work and may perhaps also be safer from a legal point of view.

I imagine that your project to rewrite the entire Global 1940 ruleset as a combined document will require you, as a first step, to create an outline of the document that you want to create – basically, a plan for the structure of the whole document, arranged in whatever way you think will be best from the point of view of clarity and ease of use.  I also imagine that, as another preparatory step, you’ll need to make an inventory of all the parts of the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that you wll want to use, with page references to those parts of the two rulebooks.  One way to make that inventory would be to plug the page references into your structured outline, to give yourself a complete plan of where in the rulebooks you’ll need to go to write each section of your projected document.  (This may not necessarily be the way you were planning to prepare the project, but for the sake of argument I’ll assume that this was going to be your methodology.)

Anyway, what occured to me is this.  Having prepared a detailed outline of the type I’ve described, and having inserted into the outline all the required page references to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks, you might not find it necessary to re-write anything at all.  The document I’ve described would serve as a kind of sophisticated index – a conceptual one, not an alphabetical one – to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that treats them in a combined way and that provides access to their content according to whatever logical structure you think would be most convenient for use by players.  The players would still have to go from your document to the rulebook page to which you referred them, of course, but the point is that you wouldn’t have to spend any time actually rewriting the two rulebooks, which would save you an awful lot of work.  Furthermore, since you’d neither copying-and-pasting the rulebooks (which would be questionable from a legal point of view) nor re-phrasing the actual content of the rulebooks (basically trying to get around potential copyright problems by putting the rulebooks into your own language), you might be on safer legal ground.  Essentially, you’d be providing people with a structured and easy-to-use way of accessing official rules, rather than either reproducing or rephrasing the rules.

Huh.  Thanks Wittman.  Maybe TripleA confused me on that one.  Can’t recall if it actually happened or if I was concerned that it might happen.  Either way, I know now.

You can ignore the subs, but if Japan scrambles a fighter the subs can fight in the sea battle.

@techroll42:

Actually, IIRC, there’s a helluva good reason: Mongolia. IIRC Mongolia doesn’t convert if USSR declares war.

Nope.  Only if Russia attacks a Japanese controlled territory bordering Mongolia before Japan does the same.  That means Manchuria almost specifically, but also addresses if Russia were to attempt to liberate Japanese held Chinese territories adjacent to Mongolia.  Note that Japan is free to attack chinese territories occupied by Russian soldiers and that will result in no penalty, as they are chinese (not russia) territories.

There’s absolutely nothing that penalizes either for a state of war between them.  It’s better for Japan if the US can’t land bombers in Russia and if the reds don’t reinforce china or india, but there’s NOTHING that prevents Russia from declaring war R1 and freeing movement for themselves (and their allies) on the pac board.

Soviet/Japanese Non Aggression Pact: Due to their mutual border conflct with Japan in 1939, the Soviet Union and Mongolia have a special relationship. If the Japanese attack any Soviet territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory, all Mongolian territories (Olgiy, Dzavhan, Tsagaan-Olom, Central Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, and Buyant-Uhaa) that are still neutral are placed under the control of the Soviet Union at the end of the Japanese Combat Move phase, in the same manner as though the Soviet Union had moved land units into a friendly neutral territory. These territories have Soviet control markers placed on them, and their standing army units are placed on the board and are controlled by the Soviet Union player from then on. This occurs regardless of the state of relations between the Soviet Union and Japan at the time of the attack, with one exception: If the Soviet Union attacks any Japanese-controlled territory bordering these Mongolian territories while Mongolia is still neutral, Mongolia will remain neutral and not ally itself with the Soviet Union. In addition, the Mongolian territories will never become pro-Axis unless one or more of them is attacked by the Soviet Union.

Attacking is different from declaring war.  Japan and Russia are free to declare war on each other without ever attacking each other at any time, over the entire length of the game.

Welcome, dachi!

@dachi:

Can Soviet invade Finland on their first turn, without Germany declaring war to Soviet first?

No.  USSR may not move into territories outside its own on the Europe map until it is at war with Germany and/or Italy.  Also, it may not move into territories outside its own on the Pacific map until it is at war with Japan.

@dachi:

Regarding flights/landings, are islands still part of the sea zone? Meaning, does it take an aircraft 1 turn to enter the seaszone surrounding the island, or does it get that “for free”?

Islands are separate spaces from the sea zones that they’re in.  It takes a movement point to enter or leave an island.

Thanks for the quick reply Cavin……

I played it. DJensen is correct.