Can Italy use nationalist Spain's naval facilities?

@all-encompassing-goose
you can use different colored chips underneath your G40 sculpts to represent different unit types. i do this. you will also need ports (minor, major port, minor major dockyard, minor and major shipyard, airfields, fortifications, coastal guns, in port markers, rail roads, damage markers, and many others to pay the game though.

In section 8.2 it lists blockading as an example of combat movement. 8.11 sort of contradicts this.

I would say in order to enforce a blockade the units need to combat move, and thus couldn’t non combat.

The only facility that is buildable on your allies territory is the rail line because it’s the only facility that is built on a territory line instead of the territory itself.

Example: I know a rail line exist but for the sake of argument.

Lets say UK wanted to build a rail line between Jordan and Syria. You would build it on the Jordan-Syrian line however because Syria is French, you need France’s permission to do this.

@delaja Thanks! Yeah, I thought it had a decent base to it. Just as you said, I was trying to think specifically in terms of an HBG expansion. I wanted it to stay localized to the area at hand.

My thought for requiring the planes on the islands was to force the player to have to do something to get the bonus convoy raid other than just possessing the territory. True, the overall goal is to bring those islands into the conflict in some way, and by eliminating the need to have a fighter present on either Malta or Sicily you’d still want to defend the islands with troops. But I figured this way either side would have to “give” something to “get” something. You want the convoy raid? Place a fighter in these spots, even if not optimal for potential offensive operations!

I’m certainly happy to chat more about it if you’d like as well! Will and Doug both implied they liked it. But like I said, they said it looked great, and asked if I play tested, and I didn’t hear anything after that. Not saying they had to or anything, but I don’t know how much stock they may have really put in it in the end!

@trig said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
My suggestion would be to have that sub moving through Suez wait to enter 83, and then raid in it. That would show you can seperate moves, and don’t have to do them sequentially.
Also, what was the point of the transport in 85? I didn’t see where that came up.

I was going to have the Japanese use their Surprise Attack ability to grant that submarine one more movement to go after the transport in 85. Maybe I’ll make the transport in 85 two naked CV’s instead.

You should probably also mention scrambling and maybe something with MAP, do cover all the bases. Maybe there is a plane on MAP in 82 or something to do with that in another spot? Just to show how this also applies during wartime moves after the DOW.
Overall, looks good! I would also probably mention some other possibilities, if say, GB does DOW and how that would work with screening forces.

Great ideas!

I really like the use of this system for all moves, and will definitely “house rule” it in.

I believe in the game designers and hope that with time, this system will be officially adopted! Other than the two GHG videos, this is how I would have thought the rules work as written.

@Arsilon said in Surrounded Cities and What's up with Naval base?:

I think this confusion stems from confusing Blockaded and Surrounded. One could interpret surrounded as a single ship blocking a naval facility. However blockades are something specific to having 3 or more surface ships in that facility’s sea zone.

While I see no confusion with “A blockaded Naval Facility is considered surrounded,” a more exhaustive sentence could be “A blockaded Naval Facility does not prevent a city not counting as surrounded.”

@GeneralHandGrenade Unsurprising that you have the intel GHG! And ultimately unsurprising this is in the works. They’ve done such a great job with diverse expansions, this was bound to be an area for one. Very intrigued it’s the same designer as Latin America, as I think that Expansion (and China at War) was one of the best thought out ones they’ve done yet! Will be very interested in seeing this in the future, I think it could hold a lot!

I completely agree, I think the Med/North Africa could be a great standalone game. I posted on the forums here years ago how cool it would be to see an A&A game like that done, though really any similar game like that would be great. There’s so much that can be done.

The biggest criticisms I’ve really heard on the topic was that you couldn’t really do a true “final victory”, since any map would obviously not actually include a Berlin as a final destination to take, and that this game wouldn’t feel like you “won the war”. Well, I guess that’s true, but who cares! One needs to look at is as a Theater-level game. You’re objective is victory in the Theater. That might mean taking Rome and Tunis for the Allies, or taking Cairo as the Axis, or it could just mean surviving a certain amount of time.

The other part of this would be how to incorporate the US. Do you start a game on the eve of Operation Torch? Or have a game similar to Global 1940, where the US joins starting a certain turn? I personally would advocate for the later. I’d love to play out a game where I do what I can with British and Commonwealth forces early on, and then see the tide turn with a US entry. I’ve seen complaints of how people think it would be dumb to just have US forces bought/appear from the edge of a map (since the US would presumably not be represented here). Again, I say you’ve got to be able to have fun with a game!

@Midnight_Reaper
No, I just didn’t clarify my question.