@Dran-Black

I would argue that they do not get the +3 bonus due to the nature of the Maginot Line, but technically speaking the rules do state that AA (a land unit) should receive the +3 bonus. It’s really up to you to decide how to interpret the rule.

Hello everyone,

While studying the world wars I thought of a concept that could potentially be translated into the game. I feel as though national unity or the home fronts willingness to continue the fight is not represented in the game. My suggestion is a score (maybe out of 100) that provides bonuses for higher scores and penalties for lower ones. (0-10, 10-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, 80-90, 90-100). The effects of the bonuses or penalties should be country specific in my opinion.

Perhaps units will cost more at very low score. Or they’ll fight worse. This idea is vaguely represented already through America’s limitations and war production.

Attacking a nations will to fight could offer new strategic element to the game. For example, Germany could destroy or at least severely hinder Britain’s will to fight via submarine warfare, bombings, successful gains in Africa, hurting the RN, etc. Germany would not need to actually take Britain but instead just destroy their will to fight instead (which Britain should have natural bonuses for keeping their will to fight).

On the flip side doing certain things can rally a populace. The German attack on the Soviet Union can inspire Britain and the Soviets. Same with America entering the war.

With all units costing the same in V3 this can perhaps offer a more dynamic and fun way to alter nations strengths and weaknesses. A blockade on Germany or an Allied submarine off the coast of Sweden can raise the cost of German armour, for example.

I think that an expansion like this would add a lot of flavour to the game. Why are your thoughts on this idea?

@theveteran thank you!

@GeneralHandGrenade

All I’ll have to hold is Guangxi or Yunnan for that lend-lease. I figure if China doesn’t win then at least they’ll bog down the Japanese a fair bit. And I know I’ll be making sacrifices elsewhere, but all I want is a strong China so I don’t care. Hell, if things work out I’ll start building a major factory in Yunnan pretty early on lol. This will basically just be a play test to see how powerful China can become if everyone sends money/manpower.

@Chris_Henry

All I meant was that you don’t get your wartime bonus income until at war with a major power. You would get the value of the land you take. So, Japan would get +2 for Nanking but not the +1 bonus until at war with a major power.

Ottawa, Canada.

@hammertimepower

I think you’re forgetting that Britain must be at full income in order to declare war.

Sorry if this has been suggested before!

I think that the game could benefit from a land unit scramble option into adjacent land zones from cities or a FOB.

I noticed a potential need for this when I was playing Germany and I had fighters in Paris so that I could better defend the French region. I was annoyed that I couldn’t have my armoured units (mech, med. tanks, etc) stationed there like IRL to respond to a seaborne invasion.

I think the rule should be either:

1. Up to three armoured units (or units with a movement of 2) can scramble out of a city to defend an adjacent territory. or;
2. Instead of a city perhaps a FOB can be added into the game to act as a land unit airbase for scrambling purposes, or even movement purposes as well (I think that the game is too short and land units movement needs a buff, perhaps +1 movement from an HQ could help).

I think this would add quite a nice dimension to the game. Making cities more important and making it easier for nations to go on the offensive by not needing to stack as many units on every territory (think Japan on the Chinese coast).

Maybe the incoming scrambling land units can defend at a -2 on the first round of combat (minimum 1 defence) to simulate them coming late to the battle (not as fast as fighters).

Please feel free to critique this or add to it!

Hi all,

As someone who usually plays the Axis, I found that airborne units are insanely effective. You can pretty easily snipe places like Transcaucasia (5 IPP and aligns Turkey) with 1-2 airborne and some air support. It can get pretty dumb.

I would recommend that airborne units need to match 1:1 with the IPP value of any non-island territory unless the territory is being simultaneously attacked by your land units or adjacent to a territory being attacked by your land units.

Basically, this would reign in exploiting airborne (can’t snipe London, Moscow, Berlin, with solely airborne unless there is a tonne of them which is unlikely due to the nature of airborne troops.

I think this would be a simple rule to implement that would prevent cheesing.

Please feel free to critique this or add to it.

Sorry if this has been suggested before!

I think that the game could benefit from a land unit scramble option into adjacent land zones from cities or a FOB.

I noticed a potential need for this when I was playing Germany and I had fighters in Paris so that I could better defend the French region. I was annoyed that I couldn’t have my armoured units (mech, med. tanks, etc) stationed there like IRL to respond to a seaborne invasion.

I think the rule should be either:

1. Up to three armoured units (or units with a movement of 2) can scramble out of a city to defend an adjacent territory. or;
2. Instead of a city perhaps a FOB can be added into the game to act as a land unit airbase for scrambling purposes, or even movement purposes as well (I think that the game is too short and land units movement needs a buff, perhaps +1 movement from an HQ could help).

I think this would add quite a nice dimension to the game. Making cities more important and making it easier for nations to go on the offensive by not needing to stack as many units on every territory (think Japan on the Chinese coast).

Maybe the incoming scrambling land units can defend at a -2 on the first round of combat (minimum 1 defence) to simulate them coming late to the battle (not as fast as fighters).

Please feel free to critique this or add to it!

@theveteran thank you!

@theveteran Can you refresh the link again please?

Hello all,

I’m sure I’m not the only person who sometimes has trouble finding specific rules when issues arise during gameplay. To help combat this, I believe that an index with subsections would be incredibly helpful. I know that the current rule book can’t be adjusted for obvious reasons, but it’s food for thought.

All the best,
MrGoatCheese

Hello everyone,

I am fully reading over the rules before playing my first V.3 game and I noticed something in section 11.5 that confused me. I am hoping that someone can clarify the CCP’s abilities for me.

On page 48, rule 11.5, it states that:

Controlled Minor Powers, including Abyssinia, CCP and those in the Spanish Civil War do not get IPP income, but make recruitment die rolls.

I have always played with the CCP collecting income, as it is implied on the Nation Reference Sheet that the CCP collects IPPs. However, this rule directly contradicts the CCP’s ability to collect IPPs.

Is this an overlooked mistake in the rule book, or should the CCP not collect IPP? Or, am I just overlooking something myself?

Thanks for any help,

MrGoatCheese

Hey y’all,

I’m back with another question. On American Peacetime Income Increases when it states:

“Japan places a new Battleship or Carrier of any type on the map or on the Production Chart +1 (each time)”.

The wording has me believe that Japan can finish the Fleet Carrier it has on position 3 without provoking an American Income Increase. This is because the Fleet Carrier on the Production Chart is not new. However, would It be considered new when it is placed on the map? And if so, would placing a Battleship or Carrier from the Production Chart to the map provoke America to go up +2 income?

I just want to make certain that I am interpreting the rule correctly.

Thanks for any help!

MrGoatCheese

@GeneralHandGrenade

Thank you for your help! I don’t think I’ve seen a “calendar year” time restriction yet so I just wanted to make sure.

Hey y’all,

I have a question about the Latin America at War expansion. On page 5 it states:

At the start of each calendar year (before the German player begins his turn), roll a D12 and implement the result on the random events table below (Table LAW-3.1).

My question is this: Do I roll for an event every turn, or do I roll starting on turn 2, January 1937, and then every other turn from there on?

I know this question may seem stupid, but due to the rule books and expansions having small errors (for example on the Japanese reference sheet in the 1936 setup a Heavy Cruiser is said to be on position 3 which is impossible, and so I would have to assume it’s on position 2), I feel like I need to clarify. I ask so I can play the expansion as intended.

Thanks for any help,

MrGoatCheese

Ottawa, Canada.