Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Finally: I suggest that you do some reading in the rule books regarding the possibility to align minor countries to both sides. It's not that much, but it is quite important to know...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Of course, Mr. Orm is right. However, I can understand that you don't want to play with CVP's, since they make things more difficult. Pilots, however, is an optional rule which is quite good to use. It gives you the opportunity to decide after you build a plane to actually use it (and there are a lot of crappy planes being build which you might not want to use). Pilots saves you build points in those cases.

So I suggest that you leave the CVP's out but include the pilots.

Also: use HQ support. It is a really easy rule to have but it adds to the HQ's usefullness.

Now, if you use Amphibious rules, I suggest that you also use SCS transport, since it becomes really tough to make invasions.

Now, on the rules regarding planes: why not include Fighter-Bomber, Twin engined FTR, Large ATR, Bomber and no paradrop ATR and Tank Busters? All these rules don't add much difficulty to the game, but makes things, let we say, more interesting and historical. Most of the things these rules do is generated automatically by the program and I believe you are ready for those too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Of course, Mr. Orm is right. However, I can understand that you don't want to play with CVP's, since they make things more difficult. Pilots, however, is an optional rule which is quite good to use. It gives you the opportunity to decide after you build a plane to actually use it (and there are a lot of crappy planes being build which you might not want to use). Pilots saves you build points in those cases.

So I suggest that you leave the CVP's out but include the pilots.

Also: use HQ support. It is a really easy rule to have but it adds to the HQ's usefullness.

Now, if you use Amphibious rules, I suggest that you also use SCS transport, since it becomes really tough to make invasions.

Now, on the rules regarding planes: why not include Fighter-Bomber, Twin engined FTR, Large ATR, Bomber and no paradrop ATR and Tank Busters? All these rules don't add much difficulty to the game, but makes things, let we say, more interesting and historical. Most of the things these rules do is generated automatically by the program and I believe you are ready for those too.

So here's the set that I leaning towards right now for a second try at the global war scenario. It includes all your suggested air rules and pilots. I'm also learning towards NOT including amphibious rules, SCS transports, cruisers in flames as well as carrier pilots. I really enjoyed how the naval portion of my first full global war played out so why change it? Unless, there's some balance issue addressed by one or more of these rules?

My last question is what about Chinese attack weakness? Right now I'm leaning towards including that one. My reason was that I found that after US entry the Chinese push against the Japanese in China was relentless. The Chinese were able to push the Japanese not only out of China but also out of French Indo-China, Manchuria and Korea. Maybe it was my poor play instead of a deficiency with the rules?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I would include Combat Engineers, Bottomed Ships and Internment to your list. I think that they all add flavour to the game without adding much complexity.

Mastering on how to best use the combat engineers might take a while but it is easy enough to learn the concept.

quote:

13.7.1. CONQUEST

TERRITORIES
To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory. If it has no ports or cities, you need to control every hex instead. You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

From page 109 of the Rules as Coded.

quote:

13.7.1. CONQUEST

TERRITORIES
To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory. If it has no ports or cities, you need to control every hex instead. You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.

My question is isn't the condition in the last sentence, "You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in." a subset of the condition in the first sentence, "To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory."? Or is the RAC saying that to conquer a territory all you need to do is to control all of its coastal cities and ports (assuming it has them). But to liberate the territory you need to do that plus control all inland cities?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

From page 109 of the Rules as Coded.

quote:

13.7.1. CONQUEST

TERRITORIES
To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory. If it has no ports or cities, you need to control every hex instead. You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.

My question is isn't the condition in the last sentence, "You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in." a subset of the condition in the first sentence, "To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory."? Or is the RAC saying that to conquer a territory all you need to do is to control all of its coastal cities and ports (assuming it has them). But to liberate the territory you need to do that plus control all inland cities?

There is no difference in how to liberate or conquer territories. The last part is just a way to conquer/liberate all small islands in a sea area without having to enter every hex of them with a land unit. If you get all the coastal cities and ports in a sea area then you get the small islands as well.

quote:

SiF option 11: an escorting combat unit is not necessary; only a convoy, TRS, or AMPH is needed.

quote:

A-bomb factors are modified for terrain, weather or night missions like all other bombers.

quote:

When the result of any air-to-air combat is a "DC", the defender may choose to implement it normally (see 14.3.3) or may instead convert the result into a "bounce" combat.

quote:

These two aircraft fight one round of air-to-air combat.

quote:

The results of the bounce combat are applied as per the Air Combat table, but can only affect the two planes involved.

quote:

If Germany allows their claims:

Germany can declare Rumania aligned with Germany during any Axis declaration of war step if Germany has declared war on the USSR (not if the USSR has declared war on Germany), is at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

The rules have to be read with attention to context, including the examples of play.

Given the example of play of a bounce combat precludes a second bounce combat (the DC result that player Boris rolls is said to have "no effect", even though in a regular air combat it could trigger a bounce combat), we can safely say that recursive bouncing is off the table.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Here's the situation, Germany allowed both the USSR's claim on Bessarabia and Hungary's and Blugaria's demands on Rumania. My question is on the condition(s) for Germany to align Rumania. Is the "or" that I've underlined and bolded in the statement below from the "Rules as Codes" a true logical "OR"? That is, if any one of the three conditions, such as Germany declaring war on the USSR, is met then Rumania aligns with Germany?

quote:

If Germany allows their claims:

Germany can declare Rumania aligned with Germany during any Axis declaration of war step if Germany has declared war on the USSR (not if the USSR has declared war on Germany), is at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cohen

It's

Germany at war with Russia

OR

Controls Belgrade (as historical)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Here's the situation, Germany allowed both the USSR's claim on Bessarabia and Hungary's and Blugaria's demands on Rumania. My question is on the condition(s) for Germany to align Rumania. Is the "or" that I've underlined and bolded in the statement below from the "Rules as Codes" a true logical "OR"? That is, if any one of the three conditions, such as Germany declaring war on the USSR, is met then Rumania aligns with Germany?

quote:

If Germany allows their claims:

Germany can declare Rumania aligned with Germany during any Axis declaration of war step if Germany has declared war on the USSR (not if the USSR has declared war on Germany), is at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Here's the situation, Germany allowed both the USSR's claim on Bessarabia and Hungary's and Blugaria's demands on Rumania. My question is on the condition(s) for Germany to align Rumania. Is the "or" that I've underlined and bolded in the statement below from the "Rules as Codes" a true logical "OR"? That is, if any one of the three conditions, such as Germany declaring war on the USSR, is met then Rumania aligns with Germany?

quote:

If Germany allows their claims:

Germany can declare Rumania aligned with Germany during any Axis declaration of war step if Germany has declared war on the USSR (not if the USSR has declared war on Germany), is at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade.

Cohen and pauldernyck didn't quite come out and say it, but the answer is yes, it's a logical 'OR'. As long as any one of the three conditions (declared war on USSR, at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade) is true, Germany can align Rumania.

(This would mean, for instance, that even if USSR declared war on Germany, Germany could still align Rumania as long as it satisfies one of the other conditions.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99


Cohen and pauldernyck didn't quite come out and say it, but the answer is yes, it's a logical 'OR'. As long as any one of the three conditions (declared war on USSR, at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade) is true, Germany can align Rumania.

(This would mean, for instance, that even if USSR declared war on Germany, Germany could still align Rumania as long as it satisfies one of the other conditions.)

True story bro!