Topics

16

After action reports from first edition / Detroit Game #6

« on: March 07, 2007, 01:25:21 AM »

Started a new game last Friday night, 03/02/07.

Eric- UK/US
Dan- USSR/France/China
Craig- Germany
Martin- Italy/Japan

17

Rules questions from first edition / Saved UK PPs and Strategic Warfare implications

« on: February 11, 2007, 06:40:02 AM »

Q: If the UK saves PPs from one turn to the next, would those PPs be subject to loss from convoy attacks the next Axis turn?

The rule that limits the convoy damage to the production center totals can be bypassed through strategic bombing of said production centers. 

But if the UK saves some of the PPs from one turn to the next, shouldn't those PPs be designated as separate from the end of turn total that could be attacked by the Axis in the convoys? 

Those PPs have already made it through the gauntlet of the u-boats and could said to be stockpiled resources at the production centers.  They should still be subject to reduction by strategic attacks (I.e.- bombing and rocket attacks) but just not lumped into the overall total to be shot at again in the convoys. 

Seems like double jeopardy if the Axis can get after PPs that made it through the turn before.

For those wondering why this might be pertinent, just think of the UK saving PPs for an amphibious assault.

Craig 

18

Rules questions from first edition / Soviet Lend Lease Questions

« on: February 11, 2007, 06:25:56 AM »

Q: Soviet Far East Convoy- Can it be attacked by the Japanese before the USSR and Japan are at war?

Eric argued no based on the the fact that the USSR flag would be placed upon the PPs that are being sent in the convoy, not the US flag.

Q: Persian Convoy- Would it become inactive if the sea lanes around Africa and through the Pacific were cut off by Axis control?  (Would the same thing apply to the Chinese routes through Burma and across the Himalayas?)

Could it be argued that the Persian route could only be stopped by European Axis control of sea zones in the Indian Ocean, not Japanese control?  Or would Japanese control of sea zones stop the flow of Lend Lease?

Actually, while the Japanese can't attack the Far East Convoy, can they stop the flow of the Lend Lease by controlling the sea zones in between the US and the USSR?

If the logic is that the Lend Lease material is flowing on Soviet ships, then I can see that the Japanese (who are not at war with the USSR) couldn't interfere with the transit of the supplies.

Craig

19

Rules questions from first edition / Spanish Morocco

« on: February 02, 2007, 03:32:29 AM »

Is Spanish Morocco a territory of Spain? 

I ask from the standpoint of placement of Spanish units when it is activated/attacked. 

Craig

20

Rules questions from first edition / Air Unit Movement over Land Territories from Europe to Asia- Demarcation Line

« on: January 13, 2007, 09:21:53 AM »

The heavy white line in the Indian Ocean shows where the two theaters meet and governs the movement of naval units, but where is the line on land?

This affects strategic movement of air units from one theater of action to the other.

We would suggest that the line follow the west coast of India, the border of India/Persia, India/Afghanistan, USSR/Tibet, USSR/China, USSR/Mongolia, Balkhash/Novosibirsk, and finally Omsk/Novosibirsk.

Any reprint of the map could easily accommodate the addition of a modified line along the country borders that are listed because of their thickness.

Just another thing to think about.

Craig

21

Rules questions from first edition / Air unit movement & out of supply determination

« on: January 07, 2007, 10:41:14 AM »

The rules state that air units in unsupplied territories can not move during the mechanized phase.

We need a clarification concerning when and where the supply consideration is made.


I have two examples that highlight a need for a clear ruling.

1) A fighter starts its turn in supply and flies to a territory that is out of supply.

2) A fighter starts its turn out of supply and flies to a territory that is in supply.


I would argue that the rule as written above would apply to situation #1 while in situation #2 the fighter would be able to move in the mechanized phase. 

The territory the air unit in situation #2 has flown to has the supplies necessary to allow it to continue moving in the mechanized phase. 

Craig

22

Rules questions from first edition / Targeting of Amphibious Assault Naval Vessels by Air Units

« on: December 28, 2006, 04:24:54 AM »

Naval units providing support during the amphibious round of combat are also exempt from casualties.

I came across this while rereading the rules.

Does this mean that the naval units that are held back from a naval battle (a naval battle that procedes an amphibious assault) are not targetable by enemy air units that are in the battle?

Does that include the transports that are carrying the attacking ground units?

Or does this rule only apply to a proceding naval battle that only has surface naval units?

Craig

23

Rules questions from first edition / Crossing the Suez

« on: December 12, 2006, 04:09:44 PM »

Q: Is the Suez Canal treated like a river when dealing with a land attack between the Cairo and Sinai land territories?

While this situation is not talked about in the rules under the Suez Canal paragraph, since the canal runs along the border between these two territories I would think that it should be treated just like a river in this instance.

Craig

24

Rules questions from first edition / Axis Trigger Rolls- Cairo and Sinai

« on: December 12, 2006, 04:04:30 PM »

Q: If the Axis conquers Cairo, a trigger roll is made for Turkey and for Spain to join the Axis cause.  It seems to then state that if the Axis conquer the Sinai (while still in control of Cairo) another set of rolls is made to trigger Turkey and Spain.

My question is: What happens if the Axis take the Sinai first and then take Cairo? 

Do they get a set of trigger rolls to satisfy the 'Cairo only' condition and then a set of rolls for the 'Cairo and Sinai' condition? 

Or do they only get one set of trigger rolls because they took the two territories in what would seem to be the reverse order? 

And if it is only one set of rolls, is it the 'Cairo only' condition rolls or the 'Cairo and Sinai' condition rolls?


Once again it is a debate between the "Strict" and "Loose" interpretations of how the information is written in the rules. 

Craig

25

Game Design / Minors and Supply

« on: December 12, 2006, 03:47:20 PM »

We have discussed the topic of minor countries and their supply situation now for a while.

The fact that a defending force in a country like Greece can be put out of supply even though they are defending in their own country seems a bit screwy.

And in the game we are presently playing, I made a rather daring attempt (that failed miserably!) to put all of Spain out of supply by trying to take the Pyrennes and also to control the applicable sea zones. 

The latter example seemed even more far fetched since we are talking about a very large country that should have more than enough indigenous industry and resources that it wouldn't be hindered by such a problem.  Or at least not for certain length of time based on the stockpiling certain necessities.

While I can understand the choices made concerning smaller minors like Yugoslavia and Greece when it comes to supply (and when the seasonal turn length is taken into account) but larger neutrals/minor countries like Spain, Turkey, and Sweden should have a space (their capital) that gives them a supply source.

Food for thought.

Craig

26

Rules questions from first edition / Air Transport during the Mech Phase

« on: November 19, 2006, 06:03:05 PM »

Q: Can a bomber transport an infantry or a paratrooper during the Mech Phase? 

Would the fact that the bomber conducted combat during that turn make a difference (i.e. If the optional rule concerning paradrops on the mech phase is used, the bomber and the paratrooper can not have conducted combat earlier in the turn.)?

27

Rules questions from first edition / Movement- Vichy French Territory

« on: November 19, 2006, 05:56:16 PM »

Q: Can Axis units fly over Vichy French territories?  Can the Axis strategically rail through Vichy French territories?

28

Rules questions from first edition / Using 88's as AA/Using AA as anti-armor

« on: November 12, 2006, 09:47:53 AM »

When an 88 is used as an AA gun, is it not an anti-armor unit for purposes of hit taking in that round of combat? 

Does an AA gun become an eligible unit for an armor hit if it is used in an anti-armor role?

Just to make sure of something- you can switch back and forth from one role to the other (AA/AT) with these units each time a new combat round starts, correct?

29

Game Design / Defensive air response to paradrops

« on: November 12, 2006, 09:37:53 AM »

The question has come up in our games of why a fighter can't respond to a paradrop in an adjacent territory (one in which there isn't a defending land unit) similar to a fighter responding to a strategic attack in an adjacent territory?

Why not allow it to be a one round air-to-air combat situation similar to the strategic warfare combat?  If the bomber isn't hit, it then can continue on to its paradrop.

30

Rules questions from first edition / Excess hits that include anti-armor hits

« on: November 12, 2006, 08:58:59 AM »

What happens to anti-armor hits that have no target on the combat chart (i.e. no armor units in a non "0" column) but there are enough general hits to take care of the other units in the non "0" columns and there are armor units in the "0" column?

Example- There is an attacker coming across a river that has X units in the non "0" columns.  Armor units that are part of the attack are in the "0" box.  The defender rolls X (or more) general hits and Y anti-armor hits.

How are the hits applied?  Do the anti-armor hits become general hits since they have no armor units to apply to in the non "0" columns?  And as such they are just general hits when they carry over onto units in the "0" column?


The defender in the situation above wanted the anti-armor hits to be specifically applied to armor units in the "0" since he had more than enough general hits from his defending non armor units to take care of the other attacking units in the non "0" columns.

I made the argument that in a battle where the defender has less than X general hits, the anti-armor hits become general hits and are applied to the units in the non "0" columns.  And following that logic, in the case where there are more than X general hits, the anti-armor hits still become general hits and are applied by the attacker as such against any unit he chooses.