Matrix Games Forums

or 7following settings
sub doctrine: either both on or off
fow: on
weather: on
automated first turn: off
player defined upgrades: on
autosub: off
automated expansion, upgrades or replacements: all off

i can play about 3-7 turns a week (depends)
house rules: i have not seen any necessary yet; if somone knows any, tell me.
Well, after checking, i thought about the allied activation.
initially, only US vs. Japan
if westerna allies (France and GB) are attacked, they become active including Australia, New Zealand and Canada
if the dutch are attacked, it becomes a little more difficult, but i would say that the Britsh and their dominions now have the option to declare war on japan after that.
China and Russia stay neutral unless attacked.
Shanghai and i believe Tientsin (the other chinese city with non-chinese forces) are international territory and fighting or attacking here means activation of the western allies.

Why do you want to play scenario 1? It's PBEM version - scenario 7 - should be better for Japan, because of no pre-loaded invasion TFs.

scen. 7 is fine too.

Been waiting for either GPW or Cautionaries to be converted. While they are not ready I can play stock (can't stay w/o PBEM for that long [:)] )

Clarification regarding GB and France. Do they both activate if either attacked, i.e. Japan can't just take French Indochina?

Also what about using neutral ports?

There is a US LCU/ships in Shanghai, if China is out of war initially, then shouldn't they be evacuated to be used?

as much as i know, the defensive pact of WW1 was still in effect in 1922; therefore, both would be activated.
regarding the ships in shanghai, shanghai is an international port at this time (City wasn't really controlled by china) which leads to the next point
neutral ports: no disbanding taskforces in neutral ports for the allied player; maximum duration of stay-> one day; also, this should be an emergency move (before being sunk, running out of fuel etc.); if unable to leave the port (for whatever reason) after one day the TF needs to disband (and is considered interned until this neutral power becomes activated); US ships in Shanghai can stay there and disband there (thus being relatively safe from japanese attacks (attacking the port of shanghai or bombarding shanghai would lead to enormous diplomatic turmoil and should be treated like an attack on the dutch, like a casus belli against japan)). If they leave, the only other port in china they could move into is tientsin (if that is the city with the other allied forces). Other chinese ports would pose some difficulty as being neutral ports
That is how i would see it.

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

[snip]...neutral ports: no disbanding taskforces in neutral ports for the allied player; maximum duration of stay-> one day;...[snip]

I realize this is a 2 week old post, but I believe the guideline for this was, in fact, 3 days.

IIRC the Graf Spee was allowed, under international law, to stay in Montevideo for a period of 72 hours before being required to leave.

ORIGINAL: Chris Trog

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

[snip]...neutral ports: no disbanding taskforces in neutral ports for the allied player; maximum duration of stay-> one day;...[snip]

I realize this is a 2 week old post, but I believe the guideline for this was, in fact, 3 days.

IIRC the Graf Spee was allowed, under international law, to stay in Montevideo for a period of 72 hours before being required to leave.

What about refueling and ammo reloading in netral ports? Would it be historical? I think this would happen automatically if ship is staying in any allied port. Knowing that in the beggining US has no ports near PI to provide torpedos to DD, staying in neutral ports could be used as gamey tactic.

ORIGINAL: Helpless
What about refueling and ammo reloading in netral ports? Would it be historical? I think this would happen automatically if ship is staying in any allied port. Knowing that in the beggining US has no ports near PI to provide torpedos to DD, staying in neutral ports could be used as gamey tactic.

Just set the taskforce to no refuel status when entering the port and/or before disbanding.

Thought that refuel setting is not used for ammo... [&:]

i personally go with:

USA vs Japan only unless Japan attacks someone else (including france - they are not at war unless attacked). i also don't allow the USA to rearm in chinese ports (with the exception of the US Destroyer Sqn in china) unless Japan starts a new land offensive against china. if Japan attacks mainland north america (does NOT include the alaskan aleutian islands up to cold bay but the mainland does include nome and kodiak and eastwards), canada and therefore the commonwealth joins the war.

these are the independant powers japan may attack/go to war with without affecting other powers:

USA (already at war)
china (at war, but not on the offensive unless Japan starts a new land offensive)
france (easy pickings, but allows the USA to use their ports if attacked)
netherlands
russia
commonwealth incl. canada, australia, burma and india

USA may not rearm or refuel warships in a neutral port - if they do they must dock at a mainland North American port or pearl harbour first before engaging the japanese again

You forget to mention Russia, Flanker Leader.

i guess, but they currently have no ships, and they are frozen until activated so they "engage themselves" [;)]

wouldn't hurt to add them to the list, though...

Question is how Britain would react in case of Japan's invasion against French Indochina. As I know "Entente Cordiale" still was in power after WWI.

Besides that formally British-Japanese alliance still could exist in non-Washington-treaty-world [:)]

For better gaming I would allow them to politically separate in Asia.

ORIGINAL: Helpless
Besides that formally British-Japanese alliance still could exist in non-Washington-treaty-world [:)]

Oh my god.

I can already see a UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand/Japan vs China/France/Netherlands/Soviet Union/USA patch right now...

That's going to be AWESOME!