Rules clarification

[Sankt Hallvard]

The answer to your last question is definitely “NO”. I had some problems accepting how that works in an actual game and petitioned for LH himself to make a change in the LHTR ruleset. For more info on my view on the matter you can read a thread between Octo and myself and at LH’s site, here: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=836&sid=40484d3a699be4bcacab66bff3e20f27

[frimmel]

I don’t think new fighters can go on old carriers. Old FTRs can go on new carriers and new fighters can go on new carriers. I’m a bit unsure about the new FTRs and Old ACs though. Are you sure on that?

Either way getting to put FTRs onto new carriers immediately is very cool. It is nice not to be dropping also nice change 16 IPCs undefended into the ocean.

[Jennifer]

@frimmel:

I don’t think new fighters can go on old carriers. Old FTRs can go on new carriers and new fighters can go on new carriers. I’m a bit unsure about the new FTRs and Old ACs though. Are you sure on that?

Either way getting to put FTRs onto new carriers immediately is very cool. It is nice not to be dropping also nice change 16 IPCs undefended into the ocean.

Yea, it was a house rule we used in real time play that if you bought a carrier AND fighters that round, you could build them all at sea if you wanted.  It made it harder for Germany who we gave fighter’s 8 IPCs, Subs 5 IPCs, and double eastern front infantry at the start of the game too anyway.

[jsp4563]

Newly built fighter can be placed on existing carriers.

Page 15 Phase 6: paragraph 6 (LHTR v1.3):

Place sea units only in sea zones adjacent to territories containing eligible industrial complexes. New sea units can enter play even in a hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the conduct combat phase is over. Newly built fighters can be placed into territories containing an industrial complex controlled by your power from the start of your turn, or they may be placed on an aircraft carrier owned by your power in a seazone adjacent to a territory with such an industrial complex. The aircraft carrier may be an existing one or it may be a newly built carrier. You may not place a new fighter on a carrier owned by a friendly power. Place new industrial complexes in any territory that you have controlled since the start of your turn and that has an income value of at least 1. You can never have more than one industrial complex per territory.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@Jennifer:

Can you take possession of allied territories you “liberated” provided their capital is occupied by the enemy?  (AKA, Moscow is in German hands, can USA take possession of Yakut and collect its income until Moscow is liberated?)

I think my previous “NO” to this question followed a link should be given a short version explanation…  :-)

Let’s assume Moscow has fallen… Then territories that are russian controlled remain so even if allied troops enter. But if Karelia(Russian owned) is controlled by Germany and is then liberated by UK it would be controlled by UK as the “liberator”(and you can claim income from it, build there etc.) If Moscow is liberated it will return to Russia.

I found that a little strange, as one particularly strange situation can occur. Russia pushes for Berlin(common tactic) while Japan rushes for Moscow. Let’s assume the capitals fall about simultaneously. If Russia had captured the German territories in between and her own territories are not taken by either Japan or Germany it means Russia will “hold up” lots of income for all of these countries as the allies can not take control of them. In fact they have an incentive to retreat from these territories and let Japan conquer them so that they in return might move back in and “liberate”…

That’s the short version. If you want more, follow the link I gave earlier.  :-)

[jsp4563]

I read the post by LH, and as I understand an allied power could claim the IPC of a “liberated” country if the Owning countries captial is occupied and the territory in question was enemy occupied/controlled when liberated:

Example:

Moscow has fallen to the axis, allied troops move/land in Karelliea and take possesion.

Then:
If Karellia was under Russian control (occupied or not) the allies could not claim the IPC’s
If Karellia was under Axis control (occupied or not) the allies could claim the IPC’s

Is this the general consensus?

[U-505]

Yep.

[Guest]

Correct.

The rule is that you CAN claim the territory of a fallen ally IF you take that territory from the enemy.

You can NOT claim it if it is still controlled by the fallen ally.

And if the allied capital is liberated, all of their territory controled by an ally returns to the original nation immediately.

[Jennifer]

That’s at least a decent rule.

Another decent one, if you want to avoid the moral dilemna of the actual rule, would be to pay the player for all liberated/uncontrolled lands and once his capital is built he gets to spend that money.  It would signify the underground/resistance still working towards liberation of the country while preventing allies from just keeping that cash.

/shrug.  It was a thought.

[Guest]

THe lack of ability of an ally to claim lands diurect from a fallen ally I always took to be “allied support of the resistance”.

As for income though, with no central government, the taxing ability is gone, and thus so is the income generating capability of those lands… at least until a new adminsitrative authority comes in to restore order (either Allied or Enemy).