NO question

It could have been worded better IMO.

ChocolatePancake is perfectly right.

See Pacific 2nd Ed. rulebook, top of page 9:

@rulebook:

These two powers [UK and ANZAC]
also have an arrangement with the
Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured
by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch
territories in the Pacific. As a result, they are free to move
units into these territories as a noncombat movement at any
time, as long as they have not yet been captured by Japan.
They may actually take control of them (gaining their IPC
income) by moving land units into them. Additionally, the
United Kingdom and ANZAC consider attacks against any
Dutch territories to be acts of war against them directly.
Once a Dutch territory has been captured by Japan,
however, it may be captured and controlled by any power.

@Uncrustable:

US can collect income on france tts ???

Where have i been lol ?

Yep, so can the UK, Anz, or Russia. They have to liberate them from the axis though. If the axis don’t take them from the French, then the allies can’t liberate them to collect while Paris is in axis hands.

BTW with alpha rules when Paris is liberated, the French also get to immediately drop 12 IPCs worth of units (it’s 4 inf w/OOB) on the tt of France (Paris). They only get to do this once, the first time Paris is liberated. So if the US liberates Paris, the French get to place these units immediately during the US turn right after the US wins the battle. If the UK is also ready to reinforce Paris with more units/air on their turn the allies may be able to hold it, depending on how prepared the Euro axis are.

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)

he is including the money from siberia which is correct in the global game.  Also russia and the United States do not recieve their NO unless they are at war with a major power ie germany italy or japan.

Zallomallo is right.  Because the sub submerged, it no longer blocks the amphibious assault and cannot kill the transport.  There was no reason for the sub to submerge, however, as the planes could no longer hit it.  If the sub did not submerge, the transport could retreat, assuming it had somewhere to retreat to (if not, it would be lost).

The NAs from the revised rulebook are hardly compatable with AA 40

The cannot retreat.