Convoy Zones and Submerging Question

I would add that you can consider the sub rules as an exploitable loophole, but I would say they refect the very real problems subs caused in naval battles. One unaccounted sub could cause massive disruption to a naval force (hello HMS Ark Royal)

Thanks, PainState, I thought that was how it went but wanted to make sure bringing in more assets was legit.

@Caesar:

@ShadowHAwk:

@RedIndian:

Ok here are another 3 :D

USA : (US in first 3 rounds when not at war)

Beside the “No-China-Rule”
Are any ships and airplanes of the US allowed to go through seazones which are adjacent to Japan controlled islands? Yes, aren’t they? Unless they don’t park there/ end the movment adjacent to a Japan controlled island or territory, right?

I found this a bit weird rule as it also bars US from staging ships near singapore which is a major naval base for the UK.
But the rules are the rules :)

It is clear the US cannot attack before turn 4 without being attack is G40’s attempted to get AnA closer to historical actions. US was big about Monroe Doctrine. The bigger question is why USSR cannot attack before Turn 4. I know it’s about the pact between Stalin and Hitler but anyone with a brain knew Stalin was going to attack eventually.

I don’t know why you focus on that now but I will give you an answer.
Stalin’s plan was to wait until all the other powers have weaken each other, so that the USSR is able to conquer the world easily. (he said this on a party meeting of the communism in the 20’s)
Anyone who still says the USSR was nearly or ready to attack the Germans by 1941 is a liar!
The Russians weren’t ready (just had their “great purge”) at all. And as I said, they wanted to wait until there would be a chance later on!
So to me the rule does make sense. It makes it more historical. And if Germany invades & conquers UK, you have the chance to declare war. (this covers Stalin’s plan to wait, although no one know what happened if…)

For the Pacific, the USSR was interested in getting their territories back they had lost years ago against Japan.
But they weren’t strong enough at this time to do this without any help. The navy of the Russians in the Pacific wasn’t strong enough to face the Japanese.

Since 1932 there were several boarder conflicts between USSR and Japan in the north of Mandchuko. Finally in April 1941 both countries signed the  “Soviet�Japanese Neutrality Pact”.
Although many Allied partners of those both countries tried to push them into war with eachother (US the USSR against Japan / Germany Japan against Russia), they never came into war. (Russia needed the troops for Europe, Japan against China, US and all the other pacific campaigns)
Ok at the very last days Russia took some territories but only after all other combats in Europe were done!

So as a German I can give you the advice, be careful what you’re saying. This argument pushed by other nations until 1980s / 1990s justified the attack of the Germans in June, 22 1941. As some of the German Veterans say. Those people were told this, just to make this attack a right and justified one. They (Nazis) even said, this was a defending attack, although it was planned by Hitler for other purposes. Anything else is “Propaganda” or in Trump’s days “fake news”

Historians from different nations proofed this.

So no, Stalin doesn’t want to attack Germany that early! Maybe later, but there are no concrete hints for that in comparison to the Nazis.

Ok miss read Krieg’s clarification on my highlighted section

Agree with techroll

Note that for #3, if the UK does not declare war on Japan the battleship could stay in the zone (would not be hostile), but if Japan has declared war on the US, there is almost no reason for the UK not to declare war on Japan…  So in 99% of cases I suppose the UK BB would need to move (if UK declared war on Japan since Japan DOW on USA)…

Thanks, I thought that was right but just wanted to make sure.

Thank you guys!  The rules lawyers in our group had the first two wrong!

@The:

I’m wondering if a power loses its capital and then captures another power’s capital where do the IPCs go?

Because the 1st team lost their capital and IPCS
second team lost their capital and IPC but first team can’t have any IPC because they don’t have their capital

Would the power that captured the 1st teams capitl get their IPC?

See page 20 AAEurope 1940 second paragraph under the “Capturing and Liberating Capitals” section, last sentence: “You collect these IPCs even if your own capital is in enemy hands.”

Note: Not an official answer, just trying to help.