Stupid question concerning Minor ICs which I cannot find an answer to…

Why not ask if you need a transport to cross the Tasman sea. Heck, people can swim the English Channel so therefore no transport should be required, right?

Fair dinkum. This has got to be one of the weirdest A&A questions I’ve heard.

Right, Holland is treated as an already vanquished non-playable ally, like France. On that note, French territories after Paris falls should be treated in the same way, at least the UK could grab some extra income in West Africa, Madagascar & Syria. Would also encourage Germany to take Normandy.

I guess the implication of ‘activating’ friendly neutrals is having to wait for them to fully mobilize. Also not sure why you’d need a combat unit, why can’t an AAA do it? It has a built in support staff and troops.

True, I did not mean to say that one bad-luck battle increases your odds of a future good-luck battle. What I meant is that Global 1940 is a much bigger game than, say, Revised. Global has more units involved and more battles that matter. The effect of having more units and more battles is to soften the effect of any one unit missing or of any one battle going poorly. In other words, as you broaden your sample size, you get closer to achieving average results in the aggregate.

Yes, I’d let them remain Dutch too.  One of the points of this house rule idea is to give the Dutch their own units, to rectify their rather odd status of having their own map roundel but no actual combat forces – so if the Dutch units were converted into plain old UK or ANZAC units when one of those countries lands in the DEI, it would spoil the fun.  And from a historical point of view, it’s likewise accurate to keep them Dutch: the Dutch components of ABDACOM remained Dutch during the DEI campaign, even though they were part of a coalition.

I also agree that the Dutch infantry units should gallantly fight and die where they stand.  As Marshall Mac Mahon famously said at Sevastopol in 1855, “J’y suis, j’y reste!” – here I am and here I will stay.

calcutta is supposed to fall anyway, who cares.

@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.)

Exactly.  If the enemy units are all destroyed in the Conduct Combat phase, the sea zone will be friendly in the Noncombat Move phase.

@cressman8064:

@Get:

can they build a Minor IC then upgrade it to a Major IC, since the rules do not state anything about upgrading it to a Major IC.

Upgrading a minor to major on foreign soil still counts as building a major, so with the new rules Korea is the only location Japan can build a major anywhere in the world.

Or Japan, assuming it falls and is retaken.