Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

@krieghund said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

@andrewaagamer said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

Two ways to look at this:

Reason A is dominant and supersedes and cancels any other Reason. (Which leads to your ruling) Reason A is limited to the Soviet/Japan conflict and does not override Reason B which leads to my statement.

The first way is correct, as indicated by the phrase, “In all other respects and for all other purposes”.

Ahhh, I didn’t put enough emphasis on “In all other respects and for all other purposes”. That makes more sense to me now.

The tipping point for me is if Reason A is dominant than if any other Allied Power rather than Russia, (US, UK, ANZAC or France), attacks Mongolia, Mongolia WOULD NOT turn Pro-Axis. This goes against every other instance regarding Neutrality in the rules. A standard is if a Neutral is attacked it becomes Pro to the opposing factions.

Yes, that’s true, but Mongolia is an exceptional case. Its ties to the USSR against Japan are so strong that an attack upon it by another Allied power would not change its stance to pro-Axis, and it would remain strict neutral. The same is true if an Allied power attacks another strict neutral.

Wow - that’s cool. THANKS for explaining that!!!

There were no changes to the treatment of neutrals in general, but the Soviet-Mongolian Defense Pact was added in the 2nd Edition.

Hey… Basic question…just need a clarification!

On Page 17 of Europe,2nd paragraph.

Any number of defending fighters based in a territory that is about to be strategically and/or tactically bombed
can be committed to participate in the defense of that territory’s facilities as interceptors, whether or not there
are attacking fighter escorts. The number of defending fighters that will intercept is decided by the owning
player(s) after the attacker’s Combat Move phase is completed and before the Conduct Combat phase begins.
These fighters cannot participate in other battles during that turn, including a battle in the territory in which
the bombing raid is occurring.

I Bolded the part I would like to make sure is right.

If you are the player who has in coming SBR, can you choose to use Friendly fighters too in your territory? If so, you as the team decide who to kill off if the enemy Escorts hits any of the defending fighters?

If you can use your friendly Fighters in No.1 example, your friendly fighters can still be used in the future turn of that Round?

Thanks BH

@Admiral:

@Rhey:

I always attack Japan in China on UK Pac 2. This reopens the burma route (as the Japanese have way too limited ground forces) and keeps china in play. China is really more important then most of the players think. I find them very strong, especially against those scattered Japanese forces. The only problem is their airforce but every japanese unit you can take out on the mainland, is a huge win.

Crazy thing about the Japanese air force and Chinese units is this, the latter just needs to keep those precious stacks out of their range. Pull back, retreat. Advance when the time is right. A smart Chinese players does this, and makes the Japanese player really invest their time in the Chinese hinterland, splitting their options.

Best strategy for the Chinese is to play exactly like the Russians:  Turtle up and keep one step away from the units trying to take them out.  Each round you’ll be able to add 2-3 Inf to your big starting stack.  Once Japan attacks the UK or Anzac, you’re free to start marching towards either A:  Burma Road to reclaim it or B: The valuable territories the Japanese start with in the north.

Both cases make Japan invest more deeply into taking China than it wants to, while buying time until India can help you retake the Burma Road.  Don’t play foolish with your big starting stack, protect it until the Japanese are too thin or they’ve invested too much in China (which is an IPC sink if Japan doesn’t get it early).

No.

Any of them will do (including France).

It modifies the rule on page 30 of the Europe Rulebook that allows subs to shoot at enemy transports as they move by.  It changes nothing about how subs behave in combat.

They have not changed from Alpha+.1.

Cheers man thats awesome……by chance where abouts in NZ do you live?

I finished a global game yesterday. I was Ge and It, a friend was Ja, another was UK, ANZAC and FR and another China, US and SU.

Even though my Italian fleet was left alone and a I1 where I lost nothing and gained 5 territories, followed by another couple of good turns for the Axis the Allies won.

The moment the US and SU were at war the megafleet of the US moved to the most eastern territory of the SU and landed 10 land units there, while their bombers took care of the transports and small ships at the Japanese coast (and after that landed next to the land forces in the Soviet Far East). Yes, US bombers can take of from San Francisco, attack the Japanese Sea and land in Soviet Union. Japan had to pull its navy back and with that the game was over. No more expansion for Japan, a couple of relatively bad rolls from Germany and Soviets pumping out hordes of infantry and it was all over.

To balance things a bit more we are going to use the Italian Fix (we thought up that rule and then read in on here too) and use the Japanese extra NO of 10 IPC while not at war (except with China). I don’t think it will be enough so maybe we will even consider super subs for Germany, Warbonds for Italy or Super Factories (what’s the name?)for Japan.

Mind you, we used the new set up as described in Canucks post (less aircraft in the Pacific). The naval base in NSW is logical, but extremely powerful for ANZAC. They get both NO’s on turn 1 and can reach almost everywhere that’s important for them.