Our gaming group has come to the conclusion that some bid is needed to balance the game for the Allies. In reading through the posts it seems to me that the general consensus is that the Allies need a bid of about 9-12.
My questions are:
Is a bid of 9-12 the current and reasonable amount? As we will not want to bid for a particular side, we will set a certain bid point for each game and then let people choose which side they want to be as some Players enjoy playing particular Powers. So what is a fair bid?My group usually goes 10-15, some where in the ball park of 8 to 14 is what everyone does.
Is this bid added as starting income to be spent on Turn 1?What Siparo said.
Is this bid added as units and money such as the Revised FIDA bid?Never played revised, and what is FIDA? Another government agency?
Is this bid added as units on the board with remainders as starting money?Siparo doesn’t do it, but my group allows it.
For any units placed on the board are there any restrictions? For example:
a) Must have a unit already in the territory / sea zone?
b) May not place more than X number of units?My group has 3 rules:
1. Must be one unit per territory/seazone.
2. Can only be placed in a territory/seazone where you already have units occupying it.
3. Can only be a unit that power has access to (china can be inf and art only).I would appreciate your kind thoughts and comments. Thank you…
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
@simon33 It cannot. While not at war with Soviet Union, Japan must treat it as a neutral power. This means it cannot enter either original Soviet territories or Soviet-controlled territories on either map. See page 36 of the Pacific Rulebook.
-
@Krieghund Can you amplify that answer? It can’t attack Soviet territory but I don’t see why it can’t move in to a German owned territory, even if originally Soviet.
-
“Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 14) on the other map, and Axis powers on the other map are also still under those restrictions regarding the Soviet Union on both maps. For example, a state of war with only Japan lifts the neutrality restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and allows Japanese units to attack or fly over Soviet-controlled territories on either map. However, the Soviet Union is still restricted on the Europe map, and Germany and Italy must still treat the entire Soviet Union as a neutral power, and may not move units into or through any original Soviet territories or Soviet-controlled territories. At the same time, Allied powers may move units into or through Pacific original Soviet territories and Soviet-controlled territories, but not European ones.”
-
@simon-tressel But the problem is that rule doesn’t activate in the scenario that an European former soviet territory is owned by Germany or Italy. Or I can’t see how it does.
-
“Axis powers on the other map are also still under those restrictions regarding the Soviet Union on both maps… and may not move units into or through any original Soviet territories or Soviet-controlled territories.”
-
@simon-tressel said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
“Axis powers on the other map are also still under those restrictions regarding the Soviet Union on both maps… and may not move units into or through any original Soviet territories or Soviet-controlled territories.”
Where is this quote from? A search of both rulebooks doesn’t find it.
-
I just edited out the bit in the middle with the example and added the emphasis. It’s from the same paragraph as above.
-
Hmm, my rules omit the bit about original soviet territories.
-
@simon33 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Hmm, my rules omit the bit about original soviet territories.
It’s been part of the rulebooks since 2013 (see copyright date/year on the back).
Always get the latest versions here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/18546/global-1940-2-rules-available-for-download -
Hi all,
Here’s my rules question:
Is it legal to declare an attack with fighters that depends on a newly placed carrier for its landing zone?
For example, say Italy has two fighters on Rome, and there’s a UK destroyer in SZ 98. If Italy buys a carrier at the start of their turn, can the fighters do combat in 98 and land on the newly purchased carrier in SZ 97?
Thanks -
@PGsquig Yes… It’s in the rules somewhere.
-
@simon33 Just to clarify, you mean yes it is legal to do a combat move that is dependent upon landing fighters on a newly purchased carrier? I thought I remembered reading something in the rules that specifically prohibits this but I can’t find it now.
-
@PGsquig said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@simon33 Just to clarify, you mean yes it is legal to do a combat move that is dependent upon landing fighters on a newly purchased carrier? I thought I remembered reading something in the rules that specifically prohibits this but I can’t find it now.
Yes.
Pac rules, p13 “A fighter or tactical bomber can move its full 4 spaces to attack in a sea zone instead of saving movement, but only if a carrier
could be there for it to land on by the conclusion of the Mobilize New Units phase.” -
Is page 14 in Europe 2nd edition
-
@simon33 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@PGsquig said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@simon33 Just to clarify, you mean yes it is legal to do a combat move that is dependent upon landing fighters on a newly purchased carrier? I thought I remembered reading something in the rules that specifically prohibits this but I can’t find it now.
Yes.
Pac rules, p13 “A fighter or tactical bomber can move its full 4 spaces to attack in a sea zone instead of saving movement, but only if a carrier
could be there for it to land on by the conclusion of the Mobilize New Units phase.”@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Is page 14 in Europe 2nd edition
Thanks for the quick replies guys!!
-
I know you can’t pass the Turkish straits when they are strict neutrals, so you can attack and take Turkey to allow passage.
What if Germany/Italy attack Turkey but don’t take it. Turkey is no longer a strict neutral but a pro-allied now. Does this change in neutrality affect the straits? Could Italy attack and fail/retreat - and then Germany can go through straits?
Seems counterintuitive but it’s the strict neutrality that closes the strait so wondering if the change in neutrality affects the strait being opened or closed.
I’ve read lots of posts about attacking Turkey to take it but no comments on this aspect.
-
@dazedwit
Your faction must control Turkey at the start of your turn to allow passage through the Turkish Straits.It would make no sense whatsoever for Turkey be attacked (but not conquered) by Italy, and decide to reward that behavior by opening the straits to Germany.
-
You must control Turkey at the start of your power’s turn, in the same manner as other straits and canals
Gibraltar, Danish, Suez, Panama…
-
Being a strict neutral does not make this different.
A strict neutral that is attacked but not controlled may be flown over by everyone in subsequent turns, but this rule does not change the strait rule.
I can look stuff up if you want, for page #s
-
I’ve seen some real surprise answers from Krieg on here so I want to know what the rule is.
I looked at the rule book before posting this. I only have Pacific rule book (Atlantic walked off somewhere). I swear there was a section on straits/canals but I can’t find it in Pacific.
My memory of the section was it using the term, “strict neutral,” as to why you couldn’t pass through the Turkish strait.
Suggested Topics
