Rules Questions

@ossel:

I have to assume strict neutrals behave like they did in Global 1940, basically turning all neutrals against the invading alliance.

Nope. In Larry’s reports, Germany decided to invade the Netherlands, which are neutral.
There wasn’t any mention of any neutrals flipping aside from Netherlands.

@Flashman:

I hope attacking navy can retreat from battle, otherwise we’ll see precious little naval combat. Historical, but rather pointless.

From Larry’s Imperial Germany post:

“Unlike a land battle, a sea battle can go on for multiple rounds of combat for as long as the attacker wants to continue. As usual in most A&A games, when it comes to submarines the attacker can roll an attack or can submerge. This is followed by the defender rolling for his or her ships. After both sides have rolled, the casualties are removed. The attacker can either press or break-off the attack.”

From Larry’s Imperial Russia post:

“New sea units can be placed in any sea zone that shares a naval base symbol with a territory that you originally controlled. New units can enter play even in a contested territory or hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the Conduct Combat phase will be long past.”

Well, the ‘jutland battle’ will be the turn the UK smashes Germany’s Fleet

@Flashman:

From which we must assume that the German navy in my example is well and truly screwed.

The real war had one major surface fleet battle - Jutland.

That’s precisely one more than this game is gonna get.

Why would that be? Based on the set up, Germany actually has the advantage in the North Sea. They have 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers and 2 Subs and could even bring up 2 more subs from the Mid-Atlantic on the first turn and sink the British Fleet in the North Sea. The British only have 1 Battleship and 2 Cruisers. This would prevent Britain from shipping reinforcements over to the Western Front for at least 1 round. Unless the minefields in the game are completely devastating to go into, Germany’s got the advantage out of the gates.

The update that talks about the political situation says that Minor Powers with colonies don’t mobilize units in their colonies and that they only mobilize if their capital territory is attacked. Does this mean that if you invade Spanish Morocco or the Balearic Islands that there is no military presence? Meaning free IPC for France?

@Flashman:

As I mentioned above, I see no reason for Germany not to just walk into Congo (assuming they also attack Belgium r1).

France could get the free IPC for Spanish Morocco, but I assume that this would force Spain into the enemy camp giving the CPs control of Spain and its small army.

@Hitlers:

The update that talks about the political situation says that Minor Powers with colonies don’t mobilize units in their colonies and that they only mobilize if their capital territory is attacked. Does this mean that if you invade Spanish Morocco or the Balearic Islands that there is no military presence? Meaning free IPC for France?

I wonder how that works out. Does Spain immediately go under the control of a Central Power or does it become a minor aligned power that waits to be activated?

If its the latter, I think I’d prefer to invade Spanish Morocco every game.

@Flashman:

Although it is not explicit, the rules seem to indicate that it means war, even though it mobilizes no units. Or perhaps not.

Expect a clarification on this rule after the game is officially released.

As usual.

Hey, don’t blame Jensen, he only has a copy of the official rules - don’t expect him to know how the game works.

You think he’s telepathic? You think he knows what’s in Larry’s mind?

No one’s blaming anybody, I was just starting conversation and speculation. If Spain can’t mobilize units and join the CP immediately after an Allied attack on their colonies then there is no

incentive to NOT attack their colonies. If that’s the case, it just seems like a bizarre rule, It’s different with Belgium and Portugal because they are going to enter the war whether they get

attacked or not.

@Flashman:

My point is that the risk of being stranded in a contested enemy SZ if the battle goes against you (or you hit a bunch of mines) is so great that no sane Admiral would take it. I pity the fools.

If, however, you can retreat into friendly waters when you call off the battle, the risk is far less, as you can then repair and reinforce the fleet behind the protection of your own mines.

Without the retreat option, fighting a big fleet battle in enemy waters is an all-or-nothing gamble.

@Hitlers:

Why would that be? Based on the set up, Germany actually has the advantage in the North Sea. They have 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers and 2 Subs and could even bring up 2 more subs from the Mid-Atlantic on the first turn and sink the British Fleet in the North Sea. The British only have 1 Battleship and 2 Cruisers. This would prevent Britain from shipping reinforcements over to the Western Front for at least 1 round. Unless the minefields in the game are completely devastating to go into, Germany’s got the advantage out of the gates.

I see what you mean. I think it was stated at some point (probably after your post) that naval battles are fought in the traditional A&A way in that it continues till the attacker retreats or

one side is destroyed so there isn’t contested sea zones. However, if the minefields end up being a major determent to an enemy navy then yes, I could see naval battles being non-

existent.

Well, they did avoid big naval battles in WWI (well, for 2 years until Jutland and then after that) simply because it was risky.  Having a “Fleet in Being” was far too valuable.

From Larry’s Imperial Russia post:

“New sea units can be placed in any sea zone that shares a naval base symbol with a territory that you originally controlled. New units can enter play even in a contested territory or hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the Conduct Combat phase will be long past.”

I read this as follows:

contested territory = land territory with a naval base that has enemy units present (and thus is contested) but where new naval units can still be placed in the adjacent sea zone (note Larry doesn’t say contested sea zone).

hostile sea zone = sea zone adjacent to a land territory with a naval base that is occupied by enemy naval units but where new naval units can still be placed (as in previous versions of A&A).

With the usual caveat that I may be wrong, I can’t recall Larry saying anything about a contested sea zone, but I will search the reports.

Just a little update, I searched the turn reports and could find no mention of the concept of a “contested sea zone.” This leads me to believe that if the attacker calls off a naval battle he or she retreats, just like in other A&A games.

@Flashman:

That is not my interpretation. I believe the map has been so designed that only one NB is adjacent to any given SZ, therefore you cannot build navy into a SZ adjacent to an enemy NB, therefore a hostile SZ must be one containing enemy ships, therefore since there is no combat after such a placement the SZ itself becomes contested.

I may not have worded it well, but I didn’t mean to imply that naval units could be built in a sea zone with an enemy naval base. Say Kiel has a naval base. Germany could build naval units in the adjacent sea zone even if British ships were present. Furthermore, if Kiel was contested, Germany could still build ships in the sea zone adjacent to Kiel. That’s all I was trying to get across. Sorry about the confusion.