I’m playing an opponent who is preventing Vichy from occurring by having the UK attack Italy’s destroyer and transport in SZ96 from SZ98 with a destroyer, cruiser, tactical from aircraft carrier in SZ98 and a fighter from Malta. Italy’s destroyer is sunk (and transport). Then in the Non-Combat phase, UK loads the transport in SZ98 and lands UK troops in Southern France. Since France is still an ally at this point, this is legal and effectively prevents Vichy mode, since Germany will now have to take Southern France on its next turn. There isn’t any way to prevent this as far as I can tell.
G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download
-
Not to be presumptuous, but why isn’t BM3 the download at the end of the BM rules?!!?!?
That’s quite misleading, IMO. :-P
It’s included in TripleA!! All you need to do is update the G40 maps on TripleA and voila.
There’s no need to use a saved game anymore.
-
ah, ok. So I am a dummy it looks like!
:lol:
This is me slowly walking away, pretending that I didn’t do anything wrong…… :mrgreen:
-
I’ve pushed up that update to the Japanese objective. If you’re really bothered by the present wording, you can delete and re-download the map.
-
cool. whats the updated wording?
-
10 PUs if not yet at war with USA, has not yet attacked or taken control of French Indo-China, and has not declared war on UK or ANZAC.
It’s as discussed above isn’t it?
-
yah. i thought “occupied” by itself was sufficient, but its fine.
-
Only problem was if an ally moved troops in and then Japan attacked it unsuccessfully.
-
Good catch Simon! :)
-
aha! But it is impossible for Japan to attack allied troops unsuccessfully, without having already violated one of the other two conditions (i.e. it must be at war with USA, ANZAC, or UK). So its a moot point. Thats why “occupied” was sufficient. But whatevs. . .
In that case, u might as well change the objective’s language in Vanilla and every other Global iteration, cuz the language is the same in all of them.
-
gamerman01 2025 2024 '23 '22 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderatorlast edited by Aug 14, 2017, 4:31 PM Aug 14, 2017, 4:29 PM
aha! But it is impossible for Japan to attack allied troops unsuccessfully, without having already violated one of the other two conditions (i.e. it must be at war with USA, ANZAC, or UK). So its a moot point. Thats why “occupied” was sufficient. But whatevs. . .
Incorrect!
Japan can be at war with UK/ANZ and still collect from FIC, in the case of an unprovoked attack by UK/ANZ!So if UK/ANZ declares war on Japan and occupies FIC, then Japan could attack FIC and fail, and this should nullify the NO, even though it is not occupied by Japan and Japan is not at war with the USA
-
Aren’t we all just doing J1 these days anyway? :-D
-
no.
-
aha! But it is impossible for Japan to attack allied troops unsuccessfully, without having already violated one of the other two conditions (i.e. it must be at war with USA, ANZAC, or UK). So its a moot point. Thats why “occupied” was sufficient. But whatevs. . .
Incorrect!
Japan can be at war with UK/ANZ and still collect from FIC, in the case of an unprovoked attack by UK/ANZ!So if UK/ANZ declares war on Japan and occupies FIC, then Japan could attack FIC and fail, and this should nullify the NO, even though it is not occupied by Japan and Japan is not at war with the USA
touche. ::hat tip::
-
gamerman01 2025 2024 '23 '22 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderatorlast edited by Aug 15, 2017, 4:08 AM
:-D Thanks
-
Is is legal for a US bomber to land in Amur, even though Russia is not at war with Japan but they are at war with Germany and Italy? The US is at war with Japan. Turn 5. The politics panel shows the US and Russia as allies. There is no distinction between what territories the allied forces can occupy in Russia. Europe map, pacific map? Or am I wrong?
-
gamerman01 2025 2024 '23 '22 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderatorlast edited by Aug 15, 2017, 4:38 PM
No, Russia must be at war with Japan.
When Russia is not at war with Japan, Russian territories on the Pacific map are neutral
-
Thank you for the clarification. As idioitc as that seems. So basically there is an invisible wall that would prevent a US bomber from leaving Moscow and landing in Siberia. And this wall only exists because Russia has not attacked Japan and that imaginary line just happens to line up with where the game creators decided to split the board to make two independant games. Seem logical :wink:
-
Thank you for the clarification. As idioitc as that seems. So basically there is an invisible wall that would prevent a US bomber from leaving Moscow and landing in Siberia. And this wall only exists because Russia has not attacked Japan and that imaginary line just happens to line up with where the game creators decided to split the board to make two independant games. Seem logical :wink:
interesting, exactly where can tis bomber land? assuming it starts in india, Novosibirsk, Timguska, Evenkiyskiy, Yenisey?
-
From what I understand it can’t land anywhere on the pacific map that is a Russian territory. And for reference the bomber left from Hawaii and landed in Amur.
-
gamerman01 2025 2024 '23 '22 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderatorlast edited by Aug 15, 2017, 7:06 PM
Well, I’m slow to defend the creators of the rules many times, but this one does make sense to me - not the invisible wall part, but the part where USA can’t stage bombers close to Japan in Eastern Russia when Russia is not at war with Japan.
Suggested Topics
