Can air units fly over a strict neutral, if other units are also attacking that neutral?

@AndrewAAGamer
thanks

@Ichabod1862 said in Strict Neutrals - Planes Flying Through:

@Krieghund

I get you have been declared an official ruling somehow.

That would be because I was a developer and editor for the game.

I’ve been playing Triplea live a lot lately…gotten used to clicking “DOW on the strict neutrals.” That’s besides the situation really.

Triple A doesn’t get everything right. Some shortcuts are taken for whatever reason. Page 10 of the Rulebook is clear on this matter.

Your ruling to me I think eisegetes into the text a fuller meaning not intended.

Germany conducts combat moves into Turkey while simultaneously combat moving planes through Turkey, but due to the ruling this means they somehow really have to simultaneously respect their air space? Makes no sense which makes me think you exegeted into the rule book an unintended end state.

page. 11 Europe book. “Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it.”

The point of the rule on page 11 is that you cannot simply fly planes through strict neutrals in general.

For your interpretation, the rule should say all air units no matter what until AFTER attacking it. Because I think they should be able to fly over it even if just 1 infantry attacks the same neutral territory. The point of the rule is you can’t fly through like ground cannot go into the pripet marshes.

Germany is attacking it with air units. Why the interpretation that other air units cannot simultaneously fly through? The rules intent is to prevent flying through when never and not attacking them in general.

It’s not a ruling, it’s the rule. The rule is straightforward as written. “Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it.” It says air units cannot fly over an unfriendly neutral, then provides an exception for attacking it. An air unit that is flying through a neutral territory is not attacking it, so it is not allowed. It may only fly into one to attack it. That is the intent of the rule. Any other interpretation is simply reading something into it that isn’t there.

Per page 11 of the Rulebook, once a neutral territory is invaded, it is no longer neutral, so the restriction no longer applies. However, since all combat movement is simultaneous, the restriction is not lifted until after the combat movement phase in which it was invaded.

I hope this clears things up.

@cyanight:

That might be the reason Harris designed it so the Flying Tigers stay in the mainland of China. If Hainan was labeled a Chinese territory then the whole rule on transports could become an issue as well as the Flying Tiger being able to attack units in seazones. The way the game is setup the plane is penned inside of China with the exception of Burma and Kwangtung.And if the Chinese could load onto transports it would be easy to use them with USA since their turns are back to back.

Good theory – that may very well be the explanation.  I’d always wondered why Hainan was incorrectly represented on the game map (from the point of view of which territories were Chinese when Japan started conquering them in 1931).  Formosa and Korea I could understand, since China ceded Formosa to Japan under the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki and recognized Korean independence (which proved to be short-lived, since the Russians and the Japanese both had territorial ambitions there) under the same treaty.

@Cmdr:

I like bizarre moves.  For non-regulation games (non-tournament, non-league) because it puts the other player off and might show you something neat that you can use for regulation play.

I’ve seen MANY players land Germany in Brazil and put a complex there.  Good way to annoy the crud out of America (Italy would be better, but sometimes they’re not in a position too.)

Seen invasions of Canada as well (in Alpha 3.9 no less!) with mixed effects.  What happened there, once, was that the landing happened, America went full ground forces and japan sunk the American navy - it was a suicide move, but it worked.  Germany lost like 200IPC worth of ground units, but AMerica lost at least that much in naval units, probably more.

So bizarre moves have their purpose.  Canadian shield was bizarre, then mainstream, then bizarre again.  (And yes, I’ve been known to pull it out once or twice in a “classic” game since nO ONE sees it coming anymore!)

The US navy could not sneak out of the Pacific?

I just want to say, that in real life in 1944 the US produced 3x more planes than all other world powers combined. If you make it historical, you have to give the US an income of 200/turn. The idea is that it be an entertaining game and that it jog your memory of history class.

@jeffdestroyer:

WUS to GIB via Mexico caught my eye.  A bomber will have enough movement to hit the adjacent sz

You can also use the fact that CUS borders Z101

Despite having ‘guards’ units from missouri or nebraska the united states was probably more united in 1940 than the united kingdom.

Knowing where we are now politically makes that :lol: obvious. India does not have much to say in british elections where soith carolina has yet to declare independence again.

Then again Tata motors owns Jaguar……

Sea units may share a sea zone with anyone.  Land units may not enter another power’s territory, and no other power’s land units may enter their territory.