This question is vital to my strategy :)
Say Russia is captured by Germany, Russia surrenders all its ipc to Germany
On Russia turn, he decides not take back capital. Does Russia still collect income as normally (except that he doesn’t get to use it until his capital is freed)?
I’m asking this because it is very important
Robert
This question is vital to my strategy :)
Say Russia is captured by Germany, Russia surrenders all its ipc to Germany
On Russia turn, he decides not take back capital. Does Russia still collect income as normally (except that he doesn’t get to use it until his capital is freed)?I’m asking this because it is very important
Robert
No capital, no collecting your income.
So no Russian money for you!
My evil plans failed!
I was hoping to sack another capital and let my allies rescue me and use the combined pillage + income to produce an even bigger army!
Evil is right. And I happen to know you’re not talking about Russia 8-)
Axis_roll is correct - no capital, no collecting income.
However, I couldn’t remember for sure - when your capital is under enemy control, and you take over an enemy capital, you still raid their IPC’s, right? So if you get your capital back later, you have the extra IPC’s to spend?
Evil is right. And I happen to know you’re not talking about Russia 8-)
Axis_roll is correct - no capital, no collecting income.
However, I couldn’t remember for sure - when your capital is under enemy control, and you take over an enemy capital, you still raid their IPC’s, right? So if you get your capital back later, you have the extra IPC’s to spend?
Yup, if Russia falls to Japan, Japan collects the IPC’s that Russia had. If Germany falls to Russia, Russia collects the IPC’s that Germany had but Russia can’t spend it until it recovers it’s capital.
Krieghund covered this in a thread, here’s the link:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15095.msg474680#msg474680
Hi all,
Please help clarify the following scenario:
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
I’ve seen people do it! but it seems rater odd to me!
Thanx,
/GrafZeppelin
Follow-up question!
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
If my 3Inf in the scenario above are losing can they then retreat to Trans Jordan instead of Libya??
Your answers will be highly appreciated,
Thanx
/GrafZeppelin
Hi all,
Please help clarify the following scenario:
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
I’ve seen people do it! but it seems rater odd to me!
Thanx,
/GrafZeppelin
Yes, they may.
Follow-up question!
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
If my 3Inf in the scenario above are losing can they then retreat to Trans Jordan instead of Libya??
Your answers will be highly appreciated,
Thanx
/GrafZeppelin
Yes, they may.
Thanx Bardoly,
much appreciated :wink:
/GrafZeppelin
Follow-up question!
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
If my 3Inf in the scenario above are losing can they then retreat to Trans Jordan instead of Libya??
Your answers will be highly appreciated,
Thanx
/GrafZeppelin
Yes, they may.
No, they may not!!!
You can only retreat to a territory from which at least one ground unit came from. If the attackers only came from libya, they can only retreat to libya. However, if you had just one unit joining the attack from TRJ, then the whole force could retreat to TRJ if you wanted.
The second answer is not entirely correct. To be able to retreat to Trans-Jordan at least one of the units participating in the combat in Egypt would have had to have come from Trans-Jordan. If all the units came from Libya they can only retreat back to Libya.
Duly noted!
Thanx again :-D
/GrafZeppelin
Hi all,
Please help clarify the following scenario:
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
I’ve seen people do it! but it seems rater odd to me!
Thanx,
/GrafZeppelin
Yes, they may.
Since when? I don’t have my rulebook with me right now, but since when can a unit move through an “embattled” territory during non-combat? You can’t destroy a boat and then move through the sea zone in non-combat with other boats. I don’t think land combat is any different. If I’m wrong, I know you will correct me and show me the rule.
Thanks.
Follow-up question!
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
If my 3Inf in the scenario above are losing can they then retreat to Trans Jordan instead of Libya??
Your answers will be highly appreciated,
Thanx
/GrafZeppelin
The answer is yes to both questions
TimTheEnchanter and a44bigdog are correct.
Since when? I don’t have my rulebook with me right now, but since when can a unit move through an “embattled” territory during non-combat? You can’t destroy a boat and then move through the sea zone in non-combat with other boats. I don’t think land combat is any different. If I’m wrong, I know you will correct me and show me the rule.
Thanks.
Since always. Land and sea units may move through any friendly space during noncombat movement, regardless of its previous status. Only air units are restricted from moving into territories that you didn’t control at the beginning of your turn.
OK, that’s big. Hasn’t come up in one of my games yet. Can you tell me where to look in my rulebook in case an opponent questions my clever moves?
Wow, I’ve really been playing wrong then. I thought a DD (or any other lone surface ship) could stop a massive fleet from moving 2 zones, but it can’t. They can just sink the lone boat and then advance through the zone to a second zone as long as there are no hostile surface ships in the second zone.
I’m gonna check my rulebook and errata immediately when I get home.
New question! The way the map is drawn, it appears that Panama borders the EUSA. Of course, in real life geography, there is a lot of Mexico between the smaller Central American states and the USA. Also, Panama appears to border SZ10?? So is this a major departure from prior A&A games where you had to go through Mexico to get from Panama to EUS? I don’t recall this question being included in the official errata.
Thanks a lot.
OK, that’s big. Hasn’t come up in one of my games yet. Can you tell me where to look in my rulebook in case an opponent questions my clever moves?
OK, I’m home with my rulebook and I find nothing about “embattled” zones and nothing to prohibit movement through an area that was just cleared in the Combat phase. My arsenal of strategies just increased, I suppose.
The way the map is drawn, it appears that Panama borders the EUSA. Of course, in real life geography, there is a lot of Mexico between the smaller Central American states and the USA. Also, Panama appears to border SZ10??
Yup.
So is this a major departure from prior A&A games where you had to go through Mexico to get from Panama to EUS?
It was the same way in Revised.
