Hey @Trig,
At first, thank you for your detailed answer and for taking the time to do it.
The problem with the video of GHG that you have posted is that: “the video is rather bad”, as you said earlier on the topic. So it’s not very clear and there is some errors (we can see this in the commentary section).
The FAQ thread link doesn’t help me to answer the questions I still have, so here it is:
I understand that orders maters and that all units attacking in different combats don’t move at the same time.
If I understand it well, for example: a japan fleet attacks an FEC navy (near Australia) by passing thought an ANZAC navy, it create a state of war between the two opponents when the Japanese fleet is in the same sea zone as the FEC (because Japan did not tell is intention before). And after that, the Japanese player also announces that he will conduct a land battle against FEC in Burma. The combats are then resolves in the order of the attacking player (Japan here).
But if the Japanese player announces the land combat in Burma (creating a state of war between the two opponents) before announcing the naval battle with the FEC. Then, the naval battle with FEC is stopped by the ANZAC navy and the naval battle between Japan and ANZAC takes places instead of the one with FEC.
Or maybe the screening force rules could be use there? One part of the Japan fleet fight with the ANZAC and the other part fight with the FEC? Even if there isn’t naval invasion occurring.
(I think that the screening forces rules didn’t happen there, but I prefer to make sure, so I ask).
Then, you say that the player should announce what is he doing with his fleet, each time that he enter a new sea zone right? (not at the beginning of the move).
So, during the combat move phase, the attacking player move his fleet on the same sea zone as his opponent, he announce that he will conduct a blockade (for example) on an enemy naval base in another sea zone (the naval base should be controlled by a nation which the attacking player is already at war before the start of the movement or he could also be a naval base controlled by the player who will defend against the attacking fleet?).
After that, his move continue and when he enters in the sea zone where the attacker wants to fight the enemy fleet, the war is declare.
But this only works if there is a trade route to raid, to escort, or a naval base to blockade in a sea zone within the range of the navy, right? Or not necessarily?
Let’s take a concrete example to understand my question better: (I will try to upload an image of this situation to make it more clear).
The Japanese player wants to attack a US destroyer in sea zone 42 with its destroyer that are in sea zone 56 (bay of Tokyo, so they benefits from the +1 naval movement of the major port in the sea zone). US and Japan are not already at war.
So, during the combat phase, he intended to pass by the sea zone 39, 40 that contains two US destroyers and 41, before finally entering in sea zone 42 at fight the US destroyer that is alone and so declares war.
In order to pass the two destroyers that are in sea zone 40 without fighting, he has to pretend that he will raid, escort on a naval route or blockade a naval base. The problem is that there isn’t such trade routes or naval facilities within the range of the two Japanese destroyers when they enter sea zone 40. So are the Japanese destroyers still able to continue their movement? Even if they can’t pretend to raid, escort in a sea route or blockade a naval base to within the range of these boats.
“6.2 also states that a player may resolve the actions during a phase in any order ».
This rule is useful when there is a city that could be encircled before attacking it. The attacking player choose to resolve the combat that allows a city to be encircled first, then the attacking player resolves the combat against the city that is now encircled (because there isn’t airbase or naval base undamaged there), so the malus of encirclement applies to the defender in the city, right?
