Posts made by kcdzim

@ColonelCarter:

Yes to both. All Pacific territories (minus British Columbia plus W. India) under British control are considered controlled by UK Pacific, even if their capital (India) is enemy-controlled. Same if London is enemy-controlled, India doesn’t get that extra income.

OP noted as First Edition - It’s probably best not to confuse him further by bringing in 2nd Edition map changes in a question that is more broad.

London does not and cannot EVER collect income from UK Pacific territories.
Calcutta does not and cannot EVER collect income from UK Europe territories.

Money is NEVER transferred between BUT they may share the cost of tech research rolls.

@ErwinRommel:

Can UK and Anzac prevent Japan from loading their transports in combat move if UK moves a warship into a seazone (in this case z36) and Anzac declear war on them.

yes.  dirty tricks.

@jluna1273:

I have one on my list from the Seattle area, in case you want to reach out.

-jluna1273

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31815.0

hey look, that’s me.

I might be up for it some time.  I’ll have to keep a lookout on that meetup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jofNR_WkoCE

Battles occur in minutes to hours, movement would be days to weeks.  Coordinating sortees and naval movements to build up for larger invasion forces can take weeks to months.

It’s not illogical as time isn’t meant to be accurately represented - time in A&A is an abstraction (if not completely irrelevant).  The rules are such to prevent leapfrogging and movement exploits exactly such as these, the implication being that the game is more balanced and the map designed with these movement rules in mind.

No, Japan cannot load because it started the turn at war with the UK and those units therefore started in a hostile territory.

@DiscoKnekt:

9. If the attacker has desigated air units to the land attack, the land battle will be fought for atleast the first round after which the attacker can retreat, regardless of the outcome of the sea battle.

Yes.  And once units are unloaded from a transport for the amphibious assault, those units can not retreat with the air units or units that may have joined the battle via an overland route.

@Gamerman01:

#1 It allows Russia to move into all Allied territories on the Pacific map (except USA, until USA is at war)
#2 It of course allows Russia to attack Japanese territories and/or units
#3 It allows Russia to attack neutrals on the Pacific board only (Mongolia, which would normally be stupid, or Afghanistan)

#4 It allows Allies to move units into Russian territories (except USA until USA is at war).  It’s not a common strategy (or even optimal), but the US can theoretically start a bombing campaign from the “relative” safety of Amur, tempting Japan to attack to activate the mongolians.

To me, this is the best reason to immediately DOW R1, because there’s no punishment until Russia actually performs a combat move against Manchuria, so you mays as wells let the US have the option to start using Russia as a staging area.

And also, to be perfectly clear:

A DOW is required to perform any of those 4 items and is intended to be declared PRIOR to the combat move phase.  Most gaming groups or partners will allow a DOW to happen simultaneously.  Moving a unit from Russia into China (for example) is NOT considered a Declaration of War but it does require a DOW prior to combat move phase.  They are not one and the same.  If you didn’t declare war prior to combat moves, you cannot move a unit into china during noncombat.  Again, most gaming groups will forgive the oversight, but technically…

Further, a DOW does NOT require a combat move be performed, nor does it require a non combat move into an allied space.  For example (and this is very hypothetical) if Russia is at war with germany, and wants to do some airstrike against german units in Persia or somesuch AND then wants the option to land planes in india if the fight goes south.  To do so they MUST declare war on Japan PRIOR to the combat move so that the planes can land in India as a noncombat move.  They need that DOW first, even if they want the option to do that and aren’t even intending to land in india if the fight goes well or some other battles go poorly.

there…  done editing.

As noted by Chocolate Pancake, a declaration of war does not necessitate a Combat Move.  Declaring war allows Russian troops movements if they want to feign them.  But the primary reason in my view to have an R1 DOW on Japan is that even if you don’t attack, as soon as Japan attacks US then US are free to land in Russian territories and reinforce russian troops.  As long as Russia remains neutral, they limit US possibilities, at no benefit to themselves.  In my opinion, this is an exploit, and Russia simply should not be allowed to declare war without punishment or some sort of trigger, but that’s the way it is.

Exactly.  It benefits Russia (and future US movements) to declare war immediately on Japan even if there are no combat moves planned on R1.

Technically, Aircraft don’t retreat “with” other units.  When the attacker declares that they are retreating, all units disengage (if able - ie amphibious assaults).

While other land or sea units move to an adjacent space they passed thru, the air units STAY in the attacked space, and are moved away during the noncombat phase.  You are not obligated to use one of the aircraft move points to stay with the land/sea units that retreated (although that may be the path chosen).

@knp7765:

So air units can attack an AA gun directly?
For example, UK starts out with 1 AA gun, 1 infantry and 1 fighter on Malta. Let’s say the fighter and infantry leave so the only thing left on Malta is the 1 AA gun. Now Italy has a fighter sitting in Libya and want’s to destroy that AA gun.
First, the AA gun gets a shot @1 at the Italian fighter. Of course, if it gets a hit, the Italian fighter is immediately destroyed. However, if the AA gun misses, does the fighter have to roll a 3 or less to hit the AA gun? OR, is it automatically destroyed?

Well, the defending AAA cannot retreat, so the AA gun is automatically destroyed as opposed to requiring however many of combat it takes for a 3 to be rolled.

@seththenewb:

Actually, it’s best to ask that question in the FAQ and/or shoot a PM to Gamerman01 or Krieghund. But I’m pretty sure you cannot conduct an amphibious assault unless you have at least 1 warship of some kind.

I can help too, but Gamerman is usually first to the scene…

The Amphibious assault can never occur.  The subs can never be cleared (and no sub is EVER “forced” to submerge), so the subs will continue to fire, and their hits can only be assigned to transports, so eventually the attacker would be left with aircraft.  Or, the attacker would retreat.

In this example, you wouldn’t necessarily need a destroyer to be successful, but you would need some naval ships capable of hitting the submarine or encouraging the owner to submerge it or lose it.

@Grossdeutschland:

Do air units in AAE19402nd get to fire a casualty shot?

Please be more specific.  All units get to fire a casualty shot except for naval units hit by submarines when sub rules are in effect.  Otherwise, any unit hit during the attackers round will fire in the defenders round.

Unless you mean after being hit by AA.  Units hit by AA are removed from combat without firing back.

@tbaz26:

Quick question about the rules in axis and allies europe 1940 SE pertaining to transports. Here is the senario. in round one, On italy’s turn, Great Britain has all of its mediterainian surface warships in sea zone 96(the zone around malta), and a lone transport sitting in sea zone 99 (off the coast of greece)with no allied aircraft capable of scrampling into sea zone 99. in other words, the british transport is a “sitting duck!” Italy has transports, and surface warships in sea zones 97 and 95.

Can Italy conduct an amphibious attack on british occupied egypt, by bringing its loaded transports, and possibly warships, from sea zone 97 through sea zone 99, to sea zone 98, and unloading their transports in egypt, WHILE at the same time sending one of its fighters or the bomber from southern italy, or even another warship, to sea zone 98 to take out the british transport? Or does the act of attacking the british transport in sea zone 98 create a sea zone battle and prevent the italian tansports and any other surface warships from passing through to egypt?

Submarines and transports NEVER block passage.  You’re free to send a warplane to clean up SZ99 and still move units through 99 to 98.

Bases don’t stack.

@Spirou:

thanks for the answers

@wittmann:

I am afraid that until Russia or the US join the war, they cannot land air units or move ground units into another nation. They have to be at war.

yes, Russia and US can not move out, but how about UK units moving in? The rules only specifiy, that territories from enemys which are not at war are considered neutral instead of hostile. I found nothing about neutral or friendly.

No.  UK units are not permitted to move into Russian or US territories while Russia or the US is still neutral.

@Spirou:

@wittmann:

Subs do not stop naval movement( sea zones remain friendly) as you said. However, a Transport unaccompanied by a warship cannot unload in a hex with an enemy Sub.

but it can load?

It can load.

@Gamerman01:

OK kcdzim, so what we need is for you to donate $50 to the site (or you can donate the bronze amount first and see if that works) and if you then get the search function, we will know for sure.

And yes, you should do it because you’re a rules deputy and that function would help you greatly.  :-)

I would consider that once the missus is done with her PhD program and a member of the working week.  Until then I rely on memory, rule book or the google search.

no special search button here.  I’ve always had to use that horrible google search option.  but I’m not a patron.  and apparently not special.

@knp7765:

I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat.  Is this correct?

Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.

You played it right.  In any round of combat, all hits must be assigned if there is legal target.  So sometimes, even if you attack with transports, they’ll die before you have a chance to retreat if you lose everything in a single round of combat.