Best posts made by Krieghund

In the latest printing, that last sentence reads, “Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value.”

To be clear, the 30 IPC payment that the US receives immediately upon an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan is not an NO. It is in addition to the US NOs. This payment occurs only in the Pacific game, and not in the Global game.

The “why” is based on historical reality. Until the surprise attacks of late 1941, Japan was at war only with China, and not with anyone in the Pacific. Therefore, any Japanese naval presence close to the USA mainland would have been seen as an act of aggression, as they would have no business being there.

In contrast, Germany was at war with the United Kingdom, and it was engaged in active warfare in the Atlantic. German submarines roamed the Atlantic pretty much freely until the United States entered the war.

@AndrewAAGamer is correct.

ANZAC (and UK) can. USA cannot.

@pacifiersboard No. Neutral powers may not enter neutral territories, and no exception is made in this case.

@shadowhawk Yes, and it will prevent the amphibious assault. From the FAQ:

Q. Say the United Kingdom launches an amphibious assault from a US transport without any supporting UK sea or air units in the sea zone, and then the defender scrambles. What happens?

A. In effect, nothing happens. The US transport doesn’t participate in the sea battle because it’s not the US’s turn. Since there are no attacking sea or air units, there is no sea battle. However, the sea zone can’t be cleared of defending combat units, so the amphibious assault can’t proceed.

@Cernel The intent of the rules is simply that before combat you must demonstrate a way that all of your air units can be landed safely afterwards, and that after combat you must land as many of them as possible. It is not intended that movement declared for the former must be executed exactly as demonstrated in order to ensure the latter (unless, of course, that is the only choice), as situations can change during combat. I agree that this could be more clearly stated, but it is at least hinted at by the sentence, “Once possible landing zones for all attacking air units have been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle.”

@Azimuth You’re probably technically correct, but even though noncombat movement is conceptually simultaneous, it must be physically done in a certain order. The wording simply implies that the alternate landing be resolved first, though it’s not really important that it occur in that order.

By the way, “ping pong” seems like an odd name to me for this maneuver. “Leapfrog” seems more applicable.

@shadowhawk said in Know The Rules: How Boats Can Move 4 Spaces:

@dazedwit

Yea you can even use that to move your axis ships through the gibraltar straight without actually owning gibraltar. Just have 1 sub attack from the other side and you can retreat through a seazone you cannot even sail through.

That’s not legal. Retreat is a form of movement, so the rules for canals and narrow straits apply. Retreat through the strait in this case would only be a legal option if only attacking subs survive.

@dazedwit Again, only if only subs survive. The Axis must control Gibraltar at the beginning of Germany’s turn in order for its surface ships to pass through. See page 9 of the Europe Rulebook.

@dazedwit From page 9 of the Europe Rulebook:

If your side (but not necessarily your power) controlled a canal or narrow strait at the start of your turn, you may move sea units through it (you can’t use it in the same turn that you capture it). If a canal or narrow strait is controlled by a power not on your side, but with which you are not yet at war, you must ask permission to use it, which may be denied. You can’t move sea units through a canal or narrow strait that is controlled by a neutral territory or by a power with which you are at war.

From page 11 of the Europe Rulebook:

When a neutral territory is invaded, it’s no longer considered neutral and immediately becomes hostile to the alliance of the power that attacked it and friendly to the opposing alliance. For example, if Germany attacked Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia would join the Allies.

And also:

If the attack upon the formerly neutral territory is unsuccessful (the territory is not captured), any remaining defending units stay in the territory but can’t move. The territory remains uncontrolled (place a national control marker on it face down to indicate its new status) but is considered friendly to powers on the side it’s now allied with. Units belonging to those powers can move into it and take control of it and its remaining units in the same way as if it were a friendly neutral.

In your scenario, Italy attacks Turkey and fails to capture it, so Turkey joins the Allies (it doesn’t become a pro-Allies neutral), but it is not yet controlled by an Allied power. Obviously, Turkey is not controlled by the Axis at the beginning of Germany’s turn, so German units don’t have implicit permission to pass through the straits. If either ANZAC or France has taken control of Turkey, it is controlled by a power at war with Germany; otherwise it remains uncontrolled and the straits are not controlled by a power on the other side, so there is no one to ask permission of to pass, therefore permission cannot be granted. Either way, German sea units cannot move through the straits.

@Black A power does not cease to exist when all of its territories are captured. Japan could still, in theory. liberate Berlin and/or Rome and bring Germany and/or Italy back into the game, thus they are never truly eliminated until the game is over. Therefore, even though all of the German and Italian territories have been captured, the Allies remain at war in Europe.

@cond1024 It is the same situation that would exist if Leningrad were recaptured by the Allies while Moscow is in Axis hands. If USSR does the recapturing, it cannot collect the income, but if another Allied power does the recapturing that power can collect the income. The only difference is that UK’s territories’ administration is divided between two regional capitals.

Yes, it should, but since the game has been obsoleted by a 2nd edition, it probably will not be. However, in cases like this where a rule is clarified in the 2nd edition which also exists in the 1st edition, it’s safe to apply the clarification retroactively to the 1st edition as well.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in [Global 1940] Research System Total Overhaul:

@Vendetta

My understanding of submarine surprise strikes is that the surprised unit gets killed immediately and does not fire back (otherwise what’s the difference from a normal attack?)

Huh. That’s what I was always confused about regarding attacking submarine surprise strikes, they’re no different from regular attacks. I was always under the assumption that what you said only applies to defending submarines and their surprise strikes. @Panther @Krieghund Who’s right?

Attacking submarines make a Surprise Strike, then defending submarines make a Surprise Strike, then you remove casualties from both, then you move on to all other units (including submarines not making a Surprise Strike). As a result, most units that are hit by a Surprise Strike don’t get to return fire. The only ones that do get to fire back are defending submarines that are also making a Surprise Strike and two-hit units that are not destroyed by it.

The site is currently experiencing technical difficulties. It should return relatively soon.

@Cernel said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:

However, what I believe you mean is:

“This is correct (at least) for the Anniversary edition and the games that were released after the first print of the Anniversary edition.”
BUT
“This has been clarified/added to the FAQ-sheets only for the games that were released after the first print of the Anniversary edition.”

No, he meant what he said. The rules for AA50 are different than what came later. In AA50, you are forced to mobilize as many units as possible, but over-purchasing is not expressly prohibited, and units that can’t be mobilized remain in the mobilization zone for later turns. From the FAQ:

Q. On page 22 it says that any new units that you don’t place in the Mobilize Units phase aren’t lost, but can be placed on a future turn. Does this mean that I don’t have to mobilize my units if I don’t want to?
A. You must mobilize all of your purchased units that you are able to. You may only hold back units that you can’t mobilize because you don’t have sufficient production capacity. These units remain in the mobilization zone until they are mobilized by you.

Potential abuse of this rule was what lead to its revision in later games.

@Cernel said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:

In any case, I suppose I’m still waiting to satisfy my curiosity about anything before Anniversary…

In Classic, it is impossible to purchase more units than you can mobilize, as capital ICs have unlimited capacity, and you cannot purchase or mobilize units if you don’t control your capital. Also, the rules state on page 21 that all purchased units must be mobilized. The same is true in the original Europe and Pacific games.

In Revised, the rules state on page 22 that all purchased units must be mobilized. Over-purchasing is covered in the FAQ:

Q. What happens if I forget the production limit and build, say ten infantry when my only industrial complex is in a territory with a value of eight? Are the two leftover infantry destroyed?
A. Technically (which means, in a tournament), yes. In a friendly game, tell the player he’s making a mistake and let him take it back or refund him the money. You don’t want to win that way.

@Cernel said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:
Also, I want to point out that my second case (undermobilizing) is not necessarily only the inevitable consequence of the first (overpurchasing), but also refers to not mobilizing something you can still mobilize, like in the case of (purposely) not mobilizing one or more units while you can mobilize all units that are in the mobilization zone.

This is not allowed in any version.

@taamvan said in Can Germany have more than 2 aircraft carriers in play:

Of course. In some early editions pieces were limited to what was in the box. NO MORE. If you add extra pieces or custom ones, you can have TEN (10) German ACs.

Except in Classic. Or maybe thats wrong.

That’s correct. In Classic, the number of unit stacks was limited to the number of pieces available. In every game since then, it’s been legal to use a proxy if you run out of pieces.

@Du-Bist-Toten said in General Questions:

FURTHERMORE, the rules introduce another VERY interesting concept. They actually say that a sub can be held hostage in a zone, unable to go anywhere unless 1) the enemy destroyer above it leaves or 2) the sub fights its way out. In other words, a sub, when under an enemy destroyer, must either fight or “be frozen”. So it’s kinda trapped! Just move your destroyer to the same zone as a sub and then choose not to fight it; then the sub will be frozen until you move! The sub won’t attack you on the sub’s “turn” (even though the option is there) if the firepower of your fleet above it is too powerful! This “freezing of the sub” occurs because the rules say “If a submarine enters a sea zone containing an enemy destroyer, it MUST end its movement there.”

I’m afraid you’ve got this wrong. The rule you quoted means that a sub must stop if it encounters an enemy destroyer after it starts moving. If it begins its movement in such a zone, it may leave, as it did not enter the zone during its movement. Moving into a zone with an enemy destroyer merely stops a sub’s current movement - it does not pin the sub indefinitely.

So my question here is as follows: If a sub decides to fight it’s way out, and after one round of combat an enemy destroyer is still above it, can the sub just “chill out” and “just be frozen under the water” again AFTER the enemy retaliates for that round? OR does the sub have to fight to the death?

In this situation, if a sub were to attack rather than move away, it would have to fight to the death, as it could not submerge and would have no legal way to retreat. However, as I mentioned above, it may leave the zone, so it could move to an adjacent friendly zone and come back in combat movement before attacking, thus establishing a retreat route.

BUT, if NO DESTROYER is present, can the sub attack the fleet above for just one round, and then move two spaces away during non-combat movement IF the counter fire didn’t kill the sub? If a destroyer IS present above and the sub DOES kill it, can the sub move two spaces away during non-combat movement?

Neither of these is legal. Any land or sea unit that either made a combat movement or participated in combat may not move in noncombat movement.

I hope this helps.