Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

[barnee]

@aequitas-et-veritas

Thank You I was under the false impression they could sacrfice themselves for the greater good of the kriegsmarine lol

[Panther]

@barnee No, submarines do not have to submerge. It is one of the glitches of TripleA just in order to keep them out of the battle.
We have a Github issue addressing this:
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/6101

As air units (without friendly destroyer) cannnot hit subs and subs cannot hit air units there is no need to submerge.

In your case the CA is the only unit that can be hit by the enemy air units. So your subs may only watch the scenery.

[simon33]

The only time the Triple-A bug manifests is where the subs are attacking and the attacker chooses to retreat. In this instance, the subs should move out of the battle SZ but Triple-A will leave them there. That is possible to be a legal attack in the instance where subs attack a loaded CV and sink the CV but live and the planes keep fighting some other ships/air.

I can’t see a scenario where there is a problem with defending subs auto submerging.

[Snigg]

I had a question about Soviet neutrality on the split boards, where the Soviet Union is not at war with Japan. If Germany and/or Italy captures part of the Pacific board, can Allies enter to capture/liberate said territories?

“Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.”

[simon33]

I would think they can enter because the territories aren’t owned by USSR but then assuming they take the territory they become “illegal occupiers”. Interesting point. I think the main purpose of that rule is USSR has to DOW to enter UK_Pacific or Chinese territory.

[Krieghund]

It seems you may have an older printing of the game. The newer print runs of the Rulebook (which can be found on the Avalon Hill Rules Page) have been enhanced with some clarifications. This same paragraph from the latest version should answer your question:

Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map, and Axis powers on the other map are also still under those restrictions regarding the Soviet Union on both maps. For example, a state of war with only Japan lifts the neutrality restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and allows Japanese units to attack or fly over Soviet-controlled territories on either map. However, the Soviet Union is still restricted on the Europe map, and Germany and Italy must still treat the entire Soviet Union as a neutral power, and may not move units into or through any original Soviet territories or Soviet-controlled territories. At the same time, Allied powers may move units into or through Pacific original Soviet territories and Soviet-controlled territories, but not European ones.

[Snigg]

@Krieghund Thank you, yes. I was using the 2012 rules PDF posted on this site. It implied, what this spells out. I appreciate the response.

[simon33]

@Krieghund I don’t understand.

If Germany is at war with USSR but Japan isn’t, then Germany runs a tank through Siberia but then USA/UK liberates a pacific USSR territory. doesn’t it become illegal for said USA/UK unit to touch any other USSR territory on the pacific side?

[LennardF]

What may not be clear is that Germany holds Moscow and the Russian territory the US are fighting for. The US and Germany are at war, I don’t see why the US can’t capture the territory for the US (until/if Moscow is ever liberated).

[Krieghund]

Per the final sentence of the paragraph I quoted, other Allied Powers may not enter either original Soviet or Soviet-controlled territories on the map in which the USSR is not at war, so they cannot liberate such territories, regardless of whether or not the Soviet capital is Axis-held. Of course, the was around this is for the USSR to declare war on Japan.

[LennardF]

I can live with that and will proceed with this (in fact, it was the conclusion I had originally come to) but this still seems odd to me. It’s now a German territory and the US is at war with Germany.

[Krieghund]

Yes, it is German now, but it was originally Soviet, and that fact keeps the other Allies out due to the treaty with Japan. Any incursion by another Allied Power into Soviet territory (original or current) would be considered by Japan to be an act of war.

[CaptainNapalm]

Can a neutral Japan move to the Hawaii sea zone?
It seems like the Hawaii sea zone is two sea zones from Western US, but an argument could be made that it is 3, if you count the sea zone off the coast of Western for one. Triple A allowed it, so hoping to get clarification.

[Panther]

@CaptainNapalm Rulebook says (P1940.2, page 37): “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the United States’ mainland territories (Western United States and Alaska).”
So the territories serve as starting point to count 2 SZ - that means that Japan is allowed to enter SZ 26.

Besides, Japan cannot be neutral, as it starts being at war with China. It is just not at war with USA. Only USA and SU start the game being neutral powers.

[Karl7]

@Panther

Can allies move thought a friendly neutral the same turn it is activated? Like, 1 man moves in to activate friendly neutral but tanks by same player in friendly neighboring territory then can move through to another friendly terr.?

[simon33]

@Karl7 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@Panther

Can allies move thought a friendly neutral the same turn it is activated? Like, 1 man moves in to activate friendly neutral but tanks by same player in friendly neighboring territory then can move through to another friendly terr.?

Hmm, all combat movement occurs simultaneously but does this apply to NCM too? Also you can’t blitz but can you claim the friendly ally and then move a different unit through? My guess is no but I cannot see any rule which forbids it.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

No you can’t @Karl7. You activate it on your turn and the following turn you may move through it as a normal Territory.
Or you activate it with US on this Turn for example and blitz through it with UK on the same Turn.

[Panther]

@Karl7 No, you can’t. By the rulebook (Pacific 1940.2, page 9), the Friendly Neutral Territory is “activated” at the end of the noncombat movement phase.:

“However, a power that is at war may move
land units into (but not through) a friendly neutral as a
noncombat move (see “Noncombat Move,” page 21). This
moves the territory out of its neutral status at the end of the
Noncombat Move phase.”

[Charles de Gaulle]

This must have been answered at some point, but I haven’t played in a while and forgot the rule
When mobilizing a pro-Allied neutral that is adjacent to another pro-Allied neutral (Persia is really the only OOB example), is a player allowed to use a tank or mechanized infantry on the noncombat movement phase and activate two territories, must the unit stop after activating the first one?

For example,
If Russia is at war and has a mechanized infantry in Turkmenistan, can that unit (on the noncombat movement phase) move into and activate both Eastern Persia and Persia (central)?

[Witt]

@Charles-de-Gaulle I am afraid not. See the example above.