ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC

[seancb]

Does it really matter to anyone? No. The point is have fun and use your imagination as we have.

[AndrewAAGamer]

Does it matter what you do? No, and your are right no one cares what you and your group does. But this thread was a legitimate question of official rules. Please do not bring your fanciful notions, which is odd since you said your group lawyers every rule in the book, to someone else’s thread who asked a legitimate question. You want imagination; go the House Rules section and make your proclamations there.

[Burgh Gamer 67]

LOL…aa guns taking control of a territory. That’s new to me and I’ve been playing this game since the mid 80s

[Burgh Gamer 67]

How did we get on the aa gun subject in the first place?

[General 6 Stars]

This post is deleted!

[General 6 Stars]

@AndrewAAGamer said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

ANZAC or UK may land planes on any Dutch territory. However that does not take control of the territory for the Power that landed planes there. A land unit, not AA, is required to take control of a Dutch territory.

[General 6 Stars]

@ShadowHAwk said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

Well actually the rules dont specify that you can land air units there. These are the only 4 neutral pro-allied islands on the map so the wording is weird.

But they are technically not owned by anzac or UK. So following the general rules you can only land planes on land that was owned at the beginning of your turn. There is no provision that contradicts this rule, the rules posted only state that they are pro-uk, anzac and that the anzac can take control of them without declaring war.

So we got 1 rule explicitly stating that you can only land air on terretories that you owned at the start of your turn ( or friendly AC’s ). Yet people thing this rule isnt valid in this case because?

HA haha yes this is true. I always wondered why you could land planes on a pro neutral but not activated or controlled by you. It should be one way or the other and the other gets it.
I have to agree with a AA gun can take control on a Pro-Neutral. There’s a threat of you being attacked by Japan and as an allie I will give you ground gun support and you compensate me ( receive territory value Icps ) by paying for it and for added protection.
Yes and no planes can land there until you control it. “But of Course”

Maybe landing planes is like you see in other wars and countries that are not at war but you are and they let you use there airbases for your planes based on a pro allie.

[Colt45554]

@ShadowHAwk said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

Well actually the rules dont specify that you can land air units there. These are the only 4 neutral pro-allied islands on the map so the wording is weird.

The rules address this. Pg 9 ->
These two powers also have an arrangement with the Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch territories in the Pacific. As a result, they are free to move units into these territories as a noncombat movement at any time, as long as they have not yet been captured by Japan. They may actually take control of them (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into them.

“units” means any units, including air units. “land units” means any land unit, later clarified to mean any land unit excluding AAA.
The Netherlands is not neutral. Calling the DEI pro-Allied neutrals is incorrect and can confuse other players.

Wouldn’t you agree that UK1 I can land fighters onto French Normandy? It’s not magically neutral after Paris falls.

Netherlands

• capital is occupied

• cannot be liberated(is not a Power)

• is Allied, not neutral

• special relationship with ANZAC UK that allows those two Powers to take ownership of territory in NCM that hasn’t been conquered by Axis

France

• Capital occupied(for most of game)

• can be liberated(is a Power)

• is Allied, not neutral

• Allied units can not take ownership of French territory in NCM that france has retained from Axis; it stays blue

[Colt45554]

DEI is not neutral. If it was a pro-allies neutral it would look like Eastern Persia. There’s special rules for Mongolia but it is neutral, not Allied.

DEI has its own roundel because Netherlands is Allied. If they wanted it to be a neutral, they would have the vertical/diagonal lines running thru the DEI and say “-neutral”.
Is French Indo-China a pro-Allies “neutral”? By your logic, it must be. But it just isn’t.
Yes, Japan is only at war with China. Inevitably, Japan will be at war with US UK ANZAC. So while neutrality exists, the two factions also exist from the beginning and inevitably clash.

All I’m saying is that it is fine if you want to disagree with the rules and play how you want. I’m just asking that you and others don’t obstinately spread misinformation when faced with the actual rules.

[Colt45554]

Pg 9

“The only neutral territories in the game are those that make up Mongolia.”

Please start including sources for your claims otherwise it comes off as bad faith arguments.

[Panther]

Of course the DEI territories are not neutral. The status of the Dutch territories is clearly defined in the Pacific rulebook, page 9:

“Dutch Territories
The Dutch territories begin the game uncontrolled by
any power. However, they are considered friendly to the
Allied powers. Holland has been captured by Germany, so
Dutch territories are treated in the same way as any Allied
territories whose capital is held by an enemy power (see
“Liberating a Territory,” page 20), with the exception of the
guardianship of United Kingdom and ANZAC (see “United
Kingdom and ANZAC”, above).”

The fact that a territory currently is uncontrolled does not make it neutral.

[seancb]

@AndrewAAGamer
why don’t you log on to TripleA and lets play a live game some time. You sound like you need to be taken down a peg or two.

[seancb]

GEN Manstein appears to be on the same level we are about lending you arms.

I do agree fighters can’t land in newly acquired neutrals due to the fact that existing airbases are probably not up the to standard for anything other than bush planes.

@AndrewAAGamer using that imagination of mine again.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@seancb said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

I do agree fighters can’t land in newly acquired neutrals due to the fact that existing airbases are probably not up the to standard for anything other than bush planes.

I sincerely doubt that factored into the rule – if the rules were based on realism and historical accuracy, Scapa Floe would be a naval base on the board…

Marsh

[seancb]

@Marshmallow-of-War
Imagination man, imagination man!!!
Try to come up with some sort of explanation for it.

[seancb]

If you want realism play World in Flames but Jesus I played a whole game once and it took a year!!!

[Aaron_the_Warmonger]

@seancb you played Jesus? how’d he fare?

[seancb]

@Aaron_the_Warmonger
once again the lack of a comma in a sentence causes havoc!!!
Did you eat people?
or
Did you eat, people?

[seancb]

@Aaron_the_Warmonger
for the record he did win, because it wouldn’t be very nice to beat Jesus, would it?
I told him he had to roll the dice fair and square but i could tell a few of them were “breathed upon”!!!

[Aaron_the_Warmonger]

@seancb o man, i’m dyin’… :D need to watch that jesus!