@Arthur-Bomber-Harris
Yep - that Yunnan stack can be a pain.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.
-
@squirecam check out Sired Bloods map for face 2 face games. He kept all territorys in Sand colors. Maybe this is something for you to Look in.
He also realigned some territory connections. Very good made. Also i think Young Grashoppers maps are remodelt.If you are interested in these let us know and we provide the links or look for the house rule forum or the Customizing forum.
-
@colt45554 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.
I dont see the relevance to being able to build a major factory there or not. Germany never owned Norway. In fact, they conquered it right before the game started.
Manchuria has a government for years that has favored the Japanese. At least as much as the Romanian government “favored” Germany. Logically, you should be able to build a major ic there.
If China takes it, burn down the ic.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@squirecam check out Sired Bloods map for face 2 face games. He kept all territorys in Sand colors. Maybe this is something for you to Look in.
He also realigned some territory connections. Very good made. Also i think Young Grashoppers maps are remodelt.If you are interested in these let us know and we provide the links or look for the house rule forum or the Customizing forum.
It’s not really the colors but the ic restriction I have an issue with.
Also the colors on the map make it easier to count up the ipc. But thanks and I’ve seen his map on youtube. People should check it out.
-
@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@colt45554 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.
I dont see the relevance to being able to build a major factory there or not. Germany never owned Norway. In fact, they conquered it right before the game started.
Manchuria has a government for years that has favored the Japanese. At least as much as the Romanian government “favored” Germany. Logically, you should be able to build a major ic there.
If China takes it, burn down the ic.
“Power” is relevant. Should the player controlling and representing China be totally OK if US captures Shantung/Manchuria instead of liberating it? Would the Chinese people be happy with that? Or does China consider that rightful Chinese land.
There’s no player representing Norwegian/Romanian/Dutch interests.If your question is why must the territory be originally controlled by your Power to make a major factory, it’s because US can make 10 tanks per turn in Norway without it.
So, Manchuria is originally Chinese because an Ally can liberate, but not capture it and that makes sense. Why can’t Japan build the major there anyway? because of game fairness shown in norway factory example, rule states it must be originally yours.
-
@colt45554 Very well put, never had that aspect explained any Better!!!👏
-
@colt45554 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@colt45554 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.
I dont see the relevance to being able to build a major factory there or not. Germany never owned Norway. In fact, they conquered it right before the game started.
Manchuria has a government for years that has favored the Japanese. At least as much as the Romanian government “favored” Germany. Logically, you should be able to build a major ic there.
If China takes it, burn down the ic.
“Power” is relevant. Should the player controlling and representing China be totally OK if US captures Shantung/Manchuria instead of liberating it? Would the Chinese people be happy with that? Or does China consider that rightful Chinese land.
There’s no player representing Norwegian/Romanian/Dutch interests.If your question is why must the territory be originally controlled by your Power to make a major factory, it’s because US can make 10 tanks per turn in Norway without it.
So, Manchuria is originally Chinese because an Ally can liberate, but not capture it and that makes sense. Why can’t Japan build the major there anyway? because of game fairness shown in norway factory example, rule states it must be originally yours.
So like I’ve said, the rule should be that germany cant build a major IC in Norway or Romania.
But as long as they can, I find it problematic with the manchuria rule.
Do you think the manchuria major ic is game breaking? What about Korea?
-
@squirecam No, I don’t find it game-breaking but I think US’ Norway can be so i’m fine with the rule and consistency of applying it throughout board
-
Some questions to clarify.
1.) Are the Aleutian Islands separated from Alaska? Or in other words, can land units move from the Aleutian Islands to Alaska without the use of a transport and vice versa?
2.) When it says “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)” Does it mean two sea zones away from the mainland US (like sea zones 13, 14, 15, and 7)? Or does it mean two sea zones off of mainland US (like sea zones 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10)? My understanding that it is the latter and not the former.3.) If Japan attacks the UK and ANZAC and not the US, is the US immediately at war with Japan, or does it only allow for the US to declare war on Japan during its turn? Here is what is said in the rule book, “The United States may not declare war on any Axis power unless an Axis power either declares war on it first or captures London or any territory in North America, or Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the UK or ANZAC, after which it may declare war on any or all Axis powers on its following turn.” My understanding is that it only allows the US to declare war on its turn and not that it is immediately at war with Japan.
4.) If all the Allies (including the USSR and the US) are at war with Germany and Japan is at war with the Pacific Allies, but not with the USSR, could the Allies that landed in original Soviet or Soviet-controlled territories (because both are at war with Germany) attack Japan from them even though Japan and the USSR are not at war?
5.) Neutral Powers may not enter friendly Neutral territories, right? The Soviet Union when not at war with Italy or Germany may not enter any Persian territories?
That is all and thanks!
-
@frederick-ii said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Some questions to clarify.
1.) Are the Aleutian Islands separated from Alaska? Or in other words, can land units move from the Aleutian Islands to Alaska without the use of a transport and vice versa?
2.) When it says “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)” Does it mean two sea zones away from the mainland US (like sea zones 13, 14, 15, and 7)? Or does it mean two sea zones off of mainland US (like sea zones 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10)? My understanding that it is the latter and not the former.3.) If Japan attacks the UK and ANZAC and not the US, is the US immediately at war with Japan, or does it only allow for the US to declare war on Japan during its turn? Here is what is said in the rule book, “The United States may not declare war on any Axis power unless an Axis power either declares war on it first or captures London or any territory in North America, or Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the UK or ANZAC, after which it may declare war on any or all Axis powers on its following turn.” My understanding is that it only allows the US to declare war on its turn and not that it is immediately at war with Japan.
4.) If all the Allies (including the USSR and the US) are at war with Germany and Japan is at war with the Pacific Allies, but not with the USSR, could the Allies that landed in original Soviet or Soviet-controlled territories (because both are at war with Germany) attack Japan from them even though Japan and the USSR are not at war?
5.) Neutral Powers may not enter friendly Neutral territories, right? The Soviet Union when not at war with Italy or Germany may not enter any Persian territories?
That is all and thanks!
The Japanese fleet can be within striking distance of the US mainland. The Japanese fleet can legally be in the third sea zone from the US mainland which is not within two sea zones of the mainland.
For example the Japanese fleet can be in SZ 14 (capable of attacking the sea zones adjacent to Alaska and Western US) as SZ 14 is not within 2 sea zones from the US coast.
USA declares war on its turn. Japan can choose to only attack UK/Anzac.
-
- They are separated. You need a transport
- Covered by @squirecam
- You are correct. If Japan does not attack the US, the US is not at war. On the US turn, the US can declare war on the Japanese. So if a mix of US and ANZAC forces were in SZ54 of Queensland, for example. The Japanese could declare war on the ANZACs and not the US, and attack the fleet. The US forces would just sit idle and watch the ANZAC fleet go down.
- If the Russians are not at war with the Japanese, Russian territory in the Pacific is considered neutral territory for the Allies–so no attack possible, since the Allied forces cannot get there.
This is enforced for air units trying to land in Russia Pacific territories.
I have never had it come up, but not sure if the TripleA engine enforces the neutrality for a British land unit in let’s say Moscow trying to move to Samara or Novorbirsk (I’m not clear where the land border is between Pacific and European Russia). But regardless the players should enforce the rule. - Correct. Neutral powers do not have “friendly neutrals”. The “friendly” part is for those countries at war. If you are neutral, not at war–no invasion of other countries territory (friendly, enemy or neutral)
-
This hasn’t been used in a while but I heard this rule in a different forum and wanted corrections.
If you do an amphibious assault and there’s no defending ships they can still scramble apparently? If so, are the transports autokill if you don’t bring any warships and if your warships get destroyed by fighters the transports just retreat right?
-
@tin-can-of-the-sea said in AAG40 FAQ:
This hasn’t been used in a while but I heard this rule in a different forum and wanted corrections.
If you do an amphibious assault and there’s no defending ships they can still scramble apparently? If so, are the transports autokill if you don’t bring any warships and if your warships get destroyed by fighters the transports just retreat right?
Yes, you can scramble to defend even if there are no defending naval units.
If amphibious assault is attempted using transports with or without accompanying navy, the defender can scramble. If he does you have to resolve the naval battle first, before the assault. If there are no other units to take casualties, the transports are hit. Presumably, the attacker would then retreat any remaining units.
I don’t know if you can legally send unescorted transports against territory defended by fighter airbase, but the only result would be a round of combat that would hit transports, and then you could retreat. No autokill.
-
Although… your opponent may choose not to scramble, and the the assault would commence. Good luck with that.
-
“These air units can be scrambled to help friendly units in adjacent sea zones that have come under attack. They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious assaults from adjacent sea zones, whether or not the territory being assaulted is the territory containing the air base. They may defend against the enemy ships conducting the amphibious assault even if friendly ships are not present.”
-
@surfer ohhhhhhh thanks, I read it allowed and know I see what I always missed. I kept searching the rulebook and could never find it, but now I got it
-
@tin-can-of-the-sea said :
This hasn’t been used in a while but I heard this rule in a different forum and wanted corrections.
You have somehow dug out an outdated thread that had not been in use for more than eight years (actually the old FAQ thread of 1940 first edition). I have moved your question and the answers to the FAQ-Thread currently in use for Global 1940 Second Edition.
This topic is stickied at the very first page of the Global 1940-category.
-
@panther okay thanks haha, this just came up as a suggested forum, I didn’t think to look for a new one
-
@Panther @Krieghund
Assume the following:- USA (not at war) move destroyer to sz63 (New Zealand)
- UK & ANZAC declare war to Japan on round 2.
- Round 3: Japan captures New Zealand.
Question: Can any US ship now (=round 3, USA still not at war) stay in sz63, i.e. block Japan from loading troops in round 4?
Thanks in advance for clarification.
-
@pacifiersboard
From the rulebook, page 37:
“However, if it’s not yet at war by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, the United States may declare war on any or all Axis powers at the beginning of that phase. This is an exception to the rules for declaring war (see “Declaring War,” page 11), which may normally be done only at the beginning of the Combat Move phase.”Now, to block Japan from loading units from NZ in round 4, USA needs to declare war on Japan in round 3, following the above quote.
In case USA does not DOW on Japan in round 3, US and Japanese ships share seazone 63 as “Powers not at war with One Another” (page 14).
Suggested Topics
