Thank you for clarifying!
Rules Q&A
-
Moving a naval fleet into a seazone occupied only by an enemies transport, does this act put the naval forces into naval battle? or can the Naval fleet bombard the amphibious invasion since the transport does not have a defense value?
Per AA50 rules I believe the attacker may choose not to attack transports (or subs) when they are not accompanied by surface warships, and I’m guessing (s)he must choose so in order to use bombardment in an amphibious assault.
-
Do the rules not offer a clear answer?
It’s not necessarily a moot point: If Japan gets USA’s IPC in hand PLUS 50 IPC for capturing West USA, then sure, the game is as good as over. but if neither of those are the case, then the game is not necessarily over.
I think rules are pretty clear: if you are at war with USA, WUSA becomes a 50 IPCs territory. So, if you attack WUSA, you are automatically at war with WUSA (at combat moves phase I guess). If you conquer it, you get money for being a capital and also colect WUSA territory income (50) because we are at another phase (combat phase). That that I understand from the rules we know (I have not the game yet)
Now: any case, colect or not the money, if Japan takes USA, is game over unless ANZAC (or some rogue USA troop that survived the attack in Canada) can retake WUSA and hold it, and even then is a uphill battle even in case of a 10 IPCs WUSA because Japan will have 10 from capital, 10 from WUSA and USA will lose all her money (a total money sink of at least 30)
-
Is the United States considered nuetral until attacked or declares war?
Yes.
Can the U.S. move it’s land units and airpower to territories controlled by the U.K.? They can’t go to Dutch territories so I assume they can’t go to U.K. territories?
No, it can’t. Neutral countries can’t move units into other countries’ territories. This isn’t clear in the rules, but it will be in the FAQ.
But UK and ANZAC can occupy each others territories before a declaration of war, because they are not neutral, correct?
-
Do the rules not offer a clear answer?
It’s not necessarily a moot point: If Japan gets USA’s IPC in hand PLUS 50 IPC for capturing West USA, then sure, the game is as good as over. but if neither of those are the case, then the game is not necessarily over.
I think rules are pretty clear: if you are at war with USA, WUSA becomes a 50 IPCs territory. So, if you attack WUSA, you are automatically at war with WUSA (at combat moves phase I guess). If you conquer it, you get money for being a capital and also colect WUSA territory income (50) because we are at another phase (combat phase). That that I understand from the rules we know (I have not the game yet)
Now: any case, colect or not the money, if Japan takes USA, is game over unless ANZAC (or some rogue USA troop that survived the attack in Canada) can retake WUSA and hold it, and even then is a uphill battle even in case of a 10 IPCs WUSA because Japan will have 10 from capital, 10 from WUSA and USA will lose all her money (a total money sink of at least 30)
yes I understand, but if San Fran is a capital it seems peculiar that it is not distinguished as one on the map (no “star”, for example… just a red dot just like Honolulu or Manila). So if San Fran really is a capital, and capturing it really does invoke a transfer of money, then both those things must be explicitly articulated in the rules, they cannot be assumed. Also, if the US then, has a functioning capital in AAP40 that is not really its capital, are Calcutta and Sydney capitals too?
-
Moving a naval fleet into a seazone occupied only by an enemies transport, does this act put the naval forces into naval battle? or can the Naval fleet bombard the amphibious invasion since the transport does not have a defense value?
Per AA50 rules I believe the attacker may choose not to attack transports (or subs) when they are not accompanied by surface warships, and I’m guessing (s)he must choose so in order to use bombardment in an amphibious assault.
If this is the case, then J1 attack on Hawaii is not out of the question. Sending 2 battleships, 1 cruiser for naval bombardment, plus three infantry and 2 artillery versus 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, and 1 bomber. Although this slows down Japan’s early advance in Asia, Japan can then send most of their excess fighters & tactical bombers to Hawaii to scramble and defend against USA. This pins down USA
-
Moving a naval fleet into a seazone occupied only by an enemies transport, does this act put the naval forces into naval battle? or can the Naval fleet bombard the amphibious invasion since the transport does not have a defense value?
Per AA50 rules I believe the attacker may choose not to attack transports (or subs) when they are not accompanied by surface warships, and I’m guessing (s)he must choose so in order to use bombardment in an amphibious assault.
If this is the case, then J1 attack on Hawaii is not out of the question. Sending 2 battleships, 1 cruiser for naval bombardment, plus three infantry and 2 artillery versus 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, and 1 bomber. Although this slows down Japan’s early advance in Asia, Japan can then send most of their excess fighters & tactical bombers to Hawaii to scramble and defend against USA. This pins down USA
I think you are right to say that it is possible, but I do not think it is worth the 80 extra IPC it would give the USA in the first two rounds. remember: when the US enters the wars, W.USA goes from 10 to 50 IPC value.
-
Air attacks simply refers to air units on carriers in the sea zone. The air units are included in the carrier’s convoy damage, as a carrier itself wouldn’t be able to damage much shipping. Rather than complicate the rules with things like “all surface warships except carriers cause one point of damage, and air units on carriers cause one each” or “only carriers with at least one air unit cause damage”, it was simplified to say that each surface warship causes a point regardless of type.
So I’m not clear if that means the aircraft cargo inflict additional ‘damage’, or if they don’t. I’m guessing they don’t.
They don’t.
-
Also, if the US then, has a functioning capital in AAP40 that is not really its capital, are Calcutta and Sydney capitals too?
All A&A games I can remember have a stated capital in the rulebook. Usually capitals are marked on board with some sort of symbol (hammer and sickle for soviets, rising sun for Japan, etc). I guess there is not a capital simbol in AAP40 because is going to combine with AAE40 and it’s better prevent 2 territories with capital simbols in global game
Edit: I checked. Japan has not a capital simbol in AAP40, but no country has a capital simbol in AA50, so I guess they dropped that thing in that game and is not going to reappear. So no capital simbol in WUSA doesn’t mean nothing. Just we’ll have to check in rulebook what territories will be the capitals, but you can guess it will be the same with a starting IC (WUSA, Japan, India and New South Wales). China has no capital by the way … pretty strange, Chiang Kai Shiek moved it from Nanking near the coast to Chongquing in inner mountains when japs conquered Nanking
As a note, is odd that Nanking is not a VC in any A&A game :?
-
Moving a naval fleet into a seazone occupied only by an enemies transport, does this act put the naval forces into naval battle? or can the Naval fleet bombard the amphibious invasion since the transport does not have a defense value?
Per AA50 rules I believe the attacker may choose not to attack transports (or subs) when they are not accompanied by surface warships, and I’m guessing (s)he must choose so in order to use bombardment in an amphibious assault.
If this is the case, then J1 attack on Hawaii is not out of the question. Sending 2 battleships, 1 cruiser for naval bombardment, plus three infantry and 2 artillery versus 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, and 1 bomber. Although this slows down Japan’s early advance in Asia, Japan can then send most of their excess fighters & tactical bombers to Hawaii to scramble and defend against USA. This pins down USA
I think you are right to say that it is possible, but I do not think it is worth the 80 extra IPC it would give the USA in the first two rounds. remember: when the US enters the wars, W.USA goes from 10 to 50 IPC value.
If Japan sends 2 Battleships, 3 Aircraft Carriers, 3 Fighters, 3 Tactical Bombers, 1 Cruiser, 3 Destroyers, 1 Submarine, 3 Transports, 3 Infantry and 2 Artillery and successfully invades Hawaii with Naval Bombardment support, USA can attack Japan at sea zone 26 around Hawaii with 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Bomber, 2 Tactical Bombers, 2 Fighters, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine.
USA rolls 4x4s, 3x3sx, 2x2s with 2 free hits
Japan rolls: 5x4s, 4x3s, 3x2s, 2x1s with 5 free hitsOn average, USA will hit 4.8 while Japan will hit 6.7
If USA does decide to do this, I think this will decimate their navy, while Japan can take 5 hits for free and repair after the engagement. USA would be left with 17 IPC to place in Western USA. If they bought Navy with 17 IPC it’ll be decimated by Japan on J2.
-
Your numbers are correct, but what kind of retard would do anything like that ?
And I dont think the casual players buy this game, so they are out of the question.
-
Can existing fighters and tactical bombers (on a tt with an industrial complex) be placed on a newly bought/placed aircraft carrier?
-
Can existing fighters and tactical bombers (on a tt with an industrial complex) be placed on a newly bought/placed aircraft carrier?
Not if they’re on land; they need to end non combat in the seazone where the carrier will be floated.
-
so during non combat movement, move 2 fighters to the adjacent sea zone where the aircraft carrier will be placed and the 2 fighters land on the aircraft carrier?
I thought if planes do not get back to a safe landing area by the end of non combat movement, they perish. Placing a newly bought aircraft carrier is after non combat movement. Wouldn’t this mean the 2 fighers perish prior to the aircraft carrier being placed?
-
so during non combat movement, move 2 fighters to the adjacent sea zone where the aircraft carrier will be placed and the 2 fighters land on the aircraft carrier?
I thought if planes do not get back to a safe landing area by the end of non combat movement, they perish. Placing a newly bought aircraft carrier is after non combat movement. Wouldn’t this mean the 2 fighers perish prior to the aircraft carrier being placed?
per my understanding of AA50 rules, a sea zone where you’ll place a new carrier counts as a ‘safe landing area’. it’s an exception.
-
so during non combat movement, move 2 fighters to the adjacent sea zone where the aircraft carrier will be placed and the 2 fighters land on the aircraft carrier?
I thought if planes do not get back to a safe landing area by the end of non combat movement, they perish. Placing a newly bought aircraft carrier is after non combat movement. Wouldn’t this mean the 2 fighers perish prior to the aircraft carrier being placed?
a sea zone where you’ll place a new carrier counts as a ‘safe landing area’. it’s an exception.
Thanks for clarifying!
-
as I recall from playing TripleA i don’t think this was allowed. I can be wrong since it’s been a while since I actually played on TripleA
-
The US can’t land it’s planes in British or Australian territories until it is at war? Where did it say that in the rulebook?
Also, if the British and ANZAC forces go to war with Japan but Japan is not at war with the United States does that allow Japan to occupy the Dutch East Indies or is that still a declaration of war with the US?
-
as I recall from playing TripleA i don’t think this was allowed. I can be wrong since it’s been a while since I actually played on TripleA
In revised, the planes are supposed to be in the territory with the factory adjacent to the seazone where the carrier is floated. TripleA reflects this.
In AA50 the plane must end in the seazone of the territory where the carrier will be floated. I assume this rule now was carried over to AA1942. TripleA also reflects this, although the first time you try it’s almost an act of faith that your planes won’t disappear.
-
The US can’t land it’s planes in British or Australian territories until it is at war? Where did it say that in the rulebook?
Also, if the British and ANZAC forces go to war with Japan but Japan is not at war with the United States does that allow Japan to occupy the Dutch East Indies or is that still a declaration of war with the US?
Doesn’t say they cannot land there planes there, but it makes logical sense, it would also be weird if Anzac attacked japan on turn 1 after the us droped 2 Inf into new guinea and then japan attacked new guinea. As far as invading the Indies I belive that if they are controlled by the dutch, they cannot, but if they are controlled by UK/AN then they could.
My question is, lets say on US1/AN1 they both moved boats into the same SZ, and UK attacked japan starting war. IF japan were to attack the SZ containing US/AN units would the US units fight or just be there but do nothing? I’m assuming the later.
-
The US can’t land it’s planes in British or Australian territories until it is at war? Where did it say that in the rulebook?
Also, if the British and ANZAC forces go to war with Japan but Japan is not at war with the United States does that allow Japan to occupy the Dutch East Indies or is that still a declaration of war with the US?
I think Krieg said it’s not clarified in the rulebook, but was intended and will be in the FAQ.
@Vareel:My question is, lets say on US1/AN1 they both moved boats into the same SZ, and UK attacked japan starting war. IF japan were to attack the SZ containing US/AN units would the US units fight or just be there but do nothing? I’m assuming the later.
I think that’s a good question. Perhaps japan chooses if (s)he is attacking both or just AN.
Suggested Topics
