League General Discussion Thread

[Stucifer]

@ArtofWar1947 correct, ANZAC did an unprovoked attack so US cannot wardec until Collect Income of the round (we’re currently in round 3).

I can see a good argument for US fleet to be able to stay off the coast of Queensland, but seems that it would definitely be required to vacate the SZ that only touches Solomons.

[Adam514]

@Stucifer said in League General Discussion Thread:

@ArtofWar1947 correct, ANZAC did an unprovoked attack so US cannot wardec until Collect Income of the round (we’re currently in round 3).

I can see a good argument for US fleet to be able to stay off the coast of Queensland, but seems that it would definitely be required to vacate the SZ that only touches Solomons.

This situation has been thought about during the development of PTV. The PTV rule is the same as the G40 rule, so the US fleet must vacate any sea zone that touches a Japanese-controlled territory (in the event of an unprovoked declaration by Anzac/UK for example. It’s what makes the most sense, and the Allied player should take this into account when deciding if they want to make an unprovoked declaration of war on Japan.

[Amon-Sul]

Can Japan declare war to USA, but not to ANZAC and UK ?

Or it is possible only in the opposite direction?

[FlyingBadger]

@Amon-Sul said in League General Discussion Thread:

Can Japan declare war to USA, but not to ANZAC and UK ?

Or it is possible only in the opposite direction?

Japan can make an unprovoked declaration of war against the UK & ANZAC without also declaring war on the US. However, this then allows the US to declare war on Japan.

Bascially, you are going to be at war with them anyway so I guess why not just do it all in one go and save on the paperwaork.

[gamerman01]

@Amon-Sul said in League General Discussion Thread:

Can Japan declare war to USA, but not to ANZAC and UK ?

Or it is possible only in the opposite direction?

Yes, it is possible for Japan to declare war on the USA and not on UK/ANZ, so beware, Japan could zip through neutral UK/ANZ ships to get to the USA fleet
It is just when Japan declares war on UK/ANZ that USA may declare war on Japan. There is no rule that if Japan declares on USA that she must also declare on UK/ANZ

Sorry I didn’t look at a PTV map when answering, and forgot how those Pacific sea zones work. But the answer is the same, US can’t end movement by Japan territory if not at war.
I was also confused, thinking Japan was at war with USA but it was unprovoked attack by UK/ANZ, thank you for clearing that up @ArtofWar1947

Adam cleared it up - they interpret the rules that USA can’t stay in a zone bordering Japan territory, so have to vacate when not at war with Japan, that makes sense.

[Stucifer]

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

[…] The PTV rule is the same as the G40 rule, so the US fleet must vacate any sea zone that touches a Japanese-controlled territory (in the event of an unprovoked declaration by Anzac/UK for example.

Thank you. Is there an exception for SZs 21,22,32,36? These sea zones are adjacent to both American & Japanese territories. I doubt any of those would be of interest to a US player, except perhaps 32: Wake Island, Marshall Islands.

[Adam514]

@Stucifer said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

[…] The PTV rule is the same as the G40 rule, so the US fleet must vacate any sea zone that touches a Japanese-controlled territory (in the event of an unprovoked declaration by Anzac/UK for example.

Thank you. Is there an exception for SZs 21,22,32,36? These sea zones are adjacent to both American & Japanese territories. I doubt any of those would be of interest to a US player, except perhaps 32: Wake Island, Marshall Islands.

No exceptions. Also means US ships need to leave Philippines on US1.

[pacifiersboard]

@mikawagunichi
@Stucifer @max334 @gamerman01 @Adam514

I had a rough read here and remembered that
@Krieghund said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@pacifiersboard

No, it applies to all Japanese-controlled territories. However, New Zealand was not Japanese-controlled when the destroyer ended its movement there. It can remain there indefinitely, but if it moves away it may not return.

So to sum it up in my words it is about ending a movement not about ending a movement phase.

[gamerman01]

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

One could argue that “may not end the movement of its sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to Japan-controlled territories” could mean that the USA can not MOVE and then end movement in such a sea zone, but I suspect the majority would interpret that the USA would have to move away, as you said, out of the sea zone that is now too close to Japanese property (the Solomons)

😑And I guess the majority of us would be wrong
Thanks @pacifiersboard !

[max334]

@Adam514 ty, good to know

[surfer]

@max334 Um. I think @Adam514 got it wrong. According to quote “New Zealand was not Japanese-controlled when the destroyer ended its movement there. It can remain there indefinitely, but if it moves away it may not return.”

Thus, the US navy in the Philippines in a PTV does NOT have to leave SZ36 on US1. Now, usually they would want to move and would not be able to come back until the war started, but the G40 rule which applies to PTV states they can remain in a SZ even if surrounding territory becomes Japanese.

To be honest, before I read this I was of the “majority” opinion that the US would need to move.

[Adam514]

@surfer said in League General Discussion Thread:

@max334 Um. I think @Adam514 got it wrong. According to quote “New Zealand was not Japanese-controlled when the destroyer ended its movement there. It can remain there indefinitely, but if it moves away it may not return.”

Thus, the US navy in the Philippines in a PTV does NOT have to leave SZ36 on US1. Now, usually they would want to move and would not be able to come back until the war started, but the G40 rule which applies to PTV states they can remain in a SZ even if surrounding territory becomes Japanese.

To be honest, before I read this I was of the “majority” opinion that the US would need to move.

Correct. If I were writing the rule from scratch I would require ships to move out of sz touching Japanese territories, but it’s a minor detail.

[Stucifer]

Do Allied units in Mongolia or other Russia-controlled but not originally Russian territories negate the National Objective for Great Patriotic War?( The +3 one in PtV)
I know the game engine stops it but I believe that is due to the script trigger changing them to Russia and think this might be a (PE) exception item but don’t have my laptop handy

[Stucifer]

I believe it is the same for Balanced mod worded thus:

3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.

So I believe they would not count against. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks 🤓

[Adam514]

@Stucifer said in League General Discussion Thread:

Do Allied units in Mongolia or other Russia-controlled but not originally Russian territories negate the National Objective for Great Patriotic War?( The +3 one in PtV)
I know the game engine stops it but I believe that is due to the script trigger changing them to Russia and think this might be a (PE) exception item but don’t have my laptop handy

That NO should only check original Russian territories, so units in Mongolian territories should not affect it, same as BM.

[Stucifer]

@Adam514 thanks! It did count a U.S. bomber in Olgiy in a current PTV game, if I removed that bomber with edit it triggered the NO. as a heads up.

[max334]

@Stucifer Good question. Wish i had an answer for you but that’s a little above my pay grade

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Hey everyone,
does anybody else encountered an issue with triple not applying the Siberian NO correctly?
As I playing Japan in PtV and have a DD in sz 5, the NO still goes to Russia several Rounds?

[Stucifer]

@aequitas-et-veritas To cancel Siberian lend-lease NO, there must be an “enemy warship”. So Japan must be at war with Russia for it to cancel.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@Stucifer

2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Amur is Russian-controlled, and sz5 has no enemy warships (“Pacific Route”)
--------------------

So am i got it wrong then?