@Private:
Keep counting AB. There is no maximum. :-)
Thank you.
Dutch Territory Question
-
they can pass as the sea zone is not considered hostile
-
Last time I checked (unless the rules have changed again) for the UK to take DEI it has to be done during NONCOMBAT. So as long as Japan and UK are not at war, you can non combat into the sea square and land royal marines all you like. So you can’t block the british fleet as you propose…though you could just sink their BB and LC’s on J1 with 2 bombers and a fighter :)
-
Last time I checked (unless the rules have changed again) for the UK to take DEI it has to be done during NONCOMBAT. So as long as Japan and UK are not at war, you can non combat into the sea square and land royal marines all you like. So you can’t block the british fleet as you propose…though you could just sink their BB and LC’s on J1 with 2 bombers and a fighter :)
As far as I’ve heard it doesn’t matter if they occupy and control DEI on combat or non combat - it’s not an aggressive action against Japan, so it would not constitute an act of war, so it could be either during the combat or noncombat phase, though it’s more appropriate to treat as a noncombat move as there is no combat involved (I can’t speak for everyone but every game I’ve played with people we’ve done moves in the combat phase that should have been done in the non combat phase just so we wouldn’t forget them).
-
If the UK isn’t at war with Japan and doesn’t plan to be, then all its moves will be non-combat moves.
If they are at war with Japan, are making combat moves, and it’s a friendly game, it probably doesn’t make a difference.
But no sneaking past Japanese ships to take Dutch territories at the beginning of the combat move phase, then provoking war with Japan later in the turn. It’s also my understanding that you can’t non-combat units past Japanese ships and then non-combat units into China, provoking war.
-
I believe you’re correct, as per the errata declarations of war are made at the beginning of the combat phase and you should not be able to non-combat move UK units into china WITHOUT declaring war during your combat phase. The way I read the declarations of war errata is that you cannot make a hostile action without first officially declaring war. So really, the UK can’t make a noncombat move into china unless they declared their intention to do so during the combat phase. kinda funny really. Showing your hand to Japan. I’ll be annoyed if the UK is allowed to provoke war but not declare it by doing a noncombat move into china without declaring war.
If the UK isn’t at war with Japan and doesn’t plan to be, then all its moves will be non-combat moves.
If they are at war with Japan, are making combat moves, and it’s a friendly game, it probably doesn’t make a difference.
But no sneaking past Japanese ships to take Dutch territories at the beginning of the combat move phase, then provoking war with Japan later in the turn. It’s also my understanding that you can’t non-combat units past Japanese ships and then non-combat units into China, provoking war.
-
Japanese surface warships in a SZ do not make the sz hostile to UK/ANZ if they are not at war.
my own question: if Jap is at war with UK/ANZAC and not with US, then can they invade Dutch territories without provoking war with US? is the answer different for Dutch-controled dutch terits and UK or ANZ-controled dutch terits?
-
my own question: if Jap is at war with UK/ANZAC and not with US, then can they invade Dutch territories without provoking war with US? is the answer different for Dutch-controled dutch terits and UK or ANZ-controled dutch terits?
My guess would be that if the Dutch territory in question is still under Dutch control, if Japan were to attack it, then the US would be in the war. If the Dutch territory was under British and/or ANZAC control, then the US would not be drawn into the war.
Just my .02 :-)
-
my own question: if Jap is at war with UK/ANZAC and not with US, then can they invade Dutch territories without provoking war with US? is the answer different for Dutch-controled dutch terits and UK or ANZ-controled dutch terits?
All Dutch territories are under UK/ANZAC protection, whether or not they have taken control of them. As such, they are treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories. If Japan is at war with UK/ANZAC but not the US, it can invade Dutch territories without provoking the US.
-
my own question: if Jap is at war with UK/ANZAC and not with US, then can they invade Dutch territories without provoking war with US? is the answer different for Dutch-controled dutch terits and UK or ANZ-controled dutch terits?
All Dutch territories are under UK/ANZAC protection, whether or not they have taken control of them. As such, they are treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories. If Japan is at war with UK/ANZAC but not the US, it can invade Dutch territories without provoking the US.
This is new then???
And as far as game balance goes, it seems to be a very small nudge that benefits the Japanese.
-
-
This is new then???
No, this is not new.
I’m pretty sure it is.
“Japan is free to attack China and invade unoccupied French territories without provoking war with the other Allied powers. However, any combat movements against British, Dutch, ANZAC, or American territories, troops, or ships by the Japanese (unless they are already at war with that power) will bring all of the Allied powers into the war.”
“If not yet at war, Britain and/or ANZAC are free to take control of Dutch and French territories (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into those territories, as long as those territories have not been captured by Japan."
“In all other respects, Dutch and French territories are treated in the same way as any territory is when the original owning power’s capital is held by the enemy.”
Other powers whose capitals are held by the enemy don’t have their territories “under the protection” of another power. This would be an additional special exception for the Dutch.
Plus Krieghund’s statement here: “they are treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories” means they are no longer treated the way the errata said they were treated
“If Britain or ANZAC attack Japanese territories or ships or move units into China, this will immediately result in a state of war between Japan and these two powers, but not bring the US into the war.”
The only way I could have known Japan could attack the Dutch territories after UK/ANZAC attacked them, would have been to just assume they could. There was no rule about the Dutch being under protection or sharing the same political situation with the UK/ANZAC.
-
All Dutch territories are under UK/ANZAC protection, whether or not they have taken control of them. As such, they are treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories. If Japan is at war with UK/ANZAC but not the US, it can invade Dutch territories without provoking the US.
Does this mean that if the US liberates a Dutch territory from Japan control goes to the UK or ANZAC?
Or are they now treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories, until they are taken by Japan, at which point they are treated in the same way as any territory is when the original owning power’s capital is held by the enemy?
-
This is new then???
No, this is not new.
I’m pretty sure it is.
It depends on what you mean by “new”. I mentioned this a couple of days ago, as the errata are going to be changed to reflect it. At the time, I thought the change was being made immediately, but there’s been a hold-up approving the language the of the change. It was simply an effort on my part to not answer a question one day and then reverse the answer the next day. Sorry for any confusion.
All Dutch territories are under UK/ANZAC protection, whether or not they have taken control of them. As such, they are treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories. If Japan is at war with UK/ANZAC but not the US, it can invade Dutch territories without provoking the US.
Does this mean that if the US liberates a Dutch territory from Japan control goes to the UK or ANZAC?
Or are they now treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories, until they are taken by Japan, at which point they are treated in the same way as any territory is when the original owning power’s capital is held by the enemy?
The second one.
-
Thanks, not really a big deal.
I’m now somewhat curious about the reasons for the “under protection” wording.
Why not just:
Dutch like power whose capital is controlled by enemy
except UK/ANZAC can take controlIf UK/ANZAC provokes war, Japan is free to attack the UK/ANZAC and take Dutch territories, without bringing the US into the war.
Suggested Topics
