Treaty ports aren’t treated as separate land territories, so there’s no need to have blow-up boxes, or an absurdly enlarged Gibraltar territory covering half of southern Spain.
If the greater territory is occupied by enemy forces you lose the port.
So, if Spain joins the Axis, Gibraltar is automatically absorbed into Spain. Even without German help they’d have easily taken over the rock. The only thing that stopped Franco doing this was that his country was bankrupted by the civil war, and simply couldn’t afford to get involved in another conflict. He also realised that Spain would become a prime target for American intervention, and was in any case heavily dependent on American imports. He managed to stall Hitler by demanding the same French North African territory that Hitler had already promised to Mussolini (while secretly promising Petain it wouldn’t be transferred…)
If and when Spain joins the Axis then Spanish and Allied forces in the territory are treated as though a battle has been initiated. If using ships-in-port rules the UK would have the option of retreating it’s ships to sea.
Similarly, if Japan captures Kwantgtung it’s assumed that it gains the Hong Kong naval base in the process. All UK and Chinese forces in the territory defend together.
We might also have French Pondichery in Coromandel, and Portuguese Goa in Malabar. Even if not significant militarily, they can become important if using certain Convoy routes, and if using ship re-fueling rules.
If Hong Kong ‘were’ to become a treaty port within a larger chinese territory……then that territory would be in japanese hands by 1940. The UK only controled Hong Kong and the surronding area before hostillities began with Japan, the Chinese had been pushed from the coast.
So in effect japan already controlls the greater territory.
So mechanicly, in Pacific 40…two UK infantry would be in japanese controlled Kwangtung. BUT the victory city and port would be UK controled. So when you determine who can use the ports benifits? Can japan use it while there isnt a state of war between them and the UK? Can Japan build another port there to use for itself? If japan leaves the territory utterly, does it become UK controlled, Chinese controlled?
A black knight and a white Rook cant both be on E4, thats just not how the game is played
In A&A we have to cope with absurd shaped and sized representations of crucial areas…i mean just look at the size of Japan compared to the Western US in Pacific, it strecthes from Mexico to Seattle, easily.
Flashman, I perfectly understand what youre saying, that the geographic size of Gibraltar, etc. are misrepresented in axis and allies. Considering they are only a few square miles within the larger area. Yet, imagine if the territory simply existed as a seperate territory, but only the size of a pin head. It wouldnt be very easy to play, unless you use gaudy blow up boxes.
I dont think we need to worry about spain joining the axis and having a hard time taking Gibraltar. They will likeley have enough units to simply take Gibraltar by force when and if the time comes. The size and shape of territories is only enlarged for unit placement.
The size and shape of territories is only enlarged for unit placement.
:-D
Is there an echo in here?
Mmmm, according to this the Japanese controlled the coastal zone surrounding Hong Kong, but can scarcely be said to be in occupation of the Province, most of which was still in Chinese hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Occupation_-_Map.jpg
Japan had the policy of taking over coastal towns, but leaving the interior to the Chinese, so it’s debatable as to who was “in control” at this time. For me, it’s still China, so Japan still has to capture the whole province of Kwangtung, not just a tiny bit.
If Japan and UK are not at war, then there’s no problem with the units coexisting; the Brits just sit out any Sino-Japanese battle.
Japan gains control of the territory and get it’s income (I wouldn’t have this as a VC in any case), but wouldn’t be able to build a naval base - that privilege has been signed over to the UK. In effect Japan takes over China’s side of the treaty.
The map is just not complex enough to allow for such intricacy.
A hex map would be better suited for such rules. Third Reich scale.
Can anyone deny or confirm the following concerning the Europe 1940 map:
1. Will have a fairly accurate, widened Atlantic?
2. only WITH the above, Azores included? (considering how much smaller Malta is…)
Am I alone in wanting either of these? :|
I recall hearing Azores was out……from Krieghound I think
I “assume” the atlantic will be big enough that you cant go from US to any continental european territories WITH a port (except maybe portugal)
So that means the move from US coast to UK (Plymoth area seazone) will probably be 3 moves, from there 1 more to france, 2 more to spain or low countries, 3 to denmark and norway and gibraltar and Morocco
I think…just imagine the current map with a line of extra sea zones running down the middle to make everything farther
Ok, no Azores but hope you and I “assume” correctly about the Atlantic. :wink:
I’d rather see a squashed and inaccurate North/South America as a trade off for a wider Atlantic…nothing besides unit placement/mobilization really happens there anyhow in our games…
I’d rather see a squashed and inaccurate North/South America as a trade off for a wider Atlantic.
Shouldn’t need to with the bigger board.
the real problem lies in the fact that sea units can move 3 now from a port.
So adding a seazone inbetween US and UK doesnt really do ANYTHING but hurt the german subs running around out there.
Adding 2 seazones between US and UK is different, and better but now the map shape will suffer if you want to have sea zones bigger than a postal stamp.
What is the rationale for a ship moving faster when leaving a port?
Yes, I’m curious to know the answer to that one as well.
I rationalized it simalarly to Yoper
The ships at a port are fully fueled, arranged in efficent convoy, and know the sea lanes, weather, and other geograpic (not sure if you can use that word on water) conditons of the immidate area around the port.
For instance, Every japanese sailor knows how to get out of his port of call efficently. Combined with full supplies and fuel, basicly the first seazone they were in didnt even count, they know it like the back of their hands and are already out of it before you can say “yammamotto”
but thats just my hairbrained theroy
I am sorry but I am not buying any of those answers. A ship already out at sea is going to get passed by a ship leaving a port. C’mon think about it, it doesn’t make sense.
@Brain:
I am sorry but I am not buying any of those answers. A ship already out at sea is going to get passed by a ship leaving a port. C’mon think about it, it doesn’t make sense.
I pretend that a port come with minesweepers that clear the sea from mines so you can sail straight through, and you dont have to spend time zig-zag like in the zones without ports.
@Yoper:
Not faster, further.
It models the fact that you are coming from a place that has the facilities to fully refit and supply the ships for combat.
When you are moving otherwise, it’s more like meeting up with a supply ship at sea. An oiler transferring fuel ship to ship. Just not as efficient.
My only issue with this, is when you move a carrier 3 spaces, and the planes cant reach the adjacent seazone. The carrier rule should be rewriten to say that carrierplanes can move 2 spaces. So move the carrier 3 spaces, and then the fighter can move two spaces. I asked Larry and didnt like his answer.
I see what you mean. When ftr/carrier starts in the same sz (w/NB), the ftr can’t attack the sz beyond the carriers range, and fly back to the carrier as it did before NB (ftr doesn’t have the range). I guess we’ll just have to wait for the tech tree in global for LRA. That brings me to wonder w/AB will LRA still be +2, or might it be only +1.
Edit: Bmrs w/range of 9 would be very interesting to say the least.
In Pacific (or anywhere really) ftrs only need is a range of six to fly out from an island w/AB and attack ships 2 sz away, then fly back (like Wake Is to Caroline sz then back). Any thoughts?
I rationalized it by saying its a boardgame and some things are just added to make the game more interesting. everything is not historical or realistic
@Yoper:
@Brain:
I am sorry but I am not buying any of those answers. A ship already out at sea is going to get passed by a ship leaving a port. C’mon think about it, it doesn’t make sense.
Take it up with Larry. But you probably won’t like the answer. :|
I am sure Larry doesn’t care what I think, but I would be interested to know his thoughts on this as all I am trying to do is make sense of it. Maybe he is thinking correctly and I am not, but for the life of me, I can’t come up with the explanation.
I rationalized it by saying its a boardgame and some things are just added to make the game more interesting. everything is not historical or realistic
Now that’s a weird way to look at it… Intriguing… :-P
