Thank you for the answer. I have a couple more questions and I would like to apologize in advance if these are in the rule book (I don’t have it), but my game group missed it if it is.
India is split in two between the Europe and Pacific board. W. India (I think that is what it is called) is on the Europe board but counts for the UK Pacific income, correct?
Italy and Russia both have NOs that talk about warships in the Med. or sz 125 respectively. What exactly is the definition of a warship? Does this include subs or transports?
If UK Europe falls, can UK Pacific “liberate” any of the territories on the Europe board and then collect that income? I mean if the US liberates a UK Europe territory while London is captured, it gets the income. I would think UK Pacific should be able to ‘liberate’ and collect UK Europe income too.
Thank you
a No
b ussr any warship–- anything but a transport
italy— any surface warship (transports and subs do not count)
c ALL pacific income is only on the pacific board the same for atlantic. If london falls then the only income is the pacific income to calcutta
India is split in two between the Europe and Pacific board. W. India (I think that is what it is called) is on the Europe board but counts for the UK Pacific income, correct?
No. All of the territories on the Europe board count for Europe income, and all of the territories on the Pacific board count for Pacific income.
Italy and Russia both have NOs that talk about warships in the Med. or sz 125 respectively. What exactly is the definition of a warship? Does this include subs or transports?
A warship is any sea unit that has either an attack or defense value, in other words anything but a transport.
If UK Europe falls, can UK Pacific “liberate” any of the territories on the Europe board and then collect that income? I mean if the US liberates a UK Europe territory while London is captured, it gets the income. I would think UK Pacific should be able to ‘liberate’ and collect UK Europe income too.
No. There is no such thing as “UK Europe units” or “UK Pacific units”. They’re all just UK units. If they liberate a territory, its control goes back to its original economy, even if its capital is held by the enemy.
Thank you for the answers and clarity.
Dave
Thank you for the answers and clarity.
Dave
leddux was correct, but Krieghund did not point out that the NO for a ship in Z125 is different than a ship in the Med.
Russian NO - any enemy warship in Z125 (anything but a transport)
Italian NO - any enemy surface warship in Med (anything that’s not a transport or a sub).
You can sneak Allied subs into the Med even if Gibraltar is controlled by the Axis, but they will not disrupt the NO by themselves.
Great Job everybody! The wealth of knowledge here is amazing. I am getting ready to have my first global game this Saturday and had a couple questions. I can’t waste any more time at work looking to see if they have been asked yet so i apologize if i am redundant.
1. Are convoy disruption considered an act of war? ex. can Japan have ships hanging out by borneo without having to be at war with UK.
2. If a fighter uses all of its movement to participate in a sea battle with the intention of landing on a participating carrier can it then retreat with the carrier to another sz? What if the carrier does not fight in the battle, can it retreat to the carrier?
3. For the ANZAC one time NO for occupying an originally controlled Japanese territory does the chinese territories that japan starts with count? (i guess this is an AAP40 question sorry)
Thanks alot! hopefully the answers to these will help prevent fisticuffs i mean issues Sat night.
Great Job everybody! The wealth of knowledge here is amazing. I am getting ready to have my first global game this Saturday and had a couple questions. I can’t waste any more time at work looking to see if they have been asked yet so i apologize if i am redundant.
1. Are convoy disruption considered an act of war? ex. can Japan have ships hanging out by borneo without having to be at war with UK.
Yes. You are only disrupting convoys if you are actually at war with them.
2. If a fighter uses all of its movement to participate in a sea battle with the intention of landing on a participating carrier can it then retreat with the carrier to another sz? What if the carrier does not fight in the battle, can it retreat to the carrier?
Fighters move independently from carriers, so don’t think in terms of “retreating with the carrier to another sz”
3. For the ANZAC one time NO for occupying an originally controlled Japanese territory does the chinese territories that japan starts with count? (i guess this is an AAP40 question sorry)
No. What’s printed on the board.
Thanks alot! hopefully the answers to these will help prevent fisticuffs i mean issues Sat night.
NP any time
If a fighter uses all of its movement points to get to a sea battle and then retreats, it will have no place to land and crash because it can’t go anywhere.
1. You either declare war or are at war by someone declaring on you(i.e. already at war). Convoy raiding only occurs if at war. Regardless of if you had a chance to fight yet. (Meaning they declare war or actually attack your units, and during their collect income phase your subs destroy IPCs. Even if you have not had a turn yet.)
2. If the fighter lives, it won’t have any movement and the carrier will be required to move there for it to land. If the carrier does not move in (unable to) then the fighter crashes, hopefully you can assign a hit to destroy the fighter if you do not want to move it there. During retreats, land and sea units move to a friendly/non-hostile territory they came from. Air units have always remained and landing normally during non combat. Therefor, I believe the plane would crash during non combat as it has no additional movement and there is no landing space if the carrier is not there to “catch” it. The only example of planes receiving 1 extra movement are defending planes who have their carrier destroyed, they have 1 movement space to land or crash.
3. Yes the Chinese territories shaded orange on the board (i.e. Japan’s starting territory color) are “originally” controlled by Japan. (Manchuria, Jehol, Shantung, Kiangsu, Kiangsi, and Kwangsi) the other eligible territories are (Siam, Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Formosa, Hainan, Iwo Jima, Marianas, Marshall Islands, and Paulau). Remember the allies can control it first, you get the once per game income when an Anzac unit lands either during combat or non combat.
This is not official, but it is the way we play it in my group. Krieghund is the user name of the guy that writes the axis rules. His replies are axis “gospel”.
Edit: Krieghund answered while I was typing this up….bad timing on my part.
3. Yes the Chinese territories shaded orange on the board (i.e. Japan’s starting territory color) are “originally” controlled by Japan. (Manchuria, Jehol, Shantung, Kiangsu, Kiangsi, and Kwangsi) the other eligible territories are (Siam, Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Formosa, Hainan, Iwo Jima, Marianas, Marshall Islands, and Paulau). Remember the allies can control it first, you get the once per game income when an Anzac unit lands either during combat or non combat.
Sorry, James, but Gamerman01 was right. The symbol that’s printed on the board determines original control of territories. Manchuria, Jehol, Shantung, Kiangsu, Kiangsi, and Kwangsi are Chinese original territories, not Japanese ones.
A question: let’s imagine that London is in axis hands. Then, UK units from India (or even from Persia for that matters) free West India from Italy’s hands. In other words, wich rule has preference, the one that says that UK collects income from Europe’s board and India from Pacific’s board, or the rule that says that when you free a territory and the original controller has lost its capital, the ally that liberated the territory collects the income?
Now, let’s imagine that UK takes Iraq (pro-axis neutral) after London has fallen. Can India collect the money?
A question: let’s imagine that London is in axis hands. Then, UK units from India (or even from Persia for that matters) free West India from Italy’s hands. In other words, wich rule has preference, the one that says that UK collects income from Europe’s board and India from Pacific’s board, or the rule that says that when you free a territory and the original controller has lost its capital, the ally that liberated the territory collects the income?
The rule about capturing an ally’s territory while that ally’s capital is in enemy hands doesn’t apply here, as UK is liberating its own territory. The rules make no exception for UK income collection when one capital is captured. Those territories simply produce no income until they are captured by another power.
Now, let’s imagine that UK takes Iraq (pro-axis neutral) after London has fallen. Can India collect the money?
No, for the same reason.
I am hoping for an errata that USSR must remain neutral toward Europe Axis when it is neutral toward Europe Axis.
Yeah, what I mean is USSR should not be allowed to join the UK, France or USA in any territory on the Europe side of the board before USSR is at war with Euro Axis.
Ramifications - USSR landing plane in Egypt, Scotland, or London (requiring DOW on Russia by Euro Axis if they want to attack UK, France, or USA).
One more errata I’m hoping for - improved Russo-Jap diplomacy rules.
Just want to be on record as supporting these, for what it’s worth.
I am hoping for an errata that USSR must remain neutral toward Europe Axis when it is neutral toward Europe Axis.
Yeah, what I mean is USSR should not be allowed to join the UK, France or USA in any territory on the Europe side of the board before USSR is at war with Euro Axis.
Ramifications - USSR landing plane in Egypt, Scotland, or London (requiring DOW on Russia by Euro Axis if they want to attack UK, France, or USA).
One more errata I’m hoping for - improved Russo-Jap diplomacy rules.
Just want to be on record as supporting these, for what it’s worth.
if UK is at war with Japan, shouldn’t Russia be allowed to send units into British territory?
I am hoping for an errata that USSR must remain neutral toward Europe Axis when it is neutral toward Europe Axis.
Yeah, what I mean is USSR should not be allowed to join the UK, France or USA in any territory on the Europe side of the board before USSR is at war with Euro Axis.
Ramifications - USSR landing plane in Egypt, Scotland, or London (requiring DOW on Russia by Euro Axis if they want to attack UK, France, or USA).
One more errata I’m hoping for - improved Russo-Jap diplomacy rules.
Just want to be on record as supporting these, for what it’s worth.
if UK is at war with Japan, shouldn’t Russia be allowed to send units into British territory?
Not on the Europe side. Japan is nowhere to be seen over there.
I am hoping for an errata that USSR must remain neutral toward Europe Axis when it is neutral toward Europe Axis.
Yeah, what I mean is USSR should not be allowed to join the UK, France or USA in any territory on the Europe side of the board before USSR is at war with Euro Axis.
Ramifications - USSR landing plane in Egypt, Scotland, or London (requiring DOW on Russia by Euro Axis if they want to attack UK, France, or USA).
One more errata I’m hoping for - improved Russo-Jap diplomacy rules.
Just want to be on record as supporting these, for what it’s worth.
if UK is at war with Japan, shouldn’t Russia be allowed to send units into British territory?
Not on the Europe side. Japan is nowhere to be seen over there.
What if Japan has taken parts of Africa?
then logically, Nova and Quebec border each other
That doesn’t necessarily follow. The four spaces appear to meet at a point, which indicates that Eastern United States doesn’t border sea zone 106 and Quebec doesn’t border New Brunswick/Nova Scotia. The question is whether the St. Lawrence Seaway is meant to be an extension of sea zone 106, dividing the latter two territories, or just a passable border between them.
What was Larry thinking when he made this map ? :-o
What if Japan has taken parts of Africa?
By round 4?? In a place the Russians would actually want to land a plane?? Be serious.
Admit it, it’s a good rule and should be in the official errata.
can the US move its atlantic fleet to z106 when not at war?
can the US move ground troops into canada territories(nova scotia, quebec, etc) before they are at war?
if yes, does the US get to use the Nova Scotia naval port advantages when not at war?
if fighters “retreat” from a battle, do they get to finish their movement points, or do they only get to move 1 space like ground units?
