@genken Might be cool to have a house rule that 1) 1, 2 or 3 the ship is damaged in a way that it moves at half but attacks full or 2) 4, 5, or 6 it is damaged in a what that it moves 2 spaces but attacks with a hit on 1 or 2 vs 4 normally.
AAG40 FAQ
-
Originally controled… not owned! japan originaly control manchuria…
“Controlled” and “owned” are the same thing.
Subs block offloading if transports are alone (without surface warship). If surface warship present, in “offload” sea zone, then subs are ignored and transports can offload.
Subs only block offloading for amphibious assaults. They never block offloading into friendly or friendly neutral territories.
Transports can load in a ennemy sea zone only if they start in that zone and only if the “moving player” declared war in that (his) specific turn. I was surprised, but that was once played against me.
Correct, except this should say “hostile sea zone” rather than “enemy sea zone”. Enemy subs and/or transports don’t make a sea zone hostile.
I don’t think you can attack your pro-neutral.
Correct.
-
My doubt is because of this frase in bold from the alpha 3.
Industrial Complexes:
Major industrial complexes can only be built on originally controlled territories (this includes upgrading minor ones). Likewise they may not be upgraded when captured. Major industrial complexes are reduced to minor when captured. The original owner of the territory may upgrade it if the territory is recaptured.Originally controled… not owned! japan originaly control manchuria…
No, we have been informed that Chinese territories that Japan begins the game in control over do NOT satisfy the originally owned territories restrictions on major complexes. It literally has to be a territory you OWN, not one that is conquered. Think of it this way: If the territory can only be liberated, then you do not own it, you conquered it. (Assuming friendly capitol is not under enemy control.) KSU, MAN, etc can ONLY be liberated, it can never be taken by the British, Australians, French, Russians or Americans.
-
Perfect thanks. So if Russia attacks Japan from a territory border mongolia, then mongolia will not activate at all, even if Japan pushes back into Russia.
Except if when Japan pushes back into Russia that includes a territory next to Mongolia.
-
Perfect thanks. So if Russia attacks Japan from a territory border mongolia, then mongolia will not activate at all, even if Japan pushes back into Russia.
Except if when Japan pushes back into Russia that includes a territory next to Mongolia.
Comical Situation:
1) Russia is taken over except for the territories bordering Mongolia.
2) There are no Russian units anywhere on the board.If Japan attacks Amur, do the Mongols still join Russia? Is it still Russia? What if they liberate Moscow? Is it now the Great Mongol Empire of 1943? Do the Mongols say “just kidding, we were really members of the United Soviet Socialist Republics all along!”?
Sorry, but that seems VERY funny to me. I know that literally, the rules say the Mongols are now Russians and can liberate Moscow to make Russia a nation again, I just dont see the Tom, Dick and Harry’s of Mongolia suddenly “liberating” Russia and calling themselves Russian.
-
Those are the rules of the game, but if you’ve taken moscow, those russian infantry aren’t going to be liberating it. Ever.
-
Perfect thanks. So if Russia attacks Japan from a territory border mongolia, then mongolia will not activate at all, even if Japan pushes back into Russia.
Except if when Japan pushes back into Russia that includes a territory next to Mongolia.
But…but…"If the Soviet Union attacks any Japanese-controlled territory bordering these Mongolian territories while Mongolia is still neutral, Mongolia will remain neutral and not ally itself with the Soviet Union. " I feel like one of those computers that Captain Kirk blew up in the original series by confusing it to death. :cry:
-
You’re right, moralecheck, and Ruanek is wrong.
-
-
You’re right, moralecheck, and Ruanek is wrong.
Sorry, I misunderstood the rules and how they related to the map. I forgot that Japan has territories next to Mongolia.
-
Those are the rules of the game, but if you’ve taken moscow, those russian infantry aren’t going to be liberating it. Ever.
Well, I said it was a ridiculous situation. You know that anything is possible in Axis and Allies…however, yes, the odds are VERY slim that a Mongolian infantry will walk in and liberate Moscow.
-
I’ve never see Jap bombers attack Russia from space, though I’ve heard people talk about it.
I do believe THAT is impossible.
-
@Cmdr:
Well, I said it was a ridiculous situation. You know that anything is possible in Axis and Allies…however, yes, the odds are VERY slim that a Mongolian infantry will walk in and liberate Moscow.
In such a case, there will be a round of kumis for everyone!
-
@Cmdr:
Well, I said it was a ridiculous situation. You know that anything is possible in Axis and Allies…however, yes, the odds are VERY slim that a Mongolian infantry will walk in and liberate Moscow.
In such a case, there will be a round of kumis for everyone!
Sorry, I don’t know what a “kumi” is. Are they attaboy’s? (and attagirl’s?)
It would be funny though! Would have to take screenshots and send them to Larry. Bet it would totally make his day! Course, in such a case, I would have to use non-Russian pieces to demonstrate what exactly happened.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumis
Yes, the fun of the game is the unexpected. I just finished a game of AAG as the allies. The Japanese threw their whole fleet at the American fleet, wiping both out. My opponent, confident he had some time, placed all his builds on a mainland factory, leaving Japan itself with a few infantry and a strat bomber. He disregarded the small Australian fleet–-that moments later took Tokyo. Gotta love naval bases and that extra movement point!
-
Ah, gotcha. Traditional native drink. Kay, makes more sense to me now!
-
HI, I’ve joined to clear up a few issues for the Global game.
- may an allied power at war land a plane in a pro-allied neutral territory? For example if it was the only landing spot available to make a move legal?
- may the US land planes in neutral Dutch East Indies?
- if you attack a seazone with planes, and they get destroyed, do you still have to move the carrier to that zone or in range to provide a theoretical landing spot as if the planes were never destroyed?
- if you attack a seazone with a plane, and it would require for a landing place you also clear another seazone (for example, a submarine vs 1000 battleships), and your plane succeeds in winning, but the sub doesn’t defeat the 1000 battleships, must I still move my aircraft carrier into the zone with the hostile battleships to pick up the fighter as it is in fact the only possible landing place? And if not allowed, can I then move the carrier wherever I like, within its range?
-
Thanks for the japonese Major IC answers. Now i have another doubt.
I attack te italian fleet in SZ96 with a destroyer and the plane from malta and egypt. I win this battle. The sea zone is cleared. In the non combat movement can i move the cruiser and the carrier toward sea zone 94 or 92?
Thanks
-
@RedArmySoldier:
HI, I’ve joined to clear up a few issues for the Global game.
- may an allied power at war land a plane in a pro-allied neutral territory? For example if it was the only landing spot available to make a move legal?
No. It’s a neutral territory, not a friendly territory.
@RedArmySoldier:
- may the US land planes in neutral Dutch East Indies?
Holland/Netherlands is not neutral - they are at war with Germany (the government was in exile in London). Thus, the Dutch East Indies are not neutral territories. Assuming that the US is not neutral, yes. As long as the US is at war with someone, they can land in dutch territories.
@RedArmySoldier:
- if you attack a seazone with planes, and they get destroyed, do you still have to move the carrier to that zone or in range to provide a theoretical landing spot as if the planes were never destroyed?
No.
@RedArmySoldier:
- if you attack a seazone with a plane, and it would require for a landing place you also clear another seazone (for example, a submarine vs 1000 battleships), and your plane succeeds in winning, but the sub doesn’t defeat the 1000 battleships, must I still move my aircraft carrier into the zone with the hostile battleships to pick up the fighter as it is in fact the only possible landing place? And if not allowed, can I then move the carrier wherever I like, within its range?
You cannot noncombat move a carrier into a hostile seazone (surface warships make a seazone hostile). The plane has no legal landing space, so it will die, and the carrier, because it cannot move to save the plane, can move to any other legal space.
-
Thanks for the japonese Major IC answers. Now i have another doubt.
I attack te italian fleet in SZ96 with a destroyer and the plane from malta and egypt. I win this battle. The sea zone is cleared. In the non combat movement can i move the cruiser and the carrier toward sea zone 94 or 92?
Thanks
Assuming that SZ 94 or SZ 92 are not hostile (no surface enemy warships - subs and transports don’t make a seazone hostile), yes.
-
Thanks for the japonese Major IC answers. Now i have another doubt.
I attack te italian fleet in SZ96 with a destroyer and the plane from malta and egypt. I win this battle. The sea zone is cleared. In the non combat movement can i move the cruiser and the carrier toward sea zone 94 or 92?
Thanks
Assuming that SZ 94 or SZ 92 are not hostile (no surface enemy warships - subs and transports don’t make a seazone hostile), yes.
So in the non combat mov SZ96 is considered friendly because i destroyed all the italian ships in the combat move! That´s right?
Suggested Topics
