Alpha 2 rules question.
Scenario: Japan has a sub in z6 (sea of Japan), USA wants to amphibious assault Korea. USA sends 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport to z6 no air units are available to scramble. Under a2, we need a warship or the sub prevents the Amphibious assault. If I read it correctly:
“11. Submarines no longer fire a special �sneak attack� shot at unescorted transports. Transports are not allowed to unload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing an enemy sub(s) belonging to a power with which they are at war unless at least one of his warships was also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.”
The warship must be there at the end of the combat move phase.
Kamikaze attacks occur at the beginning of the Combat Phase.
I believe it was mentioned that Kamikaze does not trigger a combat, but it does prevent bombardment. So the Sub will not be activated by a naval battle
Does this mean that if Japan uses a Kamikaze to destroy the CA, that the amphibious assault goes off without a hitch even if the transport is now alone and an enemy sub is present?
Yes.
Is it true that you can load units to a transport and unload them as a amphibious assault in the same turn?
Can you send an aircraft carrier into combat to take hits?
We’ve always played the game that aircraft carriers can’t move during combat movement phase because they have no attack value. But now that we’ve reread the rules, it doesn’t state anywhere that they can’t attack (or take hits).
Yes to previous 2
Alpha 2 rules question.
I believe it was mentioned that Kamikaze does not trigger a combat, but it does prevent bombardment. So the Sub will not be activated by a naval battle
Does this mean that if Japan uses a Kamikaze to destroy the CA, that the amphibious assault goes off without a hitch even if the transport is now alone and an enemy sub is present?
Sorry, my english fails me… Krieghund answered “Yes”.
But, is it yes the amphibious assault occurs or yes the Japan’s sub, now alone with Transport, cancel the offload?
Alpha 2 rules question.
I believe it was mentioned that Kamikaze does not trigger a combat, but it does prevent bombardment. So the Sub will not be activated by a naval battle
Does this mean that if Japan uses a Kamikaze to destroy the CA, that the amphibious assault goes off without a hitch even if the transport is now alone and an enemy sub is present?Sorry, my english fails me… Krieghund answered “Yes”.
But, is it yes the amphibious assault occurs or yes the Japan’s sub, now alone with Transport, cancel the offload?
He means yes, the transport can conduct the amphibious assault.
Question 1
It is Turn 5.
Russia and Japan have not declared war against each other.
Are other allied pieces allowed to move into russian territories of both the Europe and Pacific maps?
Example:
America landing planes in Russia in Pacific theatre?
Question 2
It is Turn 13
Russia and Japan have not declared war against each other.
Are other axis pieces allowed to move into Russian territories in the Pacific theatre?
If someone knowledgeable could give a ruling and site the source, that would be swell. Thanks!
I’ve posted this in our game as well, but here’s a quote from Larry’s site -
Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see Powers Not at War with One Another above) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the USSR on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.
Here’s a link-
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149
The section is titled “Political Situation - Soviet Union”
This applies to Alpha 2 and Alpha 3.
I’ve posted this in our game as well, but here’s a quote from Larry’s site -
Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see Powers Not at War with One Another above) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the USSR on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.
Here’s a link-
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149
The section is titled “Political Situation - Soviet Union”
This applies to Alpha 2 and Alpha 3.
However, Russia is not Neutral. It is in fact an allied power across the 2 boards, it has a non-aggression pact with Japan - I would not refer to this as “neutral.” For example, China at war with Japan may land a plane in Burma while India is neutral yet Britain is at war on the Atlantic side if I recall.
Also, the United States may drop men off in Karelia, walk them until the hit the Pacific Board? Then all of a sudden stop, saying…well, we reached the pacific theatre…we can’t kill those German units on the other side?
Or for example Russia lands planes on the carrier in Z80 on the European board then moves to India’s waters to help defend their waters against Japan? So the planes would not defend?
Or for example I strafe 6 japanese troops with american bombers from Russia, I actually can’t because the territories on the pacific map are considered Neutral?
This rule needs revamping if indeed Russia is considered Neutral by the allies on the Pacific Board.
Yes, in those extreme and unlikely examples it seems strange.
But in the much more likely scenario that US is allowed to attack Japan’s home territories without fear of repercussion, the rule makes a lot of sense.
The rule prevents a lot more abuse than anything else.
Actually it’s also historical -
US bombers that had to emergency land in siberian territory were actually confiscated by the Russians. They were neutral in the conflict between Japan and US, and so couldn’t just give back the equipment.
Yes, in those extreme and unlikely examples it seems strange.
But in the much more likely scenario that US is allowed to attack Japan’s home territories without fear of repercussion, the rule makes a lot of sense.
The rule prevents a lot more abuse than anything else.Actually it’s also historical -
US bombers that had to emergency land in siberian territory were actually confiscated by the Russians. They were neutral in the conflict between Japan and US, and so couldn’t just give back the equipment.
From your own link:
When a power is not at war with anyone, it is neutral. Powers that begin the game neutral, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, aren’t initially part of the Allies or the Axis. The Axis powers are on the opposite side of these neutral powers, but they are not yet considered enemies. While a power remains neutral, it operates under even tighter restrictions. A neutral power can’t move land or air units into neutral territories. It can’t move units into territories or onto ships belonging to another power or use another power’s naval bases, nor can another power move land or air units into its territories or onto its ships or use its naval bases.
However, this is not the case and as Russia is indeed at war across both theatres. So, I get why Russia is prohibited in the Pacific theatre, but the allies should be able to take advantage of their Allies landing territories. Thus, I would like better clarification.
However, Russia is not Neutral. It is in fact an allied power across the 2 boards, it has a non-aggression pact with Japan - I would not refer to this as “neutral.”
No, the USSR is not “neutral”, however it is “still under the restrictions of being a neutral power” in the Pacific. Even though the Soviets are at war with Germany and Italy, they may not violate their non-aggression pact with Japan without going to war with Japan.
For example, China at war with Japan may land a plane in Burma while India is neutral yet Britain is at war on the Atlantic side if I recall.
India cannot be neutral, as it is not a power. It is part of the United Kingdom, which is not neutral.
Also, the United States may drop men off in Karelia, walk them until the hit the Pacific Board? Then all of a sudden stop, saying…well, we reached the pacific theatre…we can’t kill those German units on the other side?
That’s correct. The moving of Allied units into Soviet Pacific territories would be a provocation of Japan.
Or for example Russia lands planes on the carrier in Z80 on the European board then moves to India’s waters to help defend their waters against Japan? So the planes would not defend?
The carrier could not move there with Soviet planes on board. See above.
However, Russia is not Neutral. It is in fact an allied power across the 2 boards, it has a non-aggression pact with Japan - I would not refer to this as “neutral.”
No, the USSR is not “neutral”, however it is “still under the restrictions of being a neutral power” in the Pacific. Even though the Soviets are at war with Germany and Italy, they may not violate their non-aggression pact with Japan without going to war with Japan.
For example, China at war with Japan may land a plane in Burma while India is neutral yet Britain is at war on the Atlantic side if I recall.
India cannot be neutral, as it is not a power. It is part of the United Kingdom, which is not neutral.
Also, the United States may drop men off in Karelia, walk them until the hit the Pacific Board? Then all of a sudden stop, saying…well, we reached the pacific theatre…we can’t kill those German units on the other side?
That’s correct. The moving of Allied units into Soviet Pacific territories would be a provocation of Japan.
Or for example Russia lands planes on the carrier in Z80 on the European board then moves to India’s waters to help defend their waters against Japan? So the planes would not defend?
The carrier could not move there with Soviet planes on board. See above.
The moving of allied units into Pacific Soviet territories constitutes a declaration of war for Russia against Japan, but allowing allied units to walk across?
So, if I may use Soviet’s territories/land to put allied units upon in the Pacific theatre, but this would invoke a DoW by Soviets against Japan, and Japan would receive the 12 IPC’s?
It doesn’t work that way. Actions that would be considered “acts of war” don’t trigger a state of war in the game - they are simply prohibited unless the parties involved are already at war. So, the movement of Allied units into Soviet Pacific territories doesn’t trigger war between the USSR and Japan, but rather Allied units may not move into Soviet Pacific territories unless the USSR is already at war with Japan.
Alpha 3 question…
What are the rules governing USA fleet movement in the Pacific prior to war with Japan?
Can the USA fleet go to places like sz 54?
Alpha 3 question…
What are the rules governing USA fleet movement in the Pacific prior to war with Japan?
Can the USA fleet go to places like sz 54?
Yes, that’s my understanding. The USN is only limited in movement in the Atlantic, any move by the USN is legal in the Pacific so long as they don’t end their move in a sz adjacent to a Japanese territory.
In addition to the normal restrictions (see Powers Not at War with One Another above), while it’s not at war with Japan, the United States may not move units into or through China or end the movement of its sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to Japanese-controlled territories. While not at war with Germany or Italy, the United States may end the movement of its sea units on the Europe map only in sea zones that are adjacent to US territories, with one exception - US warships (not transports) may also conduct long-range patrols into sea zone 102.
Powers not at war with each other rules apply.
USA may not unload units on allies territories even in the pacific. So you can go to anzac zone and sit there with loaded xports.
japan cannot move out to crazy places anymore either.
So here is a good question. While being neutral can America us their exstensive funds to place an major industrial complex on the the Phillipine islands? I have this friend that does this as America every time first turn and it always makes the Japanese player attack it, bringing America into the war on turn 2. Is this legal?
