If there is no dd then fine the sub can do whatever, now add a dd, and all of a sudden the sub cant move through anymore - is that because the dd can detect the sub? then why is it allowed in the sea zone?
It’s because the sub has to move more carefully to avoid detection, thus slowing it down.
How can it be a NCM to move a sub into a “hostile” sea zone.
Subs are sneaky.
Especially now that it can conduct convoy damage in the same sea zone that is supposedly protected by a dd?
Destroyers protect convoys by sinking subs, not by scaring them away. Many convoy ships were sunk right under the noses of their escorts.
Working on a “partial” solution to the Japan building a DD in z6 to block USA transporting of Korean men to Japan continually.
Scenario: USA holds Manchuria with a factory; USA convoy fleet in z6; Transports from USA and Anzac in z6
Japan builds a DD each turn to “freeze” the pickup of Allied Koreans. USA sinks the DD.
Question: During USA noncombat, can USA land units board empty Anzac transports which were in the same sea zone?
I suspect yes, as the z6 naval battle this turn only involves USA units since allies may never attack together. This means that USA transports (that did not leave the sea zone) are done for their turn(because of naval combat), however boarding an allied transport is movement of land units, not of the allied transport.
Later: On Anzac’s turn, their Korean land units can now board empty USA transports, correct?
Working on a “partial” solution to the Japan building a DD in z6 to block USA transporting of Korean men to Japan continually.
Scenario: USA holds Manchuria with a factory; USA convoy fleet in z6; Transports from USA and Anzac in z6
Japan builds a DD each turn to “freeze” the pickup of Allied Koreans. USA sinks the DD.
Question: During USA noncombat, can USA land units board empty Anzac transports which were in the same sea zone?
I suspect yes, as the z6 naval battle this turn only involves USA units since allies may never attack together. This means that USA transports (that did not leave the sea zone) are done for their turn(because of naval combat), however boarding an allied transport is movement of land units, not of the allied transport.Later: On Anzac’s turn, their Korean land units can now board empty USA transports, correct?
Yes and yes
Scenario: USA holds Manchuria with a factory; USA convoy fleet in z6; Transports from USA and Anzac in z6
I assume you mean “USA holds Korea with a factory”, as only Axis factories may exist in original Chinese territories.
Yea, Korea…brain fart
Can USSR and USA take neutral proallies if they are not in war with enybody yet?
Example: USA R1 NCM in Brasil, or USSR R1 NCM in Persia.
Can USSR and USA take neutral proallies if they are not in war with enybody yet?
Example: USA R1 NCM in Brasil, or USSR R1 NCM in Persia.
Don’t believe so.
Can USSR and USA take neutral proallies if they are not in war with enybody yet?
Example: USA R1 NCM in Brasil, or USSR R1 NCM in Persia.Don’t believe so.
Thnx i think the same.
But we are not sure, teoreticly USA and USSR doesn’t have to go to war at all.
Can USSR and USA take neutral proallies if they are not in war with enybody yet?
Example: USA R1 NCM in Brasil, or USSR R1 NCM in Persia.
Nope. They can’t even walk/land outside their respective territories (i.e other’s “allies to be” land)
I just want to make this clear and to be rid of any doubt. Controling Norway has NOTHING to do with controling the danish straits right? You need to have friendly control of just denmark at the beginning of your turn in order to move through it right? I’ve heard some people talk about allies contesting Norway every turn to lock the german navy in the baltic.
I just want to make this clear and to be rid of any doubt. Controling Norway has NOTHING to do with controling the danish straits right? You need to have friendly control of just denmark at the beginning of your turn in order to move through it right? I’ve heard some people talk about allies contesting Norway every turn to lock the german navy in the baltic.
You’re right. It’s only control of Denmark, just like it’s control of Gibraltar for that strait. I believe the only place you need two territories is for the Suez canal.
<edited>Checked rulebook and confirmed. It’s on page 9, under “canals and narrow straits”</edited>
At what phase of the turn are new units placed upon taking a Pro-Axis or Pro-Allied move?
Are those new units eligible for NCM moves?
At what phase of the turn are new units placed upon taking a Pro-Axis or Pro-Allied move?
Are those new units eligible for NCM moves?
You can place the units immediately, but they can’t move in that same turn. They can move next turn.
For example, Germany can take over Bulgaria and Finland on G1. The units can be converted (placed) as German units immediately (during non-combat movement), but they cannot move until G2 (because they are now German units).
Thanks, helps out determining timing of UK TT being in place off Persia to get Russian units (per Persia) into Ethiopia.
Thanks, helps out determining timing of UK TT being in place off Persia to get Russian units (per Persia) into Ethiopia.
Great - yw -
You do realize in Alpha2 or 3 that Russia can’t move into any neutrals on the Europe map until at war with Italy or Germany?
Can planes fly over true neutrals, friendly neutrals (not taken over by a pro-ally), the Sahara Dessert and/or the Himalayas? I believe that this is prohibited, but I have seen some strategies where players are flying fighters from Calcutta to Moscow and from Calcutta to Jordan (turn 1). Is this possible? To fly from Calcutta to Moscow, a fighter would have to go over the Himalayas or Afghanistan. To fly from Calcutta to Jordan, a fighter has to go through Iraq or Saudi Arabia. I feel that I am missing something…
@MayDay:
Can planes fly over true neutrals, friendly neutrals (not taken over by a pro-ally), the Sahara Dessert and/or the Himalayas? I believe that this is prohibited, but I have seen some strategies where players are flying fighters from Calcutta to Moscow and from Calcutta to Jordan (turn 1). Is this possible? To fly from Calcutta to Moscow, a fighter would have to go over the Himalayas or Afghanistan. To fly from Calcutta to Jordan, a fighter has to go through Iraq or Saudi Arabia. I feel that I am missing something…
No to all. You cannot fly over impassable territories, and you cannot fly over neutrals (pro-axis, pro-allies or strict, no matter what, until they’ve been attacked or controlled by any player power at which time they’re no longer neutral)
Those moves are not allowed; you’re not missing anything.
Unless planes are attacking those neutrals during combat move - which would be very silly, especially without ground accompaniment - they can’t fly past them in non-combat.
Impassables like the Sahara and the Himalayas can never be flown over.
Unless planes are attacking those neutrals during combat move - which would be very silly, especially without ground accompaniment - they can’t fly past them in non-combat.
Good points.
Note that you can’t attack something that’s not there, so if a neutral has no standing army you couldn’t attack them with planes.
However, it is possible that a player may want to attack a neutral (esp. pro-the other side) for one round in order to get planes to the other side of the neutral. Very rare, but possible. Looking over the map, there are very few non-strict neutrals that would shorten flight paths by flying over……
