@matttodd1 Got it. Thanks for the prompt reply!
AAG40 FAQ
-
when one half of UK’s economy purchases a base, does it have to be placed on that economy’s territory, or can it be put on territories that give money to the other economy?
Example: Can London buy a naval base for west India (part of India’s economy)? -
Good question because the latest Alpha3 rules (including UK rules in blue) do not address this.
Look at the original rulebook, though:
Page 32, under “Global UK rules”
“…UK units purchased and placed on the Pacific map can only be bought with IPC’s generated on the Pacific map. Likewise, UK units purchased and placed on the Europe map can only be bought with IPCs generated on the Europe map.”Seems clear that London can’t buy bases on the Pacific map (except on Yukon or BC) and Calcutta can’t pay for bases on the Europe map (except Western India). Even if the other capital is down. Krieghund will say if this is wrong, but I’m 99% sure
-
Good question because the latest Alpha3 rules (including UK rules in blue) do not address this.
Look at the original rulebook, though:
Page 32, under “Global UK rules”
“…UK units purchased and placed on the Pacific map can only be bought with IPC’s generated on the Pacific map. Likewise, UK units purchased and placed on the Europe map can only be bought with IPCs generated on the Europe map.”Seems clear that London can’t buy bases on the Pacific map (except on Yukon or BC) and Calcutta can’t pay for bases on the Europe map (except Western India). Even if the other capital is down. Krieghund will say if this is wrong, but I’m 99% sure
yup. alpha supplements OOB, so if you don’t see something addressed or contradicted by alpha, OOB still governs.
-
I wondered the same thing….but my evil plan was thwarted :evil:
-
So bases are considered “units” then? Because if they aren’t “units”, then the rulebook doesn’t say anything about them, which would make it legal.
-
So bases are considered “units” then? Because if they aren’t “units”, then the rulebook doesn’t say anything about them, which would make it legal.
Yes, bases are “units”
-
I am satisfied by your answers, I’m just bringing up a point which caused me confusion, and screwed up my strategy in the XDAP tournament. I trust your guys answers. Thank you, by the way, for your quick responses.
-
No, bases aren’t “units”. I just made a logical inference.
Bases (and ICs) are units - they are just not combat units.
-
Any time, boot
I’ll edit my post to correct, Krieg
-
Can a submarine noncombat move into (not through) a hostile SZ which contains an enemy destroyer?
I believe it can since page 28 says:
“A destroyer cancels the Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly unit characteristic of any submarine that moves into the sea zone with it. This means that the submarine must immediately end its movement, whether combat or noncombat, upon entering the sea zone.”I think it’s been addressed before, but I can’t find where with the search engine and I need outside confirmation for a match I am playing.
-
Can a submarine noncombat move into (not through) a hostile SZ which contains an enemy destroyer?
I believe it can since page 28 says:
“A destroyer cancels the Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly unit characteristic of any submarine that moves into the sea zone with it. This means that the submarine must immediately end its movement, whether combat or noncombat, upon entering the sea zone.”I think it’s been addressed before, but I can’t find where with the search engine and I need outside confirmation for a match I am playing.
Yes.
-
Can a submarine noncombat move into (not through) a hostile SZ which contains an enemy destroyer?
I believe it can since page 28 says:
“A destroyer cancels the Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly unit characteristic of any submarine that moves into the sea zone with it. This means that the submarine must immediately end its movement, whether combat or noncombat, upon entering the sea zone.”I think it’s been addressed before, but I can’t find where with the search engine and I need outside confirmation for a match I am playing.
Yes. can land units noncom into newly captured territories?
-
Can a submarine noncombat move into (not through) a hostile SZ which contains an enemy destroyer?
I believe it can since page 28 says:
“A destroyer cancels the Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly unit characteristic of any submarine that moves into the sea zone with it. This means that the submarine must immediately end its movement, whether combat or noncombat, upon entering the sea zone.”I think it’s been addressed before, but I can’t find where with the search engine and I need outside confirmation for a match I am playing.
Yes.
can land units noncom into newly captured territories?
Yes. They can also noncom THROUGH them to other friendly territories
-
Same goes for newly cleared sea zones.
-
This is technical question regarding a theoretical situation. In the political rules Japan is excluded from moving to the United States’ coastline but Germany (or Italy) does not appear to have this restriction.
While Germany and the United States are not at war thus it would seem possible for Germany to move ships into the United States convoy lanes (without disruption, thus not declaring war) anytime during G1-G3. The United States, because of their political situation are thus unable to declare war on Germany and attack these ships.
On US3 it is obviously beneficial for the United States to declare war on the Axis at the end of their turn to start receiving their bonus IPCs. As this happens right before the collect income phase, they are at war with Germany and Germany is thus at war with the United States. The collect income phase happens and all prerequisites for convoy disruption are met and the US takes an immediate hit to their IPC gain. On G4 Germany can simply move this fleet away.
I am basing this on this post by Krieghund (topic=16001.msg539048#msg539048):
It all boils down to this: If you have a sub or surface warship in a convoy sea zone that’s adjacent to one or more of my territories during my Collect Income phase, you disrupt my convoy, unless you don’t want to.
Nothing else matters. It doesn’t matter what any of those ships did on your turn, my turn or anyone else’s turn. It doesn’t matter if I or anyone else has any ships of any type in the sea zone also.
I had read threads that said that convoy disruption had to be “declared” on the attacking player’s turn but the above-linked post seems to say it pretty much just boils down to the two requirements (ships in the convoy zone and being at war) as being met.
Is this a correct interpretation of these rules? Again, not asking for any strategy or counters on this particular tactic, just a ruling on whether or not it works as described.
-
The threads you read that convoy damage has to be “declared” were wrong.
Krieghund is always right - he is the rulebook.
Germany can do exactly as you described, and yes it would take away from USA income on USA3 if the USA declares war on Germany to get their extra income.The 3 conditions that must exist for convoy attacks are clearly delineated on page 22 of the Europe rulebook. There is no requirement to declare convoy damage. Furthermore, the instructions on page 22 say that it is the responsibility of all the players to review the map and look for convoy damage situations and point them out.
-
Thank for the quick reply! I had assumed it worked as such. It seems a pretty dirty trick since the US can’t do anything to “stop” this loss of IPC on their first turn of bonus income, but it’s the Axis’ mandate to hurt the Allies’ (especially US’s) IPC in any way. Also seems risky because then you have to outrun an American fleet which is probably already on top of you :lol: but it would be a good strategy to explore with an improperly balanced or small American Atlantic fleet.
Question #2: Assume that Germany and Italy have taken care of the UK and Russian fleets and lacking a better target they both decide to park their entire fleets off the east coast of America before US3. Obviously the US can’t attack either of them because it is not at war. This is technically rules-legal as per the political restrictions, correct? (I won’t speculate as to why they would ever do this, but it could come up)
It seems silly that parking your navy off the coast of a neutral country’s capital isn’t an act of war but that’s what the rules seem to indicate.
-
Yes, that’s right.
Before Alpha3, Japan could park fleet along America’s coastline, or anywhere it wanted while USA was neutral. Â Now they can’t. Â Germany and Italy have no naval restrictions whatsoever as to neutral powers.
There are lots of things that seem silly about A&A when you think about it. Â :-)You can go post on the “If I were Larry I would” thread. Â You could say that you would bar Germany and Italy from leaving navy next to US territories while USA is neutral.
You sure pointed out an inconsistency, there.
I’m just glad he ditched the ridiculous unlimited scrambling of OOB and opened scrambling up to non-islands.
Used to be you could scramble off Japan but not UK. Â Now that inconsistency is thankfully gone, but as you have noted, several remain. (And yes, Krieg, I know UK has 2 territories and that made it different than Japan, but it was inconsistent in that they are both basically island capitals) -
You can go post on the “If I were Larry I would” thread. � You could say that you would bar Germany and Italy from leaving navy next to US territories while USA is neutral. You sure pointed out an inconsistency, there.
I guess that even though it’s “inconsistent” it’s almost a non-issue because of the difference in balance. A combined Japanese fleet off the west coast of the US would provide a massive threat, almost insurmountable given Japan’s starting fleet capacity. At best for the US it would almost be mutual annihilation.
By US3 the combined forces of the German and Italian fleets would have to be in Gibraltar by turn 2 for a turn 3 jump to the US, and their capacity is significantly less threatening.
We had a game though that due to lucky rolls the Italian and German fleets had decimated the UK/French fleets in the Med and English Channel very early and could have conceivably tried to put a blockade on the US. A strong Japan could pressure the US into having to divide fleet forces to try to combat both forces and could potentially put America out of the game before they even got into the game.
-
I guess that even though it’s “inconsistent” it’s almost a non-issue because of the difference in balance. A combined Japanese fleet off the west coast of the US would provide a massive threat, almost insurmountable given Japan’s starting fleet capacity. At best for the US it would almost be mutual annihilation.
By US3 the combined forces of the German and Italian fleets would have to be in Gibraltar by turn 2 for a turn 3 jump to the US, and their capacity is significantly less threatening.
Good points.
I hope you start posting on our boards with good contributions like these.
Oh, and welcome! Should have said that last night.
Suggested Topics
