I understand the Convoy disruptions, but my question has to do with a sea battle occuring in a sea zone with the convoy marker. Let’s say that on G1 two German submarines attack the British destroyer and transport in sea zone 109 and sink them without losing either submarine. Does the result of this sea battle, two German submarines in sea zone 109, mean that the subs are on watch and as a result England loses 2 x 2 = 4 IPC that turn? Or does this occur the next turn if the subs are still in sea zone 109 without a battle? Thanks for your help.
I’ve been made to understand that you lose income through convoy raiding only in your own income phase.
When in your turn you collect your money, the amount that is blocked through convoy raiding is subtracted. It does not happen in other phases or during other powers turns.
I understand the Convoy disruptions, but my question has to do with a sea battle occuring in a sea zone with the convoy marker. Let’s say that on G1 two German submarines attack the British destroyer and transport in sea zone 109 and sink them without losing either submarine. Does the result of this sea battle, two German submarines in sea zone 109, mean that the subs are on watch and as a result England loses 2 x 2 = 4 IPC that turn? Or does this occur the next turn if the subs are still in sea zone 109 without a battle? Thanks for your help.
On UK1 (collect income phase) if those 2 German subs are still there (UK could not kill them), then yes it would cost UK 4 ipc’s that turn (UK1 collect income phase).
Another sub/convoy question came up in our game w/sz125. We are in the 3rd turn of a global game (would be the same in E40). G3 Germany declares war and attacks Russia, but keeps a sub in sz 125 so Russia can’t get its war time NO (Russia has no dd’s to kill the sub). Germany still holds Norway, and the Red October has also found its way to sz 125 as well (was put there R2). Germany has no dd’s either, so can’t kill the Russian sub. The question was does the Russian sub cost Germany 2 ipc’s on Germany’s G3 collect income phase. After a bit of thought we decided the answer was no. Although Germany declared war w/Russia G3 and attacked, by rule the Soviets have not yet declared war on Germany (must declare war at the beginning of your turn) so it can’t raid convoys yet.
I think we played it right, but it does seem kinda weird that you can be attacked, fight to defend yourself, but can’t raid your new enemies convoy yet because of a formality, even if your in place to do it.
2 german subs in SZ109 would disrupt 6 dollars in convoy disruptions, if you’re playing with the optional rule…
@WILD:
Another sub/convoy question came up in our game w/sz125. We are in the 3rd turn of a global game (would be the same in E40). G3 Germany declares war and attacks Russia, but keeps a sub in sz 125 so Russia can’t get its war time NO (Russia has no dd’s to kill the sub). Germany still holds Norway, and the Red October has also found its way to sz 125 as well (was put there R2). Germany has no dd’s either, so can’t kill the Russian sub. The question was does the Russian sub cost Germany 2 ipc’s on Germany’s G3 collect income phase. After a bit of thought we decided the answer was no. Although Germany declared war w/Russia G3 and attacked, by rule the Soviets have not yet declared war on Germany (must declare war at the beginning of your turn) so it can’t raid convoys yet.
I think we played it right, but it does seem kinda weird that you can be attacked, fight to defend yourself, but can’t raid your new enemies convoy yet because of a formality, even if your in place to do it.
Actually, (as far as I know) as soon as Germany declares war on Russia, Russia is automatically at war with Germany… they don’t have to reciprocate the declaration of war. Also, Russia can immediately… or in the combat move phase of any future turn declare war on Italy.
Actually, (as far as I know) as soon as Germany declares war on Russia, Russia is automatically at war with Germany… they don’t have to reciprocate the declaration of war. Also, Russia can immediately… or in the combat move phase of any future turn declare war on Italy.
Correct. As soon as Germany declares war on Russia, there is a state of war between the two, and Russian subs disrupt convoys during Germany’s collect income phase, unless russia said otherwise, and I doubt russia would ever say it wasn’t going to disrupt a german convoy. Once there is a state of war between two nations (one declares war), the declaration is a formality (Russia is still technically supposed to declare war, but a state of war already exists, so….)
It seems to me that if a German submarine is in sea zone 125 and Germany is at war with Russia that the Russians should lose 2 IPC. My reasoning is that the convoy is for Russia (not Germany even though it is adjacent to Norway) since the Russians get a 5 IPC bonus if they control Archangel and sea zone 125 is not occupied by enemy shipping.
Actually, (as far as I know) as soon as Germany declares war on Russia, Russia is automatically at war with Germany… they don’t have to reciprocate the declaration of war. Also, Russia can immediately… or in the combat move phase of any future turn declare war on Italy.
Correct. As soon as Germany declares war on Russia, there is a state of war between the two, and Russian subs disrupt convoys during Germany’s collect income phase, unless russia said otherwise, and I doubt russia would ever say it wasn’t going to disrupt a german convoy. Once there is a state of war between two nations (one declares war), the declaration is a formality (Russia is still technically supposed to declare war, but a state of war already exists, so….)
Ok we have a difference of opinion here. I say Russia is not officially at war until it can declare it on its own turn. I reread the “Powers That Begin The Game Neutral” side bar on page 15. It doesn’t spell out that if you are attacked you are automatically at war. It does say that if your not yet at war, and you now have no restrictions (Germany attacking you would remove all restrictions) you may declare war at the beginning of your turn (before combat movement). It would be the same if Japan did an unproved attack on the UK. The US is not automatically at war w/Japan. It still has the option of declaring war or not when its turn rolls around (it will normally do a DOW its a no brainier). I’ve not been in a situation in Pac40 (that I can remember) when the US or UK had a war ship in a Jap convoy zone (and would still be there in Jap collect income phase) when Jap did DOW and made a direct attack on one or both of them. So it hasn’t come up in our group yet. I do vaguely remember Krieghund clarifying something similar before.
I think Krieghund needs to clarify now, I have been wrong in the past, but that is how I saw it.
@WILD:
Ok we have a difference of opinion here. I say Russia is not officially at war until it can declare it on its own turn. I reread the “Powers That Begin The Game Neutral” side bar on page 15. It doesn’t spell out that if you are attacked you are automatically at war. It does say that if your not yet at war, and you now have no restrictions (Germany attacking you would remove all restrictions) you may declare war at the beginning of your turn (before combat movement). It would be the same if Japan did an unproved attack on the UK. The US is not automatically at war w/Japan. It still has the option of declaring war or not when its turn rolls around (it will normally do a DOW its a no brainier). I’ve not been in a situation in Pac40 (that I can remember) when the US or UK had a war ship in a Jap convoy zone (and would still be there in Jap collect income phase) when Jap did DOW and made a direct attack on one or both of them. So it hasn’t come up in our group yet. I do vaguely remember Krieghund clarifying something similar before.
I think Krieghund needs to clarify now, I have been wrong in the past, but that is how I saw it.
I could also be wrong, but I’m 95% certain that this is the case as I was just reading through the errata thread last week and I think I read all this again. If Germany declares war on Russia, a state of war exists between them and all Russian units are hostile. A Russian warship would be able to disrupt Germany’s income on the turn that Germany declared war because it has a ship belonging to a power with which Germany is at war. Russia doesn’t need to declare war, as I think the rule is written such that your income is disrupted by a power with which you are at war and specifically not written such that your income is disrupted only by a power that has declared war on you. Once one power starts the war, retaliation is immediate as far as convoys go.
In Pacific, it is possible for Japan to declare war (unprovoked) on the UK and not the US, attack a seazone containing both nations’ ships, engage and destroy only the UK ships, and be safe from convoy disruption by the US as it is not at war with the US. The US is now free to declare war on its own turn, and would then be vulnerable to convoy disruption by Japan on US’s turn (again, because if a ship belonging to Japan, a power with which it is at war, is present in US convoy zone, regardless of which power declared war, it will disrupt income). Germany can do the same by remaining neutral to the US, engaging only UK units in a seazone containing US & UK ships, but the US could not retaliate in any way at all on their turn as that attack does not incite them.
Once war has been declared by one side, declaring war on the other side is a formality. I believe by a strict reading of the rules Russia is required to declare war in order to make combat movements against Germany and noncombat air travel over German spaces, but the German units are already hostile, and Russian Convoy zones would be vulnerable (if there were any) because a state of war already exists between them. Russia could not, for example, noncombat move through a seazone containing German warships after Germany declared war, even if Russia chose not to declare war in response on their turn.
If Germany declares war on Russia, a state of war exists between them and all Russian units are hostile. A Russian warship would be able to disrupt Germany’s income on the turn that Germany declared war because it has a ship belonging to a power with which Germany is at war. Russia doesn’t need to declare war, as I think the rule is written such that your income is disrupted by a power with which you are at war and specifically not written such that your income is disrupted only by a power that has declared war on you. Once one power starts the war, retaliation is immediate as far as convoys go.
In Pacific, it is possible for Japan to declare war (unprovoked) on the UK and not the US, attack a seazone containing both nations’ ships, engage and destroy only the UK ships, and be safe from convoy disruption by the US as it is not at war with the US. The US is now free to declare war on its own turn, and would then be vulnerable to convoy disruption by Japan on US’s turn (again, because if a ship belonging to Japan, a power with which it is at war, is present in US convoy zone, regardless of which power declared war, it will disrupt income). Germany can do the same by remaining neutral to the US, engaging only UK units in a seazone containing US & UK ships, but the US could not retaliate in any way at all on their turn as that attack does not incite them.
Once war has been declared by one side, declaring war on the other side is a formality.
Perfectly correct.
I believe by a strict reading of the rules Russia is required to declare war in order to make combat movements against Germany and noncombat air travel over German spaces, but the German units are already hostile, and Russian Convoy zones would be vulnerable (if there were any) because a state of war already exists between them.
Incorrect. The USSR is already in a state of war with Germany by virtue of Germany’s having declared war. A declaration of war by the USSR at this point is, as you noted, a formality. It makes absolutely no practical difference. Such a declaration is only necessary if the powers involved are not already at war.
Incorrect. The USSR is already in a state of war with Germany by virtue of Germany’s having declared war. A declaration of war by the USSR at this point is, as you noted, a formality. It makes absolutely no practical difference. Such a declaration is only necessary if the powers involved are not already at war.
So, then it’s a quibble and I’d rather not get pencil whipped but:
If it’s a formality, and if a power forgets during gameplay to reciprocate and declare war at the beginning of the combat move, are there any illegal moves that could result from not declaring war? Or, because it’s a “formality”, is the DOW completely uneccesary? Is the declaration really only relavent for the aggressor and after which it’s essentially mutual? In which case, why is it even mentioned in the rules and why is it not mutual and instantaneous so we can dispense with this “formality” thing for clarity and simplicity.
There’s no reason I can think of that a player wouldn’t declare war in response, as apparently it’s not required for movement, attack, nor are any NO’s written such that they still acheive them (or don’t acheive them), etc, so why muddy the waters with unclear language implying a nation still needs to declare war at the beginning of the combat move phase? Am I missing something? Why not simply rule that it’s immediately mutual so people don’t get confused by the convoy rules, etc?
OK, I had it wrong. I guess I’ll have to eat crow w/my play group. Is there a need for this to be addressed in the official FAQ? Like a line saying that once you have been directly attacked by the enemy, you are considered at war for all intensive purposes (no DOW needed).
I’m not sure where this confusion comes from. The rules require that powers not already at war make a declaration before attacking. They also indicate that a power is immediately at war with another power when that power declares war upon it. That’s why a reciprocal declaration is a formality - the two powers are already in a state of war. There is no game-related purpose in making a reciprocal declaration.
I’m not sure where this confusion comes from. The rules require that powers not already at war make a declaration before attacking. They also indicate that a power is immediately at war with another power when that power declares war upon it. That’s why a reciprocal declaration is a formality - the two powers are already in a state of war. There is no game-related purpose in making a reciprocal declaration.
To me the confusion arises in that we discuss it as “a formality” which implies that the other nation can “choose” to declare war. But there is no choice, as they’re already at war. For the game there is a declaration by one nation and no other declaration is required nor should be implied, formality or no.
To call it a formality implies it hasn’t yet occured and that certain rules are affected by the DOW, not simply a “state of war between two powers”. I think there will be confusion among us as long as there is discussion that mentions or gives weight to a “formality” as it implies some rules are related to this (such as a nation must declare war before being able to disrupt a convoy, rather than simply be at war with that nation).
The errata should just clearly establish that DOWs are mutual; there is no “formality”. If Germany declares war on Russia, Russia immediately declares war in response, on that turn, at that instant.
Yeah, what he said. Just think kcdzim is one of the people that shot me down on my orig post (LOL), now he’s kinda defending me. So this alone shows there’s some confusion.
@WILD:
Yeah, what he said. Just think kcdzim is one of the people that shot me down on my orig post (LOL), now he’s kinda defending me. So this alone shows there’s some confusion.
Shot down maybe, but I understood where your confusion would come from. The diplomatic rules are NOT clearly written and make it appear far more complicated than it is meant to be. As I previously wrote, I interpreted incorrectly that if a power did NOT make a “formal” DOW in response, they were not permitted to make a combat move against a power that declared war previously. There’s no reason a power WOULDN’T make the DOW (anyone would, and even if you didn’t state it your gaming group probably would assume it), but it still appeared that it was possibly “required” for any number of rule triggers. Which is crazy talk. And it’s not even required. Any DOW is essentially mutual, should be mutual (if a turn is several weeks, it would be on the same turn - no country waits to declare war in retaliation), and should be written such that it is explicitly mutual.
I can see how “formality” may not have been the best choice of words. However, I still don’t see how what’s in the rulebook is not clear. To restate what I said earlier using different terms:
The rules require that powers not already at war make a declaration before attacking. They also indicate that a power is immediately at war with another power when that power declares war upon it. That’s why a reciprocal declaration is purely ceremonial - the two powers are already in a state of war. There is no game-related purpose in making a reciprocal declaration.
OK, if Japan attacks the UK (unprovoked) it brings the US into the war right. Does the US have to first declare war in the beginning of its turn, or is it just a formality (purely ceremonial) and isn’t needed. In other words on J2 Japan attacks only the UK. The UK & US both have 1 sub in a Jap convoy zone, that Japan can’t kill. In the collect income phase of the same Jap turn, does it cost them 4 ipc’s?
@WILD:
OK, if Japan attacks the UK (unprovoked) it brings the US into the war right.
No. It allows the US to declare war on its turn.
@WILD:
Does the US have to first declare war in the beginning of its turn, or is it just a formality (purely ceremonial) and isn’t needed.
It must declare war, as it is not yet at war.
@WILD:
In other words on J2 Japan attacks only the UK. The UK & US both have 1 sub in a Jap convoy zone, that Japan can’t kill. In the collect income phase of the same Jap turn, does it cost them 4 ipc’s?
No, it costs 2 IPCs, for the UK sub. Japan is not at war with the US at that point.
