1 when London is captured UK recieves no income. I think that this is false. UK still recieves pacific income
2 UK units from pacific cannot take control of europe uk territories when London is controled by the axis - this is a big mess and i don´t have an answer. It seems that for example USA can held a UK territory in Europe when london is captured, so why the UK pacific units cannot do the same?
3 UK europe and Pacific work out as if they were two different power - but R&D works simultaneous for both, but can in same turn be two developmnets, one from pacific income and other from european income?
4kamikase attacks can be in response to noncombat move and to combat move and may be declared if the enemy sea units are just passing by (this follows everything that is said in rulebook).
5 if i understood right, you said that a japanese fighter can fly over a british territory even if Japan and Uk are not at war with each other because they are both at war with someone else. I do not agree. In my opinion when Japan is not at war with UK, they are neutral to each other and so a japanese flighter cannot fly over a UK territory.
Please comment Krieghund
I’m not Krieg, but if I could try and help answer a couple of your issues, based on my readings of the rules and Krieg’s answers and FAQs entries.
@MEGAEINSTEIN:
1 when London is captured UK recieves no income. I think that this is false. UK still recieves pacific income
2 UK units from pacific cannot take control of europe uk territories when London is controled by the axis - this is a big mess and i don´t have an answer. It seems that for example USA can held a UK territory in Europe when london is captured, so why the UK pacific units cannot do the same?
3 UK europe and Pacific work out as if they were two different power - but R&D works simultaneous for both, but can in same turn be two developmnets, one from pacific income and other from european income?
5 if i understood right, you said that a japanese fighter can fly over a british territory even if Japan and Uk are not at war with each other because they are both at war with someone else. I do not agree. In my opinion when Japan is not at war with UK, they are neutral to each other and so a japanese flighter cannot fly over a UK territory.
1-UK is split into 2 parts only in terms of income collection and purchases/placement. For everything else these 2 parts act as one UK. All UK territories on the Europe boards count for London spending and all on the Pacific count for Calcutta spending. The units purchased with these separate incomes must be placed at ICs on their respective boards.
2-UK Pacific units can liberate UK Europe territories because they all UK, not UKE or UKP. BUT, the territories on the Europe boards income goes to London and if it is captured, these incomes are not collected by UK at all.
5-Neither the UK or Japan can fly over each other’s territory unless they are at war. The fly-over would be an act of war.
5-Neither the UK or Japan can fly over each other’s territory unless they are at war. The fly-over would be an act of war.
I think his complaint is that Britain can fly over Japanese territories without it being an act of war, because Japan starts at war with China and Britain starts off at war with Germany. They’re not neutral powers so both are allowed to fly over each others’ territories. And I agree with the OP, I don’t believe this is in the spirit of the game. You should have to be at war with the power or allied in order to do any flyovers.
1 - You’re right. I never said otherwise.
2 - UK Pacific can’t take control of UK Europe’s territories under any circumstances. They are separate economies under the same power.
3 - No. If the Europe and Pacific economies each pay for a die, they are rolled together.
4 - No. Kamikaze attacks are done at the beginning of the Conduct Combat phase. As such, they may only be done as a reaction to combat movement after all such movement is completed.
5 - There is nothing in the rules to support your view. There is a general restriction on powers not at war with anyone flying over other powers’ territories, but this doesn’t apply here as each of these powers is at war with someone. There are also specific restrictions, but none of them prevent UK and Japan from flying over each other’s territories. This could change in the FAQ, but I doubt it.
If London falls to sealion and while London is in German hands India liberates Egypt from the Italians can India collect the income for Egypt?
This would be similar to the US getting them bucks for liberating French Morocco from Italy while Paris is in German hands
No, it can’t. The US can get the income from Morocco because the territory originally belonged to a different power (France). The situation is different with UK Europe and UK Pacific, because they’re both part of the same power.
2 - UK Pacific can’t take control of UK Europe’s territories under any circumstances. They are separate economies under the same power.
Same power?, that means it can liberate its ocupied regions in Eurpe or pacific by use of other theatres units, ie gain control, but not gain/genertae income unless or untill the capaital is also held, your explantion of the rule is counter intuitive and lacks logic, as it denys the same power to do what all other same powers can do, and just because they are seperate economies has nothing to do with the question of whome may take control of a region.
When the OP wrote its a mess, he refers to Europe UK regions being Axis controlled, and libertaed by Pacific Uk same power unit, yet the control and thus income stays with axis, which is indeed a mess brought about by a misaplication of the rules as set out.
In this case the income and control would not still be axis, it would simply be lost. UK as a whole would have control of the tt, but not get paid until London is also liberated. What you do in this case is have Anz, US or Russia liberate UK Euro tt so the income stays w/allies.
quote from above:
“your explanation of the rule is counter intuitive and lacks logic, as it denys the same power to do what all other same powers can do”
Actually it follows the same rules that all AA games have regarding capitals. If Russia (or any power) looses its capital, any tt that Russian units liberate of its own, or tt that were originally controlled by the other side would be lost income until Moscow is also liberated. You are confusing the fact that UK E & UK P are the same power (use the same units on the same turn), but has two incomes, its not two separate powers (like UK/Anz).
You may have an argument that the capture capitals rule is altogether flawed (and many would agree), but in this case the game mechanism works like it always has.
I know its a little hokey but that’s the way it is. If you don’t like it that way make a house rule, or exchange all the UK Pac units for Anz units making them separate powers. You could call them the Pac Commonwealth.
The UK E & UK P units can cross maps, they can join forces and liberate tt anywhere on the board. What is different is that if UK E capital (London) is in enemy hands it collects no income for the Euro side (and vise versa).
quote from above:
“your explanation of the rule is counter intuitive and lacks logic, as it denys the same power to do what all other same powers can do”
Actually it follows the same rules that all AA games have regarding capitals. If Russia (or any power) looses its capital, any tt that Russian units liberate of its own, or tt that were originally controlled by the other side would be lost income until Moscow is also liberated. You are confusing the fact that UK E & UK P are the same power (use the same units on the same turn), but has two economies, its not two separate powers (like UK/Anz).
You may have an argument that the capture capitals rule is altogether flawed (and many would agree), but in this case the game mechanism works like it always has.
Same power?, that means it can liberate its ocupied regions in Eurpe or pacific by use of other theatres units, ie gain control, but not gain/genertae income unless or untill the capaital is also held, your explantion of the rule is counter intuitive and lacks logic, as it denys the same power to do what all other same powers can do, and just because they are seperate economies has nothing to do with the question of whome may take control of a region.
My answer was imprecise due to my use of the OP’s terminology rather than the correct terminology. There is no such thing as “UK Europe units” or “UK Pacific units” on the board. Once the units are mobilized, they are simply “UK units”. Also, territories are indeed controlled by UK, not UK Europe or UK Pacific. Only the income from the territories and the use of the industrial complexes for mobilization is divided between the two economies.
In the situation given, the UK units would take control of the liberated territory for UK as normal. However, the income from the territory would be lost to UK, as Wild Bill indicated, due to London being enemy-held. What I should have said was “UK Pacific can’t gain income from UK Europe’s territories under any circumstances.”
I think that Krieghund did a nice job of clearing things up.
I already use the Anzac Indian pices as seperate colored CW units, but for visual rather than game reasons, if however Pacific UK creatred units cannot take control of regions in Europe, that may be the only answer to adopt.
This may be part of the problem with perception that there is a UK E & UK P. You can’t swap out UK P (India) units for Anz and play out of book. It would make the UK look like two different powers (your basically giving India to Anz) and be nearly impossible to tell which units are UK and which are Anz.
@WILD:
This may be part of the problem with perception that there is a UK E & UK P. You can’t swap out UK P (India) units for Anz and play out of book. It would make the UK look like two different powers (your basically giving India to Anz) and be nearly impossible to tell which units are UK and which are Anz.
Not really as they are all part of the single UK power, just income and unit creation are seperate, the confusion was the OP wording and KH reply, which he has now clarified, which implied they were seperate beyond that.
Wild Bill didn’t say they were seperate parts of the same power. By referring to them as UK E and UK P, he’s referring to their economies. So far you’re the only person on this thread who seems to be treating them as completely distinct (using different colors to designated units built on one side or the other). There is no distinction between the UK sides in any other phase than purchase units and mobilize units/collect income. All UK units move, attack, etc at the same time.
The only difference between the UK and any other power is that they have essentially 2 half capitals and if you don’t control one, you can’t collect income for those associated territories. As posted before, it’s really no different than Russia liberating it’s own territories while Moscow is occupied. It denies the Axis cash, but doesn’t net Russia anything as the collect income phase for that capital is skipped.
@WILD:
This may be part of the problem with perception that there is a UK E & UK P. You can’t swap out UK P (India) units for Anz and play out of book. It would make the UK look like two different powers (your basically giving India to Anz) and be nearly impossible to tell which units are UK and which are Anz.
Not really as they are all part of the single UK power, just income and unit creation are seperate, the confusion was the OP wording and KH reply, which he has now clarified, which implied they were seperate beyond that.
Ok well at least things are straight now.
Just out of curiosity if you are playing OOB rules, but replacing all the UK units on the Pac side, along with any units produced in India w/Anz (just for tracking their progress I guess), don’t you have a hard time figuring out what units are Anz and what units are UK later as time goes on. Plus there is even an Anz inf that starts in Egypt and Malaya. The UK and Anz turn order is back to back, but not at the same time. Just seem like things might get mixed up, unless you use a third color, or a marker/paint to depict the difference.
By the way, it’s possible that someday in the far future Larry delete the rule that says that a power whose capital is lost cannot build units? :-P It’s annoying how such broken, unnecesary and irrealistic rule can survive one game after other, specially when in the real world war, at least 2 powers continued fighting after losing the capital: France (Free) and China (the capital was Nanjing, not Shanghai as it seems that someone thinks making a VC and such :lol:)
Victory cities and capitals don’t always coincide.
By the way, it’s possible that someday in the far future Larry delete the rule that says that a power whose capital is lost cannot build units? :-P It’s annoying how such broken, unnecesary and irrealistic rule can survive one game after other, specially when in the real world war, at least 2 powers continued fighting after losing the capital: France (Free) and China (the capital was Nanjing, not Shanghai as it seems that someone thinks making a VC and such :lol:)
Replace it with Major are reduced to minors, and capturing power derives 18 income bonus from looting, minors are removed and capturing power derives 12 income. No destroyed minor can be replaced witha new one in the same player turn. No other income changes hands.
