can japan load a transport into a newly hostile seazone on their combat move, if japan declared war at the beginning of it’s turn?
YES. Any nation can load transports in newly hostile seazones if the nation just declared war on that enemy at the beginning of that turn. This is the only exception to the rule that you can’t load transports in hostile zones.
Provided the transport started the turn in that sea zone, IIRC. It cannot move into it and then load.
-When a country takes another’s capital, the occupying country then gets whatever ipc the country it took collected from the turn before? (Ex. Germany collected 43 ipc at the end of their turn, UK then takes Berlin, Germany then must give the UK their 43 ipc for taking their capital.)
No, the conquering power takes all the cash on hand. Ignore the income.
-When a countries capital is occupied (say France for example) but they still control other territories (Say 2 African territories worth 1 a piece), does France then collect 2 ipc per turn and put into their bank until their capital is liberated. Say Paris is liberated 10 turns later, would France have 20 ipc to spend then on their turn?
You can’t collect any money when your capital is in enemy hands. Note that if you were to conquer another capital, you WOULD take their cash on hand (this isn’t income, it’s raiding)
-Say London is captured by Germany, Egypt is captured by Italy. The US then takes Egypt back while London is still occupied, could the US build a Minor IC in Egypt then? (I know if there was one there they could use it but could they build?) and to follow up if they can build one, and then London is liberated, would that factory go to the UK?
Yes. Egypt would become CONTROLLED by the USA because London is in Germany’s control. So US can treat Egypt like any controlled territory, but if London is liberated, all original UK territories (including Egypt of course) would IMMEDIATELY revert back to UK control. If USA built any facilities in Egypt, they now belong to the UK.
The straight’s and Canal’s are restricted by the country who controls the designated territory (Gibralter controls the straight if Gibralter), but can subs move through canals and straights where the territory is controlled by the enemy. (Ex US controls straight of Gibralter, could Italian subs go through?
The strait of Gibraltar is the only strait or canal that enemy subs can pass through freely.
With respect, I strongly recommend that you spend an hour reading through the instruction manuals. The answers to these questions are very clear in the manuals.
Glad you’re benefitting from the thread. Ask any time.
Are damaged battleships allowed to conduct shore bombardments? The Triple A game engine allows it, but I thought they weren’t.
Thanks for any replies!
@captain:
Are damaged battleships allowed to conduct shore bombardments? The Triple A game engine allows it, but I thought they weren’t.
Thanks for any replies!
YES
The only difference between a damaged battleship and a whole battleship, is that it only takes one hit to sink a damaged battleship
-When a country takes another’s capital, the occupying country then gets whatever ipc the country it took collected from the turn before? (Ex. Germany collected 43 ipc at the end of their turn, UK then takes Berlin, Germany then must give the UK their 43 ipc for taking their capital.)
No, the conquering power takes all the cash on hand. Ignore the income.
-When a countries capital is occupied (say France for example) but they still control other territories (Say 2 African territories worth 1 a piece), does France then collect 2 ipc per turn and put into their bank until their capital is liberated. Say Paris is liberated 10 turns later, would France have 20 ipc to spend then on their turn?
You can’t collect any money when your capital is in enemy hands. Note that if you were to conquer another capital, you WOULD take their cash on hand (this isn’t income, it’s raiding)
-Say London is captured by Germany, Egypt is captured by Italy. The US then takes Egypt back while London is still occupied, could the US build a Minor IC in Egypt then? (I know if there was one there they could use it but could they build?) and to follow up if they can build one, and then London is liberated, would that factory go to the UK?
Yes. Egypt would become CONTROLLED by the USA because London is in Germany’s control. So US can treat Egypt like any controlled territory, but if London is liberated, all original UK territories (including Egypt of course) would IMMEDIATELY revert back to UK control. If USA built any facilities in Egypt, they now belong to the UK.
The straight’s and Canal’s are restricted by the country who controls the designated territory (Gibralter controls the straight if Gibralter), but can subs move through canals and straights where the territory is controlled by the enemy. (Ex US controls straight of Gibralter, could Italian subs go through?
The strait of Gibraltar is the only strait or canal that enemy subs can pass through freely.
With respect, I strongly recommend that you spend an hour reading through the instruction manuals. The answers to these questions are very clear in the manuals.
Glad you’re benefitting from the thread. Ask any time.
Thank you. This was more of a confirmation on rules some in my group had questioned, who haven’t read the rulebook thoroughly, and some who claim to have read it and had a different interpretation.
Think of it this way. Fighters must only be guaranteed a possible place to land in the combat movement phase
Once you’re in combat, you are free to strand fighters at will.
Just thought of something.
During combat movement you must be able to demonstrate that all of your plans could possibly land safely.
AFTER combat, you also can’t ditch planes on purpose.
If you can land them safely in the non-combat movement phase, you have to.
If US ground forces in Amur attack Japanese held Manchuria/Korea, will that prevent the Mongolians from being activated as Russian forces?
@captain:
If US ground forces in Amur attack Japanese held Manchuria/Korea, will that prevent the Mongolians from being activated as Russian forces?
America is not Russian. Unless there have been drastic changes to the rules, and as far as I know there have not, but I do not frequent Larry Harris’ site much anymore, then no, America will not have an impact on Mongolia’s political situation.
I believe, and this is mostly conjecture, the idea behind Mongolia was to incorporate the Russo-Japanese agreements that past versions of the game had - at times - as well as give another route for Japan to invade, should china become a quagmire. America entering the situation should have a non-effect on the situation for Mongolia. What do they care if the Imperialistic American Pig-dogs invade Manchuria? :evil:
Cool. I’m playing a game and I want to get Japan to attack Amur. I need those Mongolians!
I am playing a league game against Tyzoq using TripleA. He had taken Iwo Jima on USA’s turn 7 with an artillery left occupying. Then on USA’s turn 8, he attempted to move a transport into the sea zone to load the artillery for a noncom move. However, the game will not let him. I can find nothing in the rules stating a kamikaze sea zone will prevent this move if he owns the island. the game will let a transport move into the zone and load during a combat move.
Will a kamikaze sea zone prevent noncom moves for lone transports like subs do? Or is this a glitch in TripleA?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29424.msg1058066#msg1058066
I am playing a league game against Tyzoq using TripleA.
Good luck with that
Will a kamikaze sea zone prevent noncom moves for lone transports like subs do? Or is this a glitch in TripleA?
Sounds like a glitch. Kamikazes are only in the combat phase, and do not ever restrict non-coms.
Is there any possible scenerio where a sub can block naval movement? In game now please respond.
@Young:
Is there any possible scenerio where a sub can block naval movement? In game now please respond.
no. not ever. subs and transports don’t block movement. A sub can only block an unescorted amphibious assault.
@Young:
Is there any possible scenerio where a sub can block naval movement? In game now please respond.
no. not ever. subs and transports don’t block movement. A sub can only block an unescorted amphibious assault.
Thanks
I am playing a league game against Tyzoq using TripleA.
Good luck with that
Will a kamikaze sea zone prevent noncom moves for lone transports like subs do? Or is this a glitch in TripleA?
Sounds like a glitch. Kamikazes are only in the combat phase, and do not ever restrict non-coms.
Apparently it is a glitch. Veqryn posted a message in the game saying it is an easy fix.
I need all the luck I can get against Tyzoq!
Question about convoying:
It is explained in the European manual page 24 that a sub in SZ97 can cost Italy up to 2 IPCs. This confuses me.
There are 8 IPC’s (Northern Italy, Southern Italy & Albania) worth of territories bordering SZ97, so in theory a single sub can cost 6 IPC’s (two dice rolls * 3). Italy can max loose 8 IPC’s from SZ97. Am I missing something?
Thanks in advance.
Question about convoying:
It is explained in the European manual page 24 that a sub in SZ97 can cost Italy up to 2 IPCs. This confuses me.
There are 8 IPC’s (Northern Italy, Southern Italy & Albania) worth of territories bordering SZ97, so in theory a single sub can cost 6 IPC’s (two dice rolls * 3). Italy can max loose 8 IPC’s from SZ97. Am I missing something?
Thanks in advance.
No, you’re exactly right. The explanation you are referring to appears to have been overlooked in the changes since OOB. There was a time when a sub did 2 IPC’s worth of damage, but you are correct that it could do between 0 and 6 IPC’s of damage in Z97 as shown in the example.
Welcome to the boards! Hopefully you’ll grace us with more of your thoughtful posts in the future.
No, you’re exactly right. The explanation you are referring to appears to have been overlooked in the changes since OOB. There was a time when a sub did 2 IPC’s worth of damage, but you are correct that it could do between 0 and 6 IPC’s of damage in Z97 as shown in the example.
Welcome to the boards! Hopefully you’ll grace us with more of your thoughtful posts in the future.
Thank you for clearing this up :-)
From the FAQ errata:
Page 24, Convoy Disruption Example 2: The first sentence should read “On Italy’s turn, the UK submarine in sea zone 97 can cost Italy up to 6 IPCs.â€
Good question from a thread earlier today.
Axis achieve victory for controlling 8 victory cities on the european side or 6 victory cities on the pacific side for one complete round of play. What does this mean? Example: Germany takes its 8th victory city. Russia takes it back. Japan then takes it back. USA takes it back, and UK reinforces. Italy then takes it back, giving axis 8 victory cities. Anzac and France can’t liberate a victory city. On Germany’s next turn, axis control 8 victory cities. Do the axis win? They didn’t control eight victory cites for a complete round, but they had 8 at the end of their last turn and now have 8 at the start of their turn. It would have been nice if the rulebook defined the victory conditions a little better. I have no idea the definition of a complete round. Also have victory conditions changed since the first addition, and if so what was that change?
