P@nther’s response was not harsh, no
Ahhhhhh
Well your opponent is bound by it too :-)
@Marshmallow:
As I understand, if you move the transport, pick up up units, and move again to your destination in the combat phase, you can still unload the transport during the non-combat phase but you are not allowed to move the transport again during the non-combat phase. So, if you reached your destination, you can still unload. If that is not correct, please do let me know.
Triple A allows it but it is not legal.
Yeah, looks like it can move and load, but must then participate in an amphibious assault.
Marsh
Assuming Germany and Russia are at peace after G1 and Russia moves their sub and cruiser from SZ 115 to 114 as a “blocker” for an eventual DOW. While still at peace, can Germany move any sea units into and past the Russian cruiser into SZ 115?
Yes. Sea units belonging to nations not at war can freely pass each other.
@ProtesT:
Assuming Germany and Russia are at peace after G1 and Russia moves their sub and cruiser from SZ 115 to 114 as a “blocker” for an eventual DOW. While still at peace, can Germany move any sea units into and past the Russian cruiser into SZ 115?
Yes, but then they can’t load units on the combat Movement unless they are in Finland. Is the theory that you can then amphibiously assault Leningrad from the Baltic? I don’t see why you would do that. If they leave the sub in SZ115 you also need a warship.
Why I asked is I played a game yesterday and my opponent kept Russia neutral until G4. On turn 3 he moved his cruiser, a destroyer, carrier and 4 loaded transports into SZ 115 and kept the land units at sea until G4 where he declared war and attacked Leningrad. First time ive seen it done in my experience. Furiously searched through the rulebook but couldn’t find anything to go against it. Unless surface war ships cannot pass through which I doubt. Figured I’d ask here just to double check.
Curious move.
If you are blocking Baltic States and the Italians can’t can open, I guess it’s a way of getting Leningrad on the same turn as the DOW. Question is: why is that so important?
It wasn’t the same turn as the DOW - that’s what you can’t do.
He noncommed to 115 on G3, and declared war on G4. That is perfectly legal.
The Leningrad attack was on the same turn as the DOW. That is what I meant. Apparently that isn’t clear!?
@ProtesT:
Why I asked is I played a game yesterday and my opponent kept Russia neutral until G4. On turn 3 he moved his cruiser, a destroyer, carrier and 4 loaded transports into SZ 115 and kept the land units at sea until G4 where he declared war and attacked Leningrad.
This is what he said. Totally legal
Yes, I agree that it was legal. No argument.
I was just wondering why you’d want to.
Ah - to prevent the Russians from blocking you. Consider if both Italian planes were lost on UK1 to scramble - bomber vs. cruiser is dicey and the Italian bomber is very important, so many players probably wouldn’t want to risk that. Or, maybe the Italian bomber was lost on I1 trying to clean up the Med
2 questions, a major complex has 8 damage and is captured and dropped to a minor, how much of that damage is carried over?
India is controlled by Japan if London armies recapture west India or Hong Kong from Japan does that money go to London or just lost?
Afternoon comd1024.
The maximum: six.
The income is lost. Is better to let the US or Anzac (or Russia) capture former UK Pacific territories. They can claim them and the income, as long as India is not recaptured. In which case, they revert to UK Pacific.
Do excuse me: liberated is the correct term. Not recaptured.
That was my thought for #1 but not #2. Thanks for clarification.
UK Pacific is like France then once India falls.
Well, UK Pacific is unique in that when India is in Axis hands, all UK Pacific territories are completely worthless to UK Europe. They can’t even build facilities in these territories (from London)
Yeah, was wondering about that. If Calcutta has fallen and the UK reclaims a territory from Japan that was originally own by UK_Pacific, why shouldn’t the income revert to London? And vice versa.
If ANZAC reclaims the territory, Sydney can collect the income. I would argue that it would be consistent if the income reverted for a retaken territory. Perhaps there is a rule which specifically covers this situation?
EDIT: Oh, yes there is:
Capture of One of the United Kingdom’s Regional Capitals
If one of the regional capitals is captured by the Axis, it will surrender any unspent IPCs that its economy has in its treasury
to the capturing power. An economy whose capital is held by the Axis can’t collect income, spend IPCs, or repair units. The
free regional capital may never collect IPCs that would normally go to the captured regional capital, even if such territories
are recaptured from the Axis. Other Allied powers can temporarily take control of any original United Kingdom territory that
would otherwise be liberated when its regional capital (London or Calcutta) has been captured by the Axis.
