Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

[Zhukov44]

Just for clarification, the case that USA can’t land air in Russia would be based on quotes from the rulebook like this

"No air units can land in any territory that was not friendly
at the start of your turn, including any territory that was just
captured or converted from a friendly neutral by you this turn. "

and the assumption that USA declares prior to the Combat Move phase, which is after the start of the turn.

So which is it?  Does Russian territory immediately become friendly when it becomes allied to the USA?

Have we been playing wrong if we are allowing USA to land stuff in Africa or London or Russia after they declare in this scenario?

If we interpret it this way, it would also be illegal for Russia to move units into China on the same turn they declare on Japan.

Without clear language in the rules one way or another, we’re going to need an official ruling on this one.

[simon33]

You’re right, this issue prevents moves such as the yunnan stack strategy, which have been accepted up until now.

No problem for land units, only air units are the issue.

I want a clarification from krieghund. Or perhaps we could just add a rule to bm to permit this?

[Panther]

@rulebook:

Noncombat Move

Where units can land
Air Units: An air unit must end its move in an eligible landing space. Air units can land in any territory that was friendly (but not friendly neutral) at the start of the current turn.

The issue arises because of the USA starting as neutral power, not allied with anyone, other than other powers starting already belonging to an alliance.

Declaring war in general occurs at the beginning of the Combat Move phase:

@same:

War must be declared
on your turn at the beginning of the Combat Move
phase, before any combat movements are made,
unless otherwise specified in the political rules.

So at the start of the US turn, the Soviet territory is not friendly (=allied) to the USA.
It becomes friendly only later during (at the beginning of) Combat Move Phase.

See the discussion starting from here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.msg1796255#msg1796255

[Panther]

@simon33:

You’re right, this issue prevents moves such as the yunnan stack strategy, which have been accepted up until now.

In case by “Yunnan stack strategy” you mean landing UK (air) units in Yunnan, this is completely unrelated.

UK and China begin the game being allied. So Chinese territories are friendly to UK (and vice versa) from the beginning of the game.

However there is an additional requirement in the Political Situation part of the rulebook:
“When not yet at war with Japan,…, the United Kingdom may not move units into or through China.”

So when UK declares war on Japan, Japanese territories become hostile to UK. Chinese territories still are friendly, as they have been from the beginning of the game - but the additional special requirement of UK being at war with Japan is now fulfilled. So now UK finally may move units into China.
And UK can land air units there during the same turn it declares war on Japan, because Chinese territories have been friendly from the beginning of the game (and UK’s turn).

That is a totally different scenario.

[simon33]

Yes, quite. Although by the Yunnan stack, I refer to the USSR flying planes to Yunnan USSR1, normally including some planes which have been bid.

Just one more thing. There is still a potential way this can be allowed within the rules. That’s if allied powers are still friendly powers before war is declared. As far as I can see, the manual never declares anything either way on this point.

[MeinHerr]

Since at the outset of the game, China is at war with Japan…. USSR flying in planes is fine…  (just like  US fighters landing in Gibralter after Japan has just attacked…) … although they were neutral before, the territory they land in is controlled by a power already at war…  (my take on it)

[Panther]

@simon33:

There is still a potential way this can be allowed within the rules. That’s if allied powers are still friendly powers before war is declared. As far as I can see, the manual never declares anything either way on this point.

That is a really good point, Simon. Yesterday on the Github-discussion I asked something similar, when I said:

@panther2:

Now the question is:

Can a Soviet territory be considered friendly from the beginning of the US-turn which is started with the US being neutral and in which the US joins the Allies by DOW’ing on Axis powers?

or enhanced

Can allied powers’ territories be considered friendly from the point of view of a power starting its turn neutral and joining those Allies during the same turn?

This indeed has been never clarified - and when I asked Krieghund about the US/SU issue yesterday, we did not discuss these (your and mine above) questions.
If neutral powers really could consider later-allied territories as friendly I of course would change my answer to Zukhov44’s rules question immediately.

I will PM Krieghund again to ask him to consider these questions.

[Deimos]

I don’t know if this has been asked before but after searching online and the rulebook I can’t find an answer to this.

I, as Germany, have a submarine convoying the US player in sz 101. On his turn he builds a destroyer. Now on my following turn, may I move the submarine away from the hostile sea zone during combat? How about during noncombat?

Thanks,
Deimos

EDIT:
To elaborate, the rulebook states that if a submarine ends its combat movement in a sea zone with a destroyer, combat will occur, so the latter is probably not viable. I’m mainly concerned with whether I can move out of the sea zone during combat. I don’t see how it would make sense that I can escape if there is another battle I’m going to, but not if there isn’t. In fact, I don’t see why I should be locked in the sea zone in any case. I needed that sub!  :-(

[Krieghund]

This is an interesting question.  My gut reaction was the same as P@nther’s - that the territories of a friendly power would not be friendly while your power is neutral.  This makes sense from a point of view of the dictionary definition of “neutral”, but not everything in war makes sense.  Let’s look at the relevant rules.

According to the definition of “friendly territories” on page 8 (Europe Rulebook), they are “controlled by you or a friendly power”, while the definition of ‘neutral territories" indicates that they’re “not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war”.  Further, the definition of “neutral powers” on page 15 states that powers on the opposite side of neutral powers are not yet enemies, but it doesn’t say that powers on the same side are not yet friends.  This seems to lump territories controlled by a power on your side while you’re neutral into the “friendly” category (though you’re explicitly prohibited from going there while neutral).  This is reinforced by with the explicit restrictions on the movement of neutral powers’ units (rather than simply declaring all other powers’ territories neutral while you’re neutral).

The upshot is that the territories of a friendly are technically friendly while your power is neutral, but they’re pretty much treated as neutral for all practical purposes.  However, they do meet the requirement of being friendly since the start your turn once you’re at war.

From a thematic point of view, while the US or USSR might be officially neutral, the old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” still applies, unofficially.  While a neutral power can’t do anything to provoke a power on the other side, such as openly aiding another power, it can still be prepared to join the war at a moment’s notice.  This took a little digging to sort out, and it is a little counter-intuitive, so it’s easy to come to an incorrect conclusion when “shooting from the hip”.  I didn’t think through all of the ramifications of this situation yesterday when P@nther asked me about it.  Sorry for any confusion this may have caused!

[Krieghund]

@Deimos:

I don’t know if this has been asked before but after searching online and the rulebook I can’t find an answer to this.

I, as Germany, have a submarine convoying the US player in sz 101. On his turn he builds a destroyer. Now on my following turn, may I move the submarine away from the hostile sea zone during combat? How about during noncombat?

Thanks,
Deimos

EDIT:
To elaborate, the rulebook states that if a submarine ends its combat movement in a sea zone with a destroyer, combat will occur, so the latter is probably not viable. I’m mainly concerned with whether I can move out of the sea zone during combat. I don’t see how it would make sense that I can escape if there is another battle I’m going to, but not if there isn’t. In fact, I don’t see why I should be locked in the sea zone in any case. I needed that sub!  :-(

You can move the sub away in combat movement, whether it’s going to fight elsewhere or not.  See “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones” on pages 13 and 14 of the Europe Rulebook.  An enemy destroyer will force a sub to stop moving when it enters the destroyer’s sea zone, but it doesn’t stop a sub from moving out if it begins its move there.

[Panther]

@simon33:

… There is still a potential way this can be allowed within the rules. That’s if allied powers are still friendly powers before war is declared. As far as I can see, the manual never declares anything either way on this point.

@Krieghund:

This is an interesting question.  
…

Awesome, thank you Krieghund, for reconsidering the topic and for your interesting new information.

I love it, when after all those years topics like these arise, that bring some really new and interesting insights to our attention.

So it has been clarified now that neutral powers may treat territories of their allies as friendly.
The consequece of this clarification is that neutral powers are allowed to noncom air units into their Allies territories on the same turn they declare war.

Now in the scenario given by Zhukov44 …

@Zhukov44:

Having a bit of a rules dispute over how the TripleA program interprets the change from neutrality to allied b/w powers.

The scenario is Japan declares on UK on J2.  Russia and Japan are already at war.  On USA2, USA declares on Japan/Germany/Italy.

Should USA be able to land planes in Russia or other Allied territories on this turn (USA2) or have we been playing the game wrong up until now?

… the USA should indeed be able to land on Russian territories during the noncombat move phase of the same US turn.

Still in general the only relevant question for a plane to land during NCM-phase is whether the territory to land on has been friendly at the beginning of the turn.
We now know, that USA may consider SU-territories as friendly when declaring war.
There are of course some additional requirements in the rules for some special situations (eg. China).

Thank you, Zhukov44, for initiating the reconsideration.
Thank you, Simon33, for bringing the discussion back into the right direction with your last posting.

[Zhukov44]

Thanks to Panther, Simon, and Krieghund for responding so quickly!

I suspect the origin of this issue is related to the complexity of programming the Soviet Union politically.  For example, there used to be a bug where UK could attack German units and land in Soviet Union if SU and Japan, and UK and Japan, were at war.  But this was clearly illegal in cases where Germany and the Soviet Union were not yet at war.  So in the example I gave, the Soviet Union and USA should be allies on the Pacific side, but not on the Europe side (yet).  If the trigger allying the Allies to the Soviet Union doesn’t include the Western Allies on the European side (until Germany and Soviet Union are at war) then that should solve all relevant issues, but that sounds pretty complex to program.

[Deimos]

@Krieghund:

You can move the sub away in combat movement, whether it’s going to fight elsewhere or not.  See “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones” on pages 13 and 14 of the Europe Rulebook.  An enemy destroyer will force a sub to stop moving when it enters the destroyer’s sea zone, but it doesn’t stop a sub from moving out if it begins its move there.

Ah, somehow I managed to completely miss that section in the rulebook.  :roll:
Thank you for your time and the quick response!

[Panther]

@Zhukov44:

Thanks to Panther, Simon, and Krieghund for responding so quickly!

I suspect the origin of this issue is related to the complexity of programming the Soviet Union politically.  For example, there used to be a bug where UK could attack German units and land in Soviet Union if SU and Japan, and UK and Japan, were at war.  But this was clearly illegal in cases where Germany and the Soviet Union were not yet at war.  So in the example I gave, the Soviet Union and USA should be allies on the Pacific side, but not on the Europe side (yet).  If the trigger allying the Allies to the Soviet Union doesn’t include the Western Allies on the European side (until Germany and Soviet Union are at war) then that should solve all relevant issues, but that sounds pretty complex to program.

Agreed, indeed TripleA is not perfect in reflecting all the political implications 1:1. May I invite you to (further) help improving the implementation of the political rules? It would be great if you could post issues either here in the software subforum or on Github (what you prefer) and underly those with a savegame of the situation when they occur.

This is always easier then recreating some scenarios, as those are sometimes really complex.

As a nice side effect, we sometimes get clarifications on the rules, that all of the community will take some benefit from. :-)

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Good morning all.

US attacked sz112 and destroyed all surface Warships except 5 Subs and  two TTs.
The UK would like to follow up the attack to destroy the two TTs.
UK sends one Sub.

Q: If the attacker moves in with one Sub it must attack all Seaunits?
Sub will fight Subs if the Defender decides to stay?

Thank you for your quick reply.

[Panther]

@aequitas:

Good morning all.

US attacked sz112 and destroyed all surface Warships except 5 Subs and  two TTs.
The UK would like to follow up the attack to destroy the two TTs.
UK sends one Sub.

Q: If the attacker moves in with one Sub it must attack all Seaunits?
Sub will fight Subs if the Defender decides to stay?

Thank you for your quick reply.

Yes:

@rulebook:

Enemy submarines and/or transports do not block any
of your units’ movement, nor do they prevent loading
or offloading in that sea zone (with one exception; see
“Special Combat Movement: Transports,” page 16). As
the moving player, you have the option of attacking any
enemy submarines and/or transports that share a sea zone
with you. However, if you choose to make such an attack
with a unit, that unit must end its movement in that sea
zone, and it must attack all such units present. In other
words, you must either attack all enemy submarines and
transports in the sea zone, or you must ignore all of them.
You may not attack some enemy units and ignore others
in the same sea zone. …

So the UK sub fights every enemy unit, but the defender has to choose the subs as casualties before removing the transports.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Thank you P@nther.

[V. Manstein]

Germany fights with a cruiser and a fighter against Russia with a submarine and a cruiser.
Russia decides not to dive the sub.

Germany scores double 3.

May Russia take the cruisers hit with his cruiser and declare his submarine immune to the fighters hit?

[simon33]

No. You should roll the cruiser and fighter separately when there is a defending sub and you don’t have an attacking destroyer.

[Panther]

@V.:

Germany fights with a cruiser and a fighter against Russia with a submarine and a cruiser.
Russia decides not to dive the sub.

Germany scores double 3.

May Russia take the cruisers hit with his cruiser and declare his submarine immune to the fighters hit?

No, see:

@rulebook:

As many hits as possible must be assigned.
For instance, if 1 cruiser and 2 submarines attack a carrier with a fighter and score 3 hits,
the defender must assign the cruiser hit to the fighter and the submarine hits to the carrier.
The defender may not assign the cruiser hit to the carrier, as the subs cannot hit
the fighter and 1 sub hit would be lost.

In your scenario the fighter cannot hit the sub so the fighter’s hit must be assigned to the cruiser.
And the attacking cruiser’s hit must be assigned to the enemy submarine, then.