UK-India falls,….????Automatic Capture of other UK-Pacific countries????

[Tall Paul]

chosenfktard,

@ch0senfktard:

The way I interpret you situation, I’d say…
No, UK Pacific would still have control.
––IMHO The UK-Pacific could NOT retain control of the specifically mentioned territories mentioned above as it’s capital has been taken , and the territories have had a friendly force “CAPTURE” them.
In order for ANZAC to control another ally’s territory, they’d have to capture it from an enemy while said ally doesn’t have control of their capital.
––Excuse me,…but this is EXACTLY what I have described above.
Just because ANZAC is already there doesn’t mean the territories will switch ownership…
––Please refer to the Axis & Allies Rulebook, Pacific 1940 Second Edition, page 20 & 21, two paragraphs,…but specifically the second paragraph concerning “CAPTURING” instead of “LIBERATING”.
They don’t have a Dutch like relationship with UK. (Even though I really think they should… and vice versa.)
––A “Dutch Relationship” is completely irrelevant in this situation. We are concerned simply with the “CAPTURE of a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side”.

Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”

[Krieghund]

Gliven and ch0senfktard are correct.  This is not a “capture” situation, as there was no combat to resolve.  The ANZAC units are merely occupying UK territory.

[Tall Paul]

Gliven,

@Gliven:

read my first sentence.

Insert Quote
Territories only change hands when an enemy power takes control of them
––Excuse me,…but this is an INCORRECT STATEMENT. Please refer to A&A-Pacific 1940 2nd Edition rulebook, page 20, 21 “Liberating a Territory”. The second paragraph on the top of page 21 says, and I quote:
“If the original controller’s Capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated th territory, you CAPTURE it instead. You adjust your national production level, and…”
This is true for every axis and allies game. Just because you lose your capitol. That does not mean you magically lose all your territories and anyone left in them gains control.
––My question has nothing to do with ALL of the territories from a country that has had it’s Capital subjugated(“MAGICALLY” or otherwise),…only the SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED TERRITORIES outlined above where ANZAC has the ONLY force in them.
How long have you been playing this game?
––Since 1984.
----And IMHO you should refrain from personal criticisms and/or sarcasm in your dealings with others.
----I understand that this is an somewhat unusual situation,…and question. But that is exactly why I asked for someone who can give me an OFFICIAL answer instead of countless “opinions” from players, right & wrong.
----Gliven,…I honestly wish you nothing but good fun in your A&A games,…
but you didn’t read my question thoroughly and so jumped to the wrong conclusion that I was speaking about JAPAN taking ALL of the territories which I was NOT.
----Now you say that “ONLY AN ENEMY POWER can take control of these territories”, which is INCORRET according to the rulebook, pages 20-21.
----Also you said that “in order for Anzac to take control of these territories they would have to declare war against the British, which they can’t do”. This is also INCORRECT according to the just referred rules, pages 20-21.

––I truly do not wish to “argue” with anyone,…especially when they are both wrong and also sarcastic. This is exactly why I requested an OFFICIAL answer.

“Tall Paul”

[Tall Paul]

Kreighund,

@Krieghund:

This is not a “capture” situation, as there was no combat to resolve.  The ANZAC units are merely occupying UK territory.

––First off, thanks for your time in answering my question.
----Secondly,.what would the Anzac player need to do in order to “Capture” these former UK-Pacific territories where it is now the only force present? If I’m reading you correctly,….a “COMBAT” must take place in order for the Anzac player to “Capture” these territories, is that correct?
––So for example,…the Japanese player subjugates the UK-Pacific territory of India and controls it. On the next turn of the Anzac player, any former UK-Pacific territory that he attacks in combat and wins, he now “CAPTURES” and controls them and increases his IPC income.
----Basically stated,…a “Combat” has to occur in order enable any “Capturing of former friendly territories”. Is that correct?

Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”

[Krieghund]

Yes, a combat has to occur, and since you can’t attack an ally, ANZAC can only take control of UK Pacific territories while India is Axis-held by recapturing them from an Axis power.

[Tall Paul]

Krieghund,

@Krieghund:

Yes, a combat has to occur, and since you can’t attack an ally, ANZAC can only take control of UK Pacific territories while India is Axis-held by recapturing them from an Axis power.

––Thank you very much for this “Official” answer.
––Like I had outlined when I asked this question,…we had a player who was “new” to playing Japan that lead to some unusual situations. Thanks again.

“Tall Paul”

[gliven]

Tall Paul. I apologize for sounding rude. Your question was when Japan takes control of India the rest of Uk pacific is able to be captured by an ally like Anzac. I stated that in order for anzac to take them they would have to take it back from the japanese. they way you worded your question. you made it sound like that once Japan took India they took the rest of their territories or subjugated as you called it. And i answered you according to that. I also said that territories only change hands when an enemy takes it. you cannot attack an allied territory unless it was taken from an enemy. which is true and backed up by Krieghund. This has been the case since the first edition. which is why i asked you how long you have been playing this game, since i thought you have been on this forum and have been playing longer than I have and would have already known this. If that sounded sarcastic i’m sorry it was not my intention.

I stated my answers not as an opinion or an interpretation but by the rules and how the game is played.

Plus think of it this way. Say Moscow was captured by the Germans, then the British came up through the middle east and started confiscating the caucus and the Americans took Siberia. This is an act of war.

In your scenario the Anzac are DEFENDING british lands not CAPTURING them. because they are ALLIES not ENEMIES.

[gliven]

When you take an enemy capital. The ONLY things that happen,

1. You take control of said territory and earn the printed IPC in that territory only

2. You confiscate any held money by said defeated defender

3. Said defender can no longer gain income and can no longer build units

The rest of the lands remain yours and yours alone. Your allies don’t come and steal your undefended lands, because that would be an act of war.

[gliven]

I’d also like to ask Krieghund. In this scenario Japan has already captured India. Say japan walks into an empty Burma capturing the territory with no combat then leaves thier next turn. ANZAC’S next turn they walk into Burma and claims it as there own. There is no combat but ANZAC gains the territory.

Different scenario. India is taken but Burma is still British controlled, only ANZAC troops remain in Burma. Japan attacks Burma, loses and Anzac still remains. Territory stays British or is ANZAC because there is combat.

first Scenario question. do you classify taking an empty enemy territory as combat?
I classify enemy controlled friendly territory as enemy territory because they have gained control of it. plus its shorter to say :P

Second scenario
My understanding, and hopefully everyone’s understanding, is that Burma remains British, unless Japan won and took the territory itself, and that ANZAC would NEVER take an allies territory unless an opponent such as japan took it first and then ANZAC took it back with combat or simply walking into an empty territory. AND only if the capital was taken. Otherwise they would be liberating it.

Also in the rule book about capturing friendly territories is it referring to capturing enemy controlled friendly territory? Because I think this is where Tall Paul’s confusion is coming from. taking the same quote from pages 20-21 it states that when you are attacking an ENEMY CONTROLED friendly territory if the capital is taken you take it instead of liberating it.

[Krieghund]

@Gliven:

I’d also like to ask Krieghund. In this scenario Japan has already captured India. Say japan walks into an empty Burma capturing the territory with no combat then leaves thier next turn. ANZAC’S next turn they walk into Burma and claims it as there own. There is no combat but ANZAC gains the territory.

Yes.  Moving into enemy-controlled territory counts as combat, whether or not it is occupied.

@Gliven:

Different scenario. India is taken but Burma is still British controlled, only ANZAC troops remain in Burma. Japan attacks Burma, loses and Anzac still remains. Territory stays British or is ANZAC because there is combat.

It remains UK-controlled.  ANZAC defended the territory - it did not attack and capture it.

@Gliven:

Also in the rule book about capturing friendly territories is it referring to capturing enemy controlled friendly territory?

Yes.  You can only capture a territory through attacking it, and you can only attack a territory that’s controlled by the enemy.

[ghr2]

Yea TP, the rule u quoted only helps gliven’s point

[Tall Paul]

Guys,

––The “Official” answer is just as I thought. Thanks again, Krieghund. In the game mentioned I was playing America,…and simply wanted/needed to give a definite answer to the Anzac player.

----Axis & Allies is not only the greatest game in the world,….but this forum, A&A.Org, that supports it is a very valuable asset!

“Tall Paul”

[Kreuzfeld]

this is not an unusual situation at all. in basicly every game paris is taken. Then you can only gain controll over the french terretories with UK if the axis have taken it first. I hope there are not many people out there allowing uk to take all the french terrs south of sahara, bumping their income.

[knp7765]

@Kreuzfeld:

this is not an unusual situation at all. in basicly every game paris is taken. Then you can only gain controll over the french terretories with UK if the axis have taken it first. I hope there are not many people out there allowing uk to take all the french terrs south of sahara, bumping their income.

In oztea’s 1942 or 1943 setup, all those French territories are sort of split up between Italy, Germany and England. I think England gets French Equatorial Africa, French Central Africa and Syria, Germany gets Algeria, Morocco, French West Africa and Madagascar and Italy gets Tunisia.
Oh, and of course Germany also gets France, Normandy and Southern France while Japan gets French Indo-China.
Kind of an easy way to settle who gets what.

[Tall Paul]

Guys,

@Kreuzfeld:

this is not an unusual situation at all. in basicly every game paris is taken. Then you can only gain controll over the french terretories with UK if the axis have taken it first. I hope there are not many people out there allowing uk to take all the french terrs south of sahara, bumping their income.

––We have never allowed territories of subjugated countries to be controlled unless through combat with an enemy. I merely wanted a definite, official answer to back up my opinion to the Anzac player,…who was somewhat new to the game.

“Tall Paul”

[gliven]

Tall Paul

It was not my intention to sound sarcastic. I genuinely wanted to know how long you have been playing this game for. The reason for that was because I assuming you have been playing for a long time. Which you confirmed since 1984. If you have been playing since 1984 you would know that allies cannot attack each other. You also asked that when Japan took and subjugated India if Anzac could then automatically capture the territories it was currently in. Based on this question and assuming you knew the rule that you could not attack allies. I thought you played as if when you lose your capital all the lands went to the conqueror. As in UK Pacific is now subjugated and loses control of its territories as you put it. After my misunderstanding was corrected. I then based my answer around your question as if japan didn’t take the rest of your lands. And still basically gave you the same answer because it still answers your question if not directly to your exact scenario. That territories only change hands when an enemy captures it. ANZAC is an enemy of Japan. so them taking Japanese held British lands is an enemy taking a land. How is this statement false?

You then began to basically bash me and claim all my statements were just opinions. Opinions that were false and sarcastic….Which they weren’t. Or at least not intended to be sarcastic.

Krieghund confirmed my understanding of the rules were Correct. Yet you claimed them false. And then later claiming you knew all along after they were confirmed, saying it was just for a newbie. Which is it?
1. You didnt know, or
2. you knew and were annoyed with me because i gave you an “un-official” answer, misunderstood you and thought i was a prick. So you then began to bash me.

If you knew the answer you would not claim my statements false and would have said " Sorry Gliven i will wait on an Official answer from Krieghund. "

So if its number 2 and you just wanted to bash me…common…how old are you? And no. this time i don’t really care how old you are…

I used to enjoy reading your posts Tall Paul…but after this…ehhh not so much.

[Tall Paul]

Gliven,

––I don’t wish to argue with anyone. That was the reason that I wanted an “Official” answer as I knew things could easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted. I truly hold no grudges against you or anyone else, and hope you don’t against me. I can understand how statements made via computer can be misunderstood, like when I misunderstood your responses for “sarcasm”. I’m sorry I did so, but let’s not worry about things like that and simply enjoy this wonderful game.
----I wasn’t “bashing” you,…just refuting your statements that weren’t correct for the example I was involved in.
It seems we both misunderstood each other’s sentiments. I’m sorry,…and you’ve already said the same. So I hope we can leave it there,….OK. I’m a friendly guy, certainly not perfect, but not a jerk, either.
----The somewhat “new” player that was playing Anzac has a forceful type of personality that sometimes interprets rules incorrectly and then is very VOCAL in his viewpoint. Sometimes he’s only interested in “interpretations” that help his armies. I simply thought it best if I gave him some “Official” proof that his interpretation was incorrect so that’s what I did.

Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”

[gliven]

Tall Paul,

I would like to apologize once again, this time for also misunderstanding you. I guess i got a little “emotional” for lack of a better term. I’m not perfect myself.

I do not hold a grudge against you.

I wish you good luck and good fun in your match against your opponent.

So yes lets leave it at this.

[Tall Paul]

Gliven,

––There’s no need for any apology. We simply misunderstood each other. Have a good day.

Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”