Scenario:
America buys a new Industrial Complex in Kwangtung, later on they mobilize a small navy force in that sea zone.
Japan attacks America’s mobilized navy units and wipe them out.
Next round, America mobilizes yet MORE navy units in the Kwangtung sea zone. (this is allowed)
Keep in mind that Japan’s navy units are Still In The Same Sea Zone.
They didn’t move, so it’s mixed with US and Jap navy.
Then next round UK’s navy is coming from below, (sz 59), and they attack Japan’s navy, which also has American navy units in the same sea zone. (as I already covered)
Do the American navy units defend or attack? Are they even involved in the UK vs JAP combat at all?
This is a very good question me and my friend cannot find an answer to. Please help us! =)
In my opinion…
The “new” US navy cannot attack anything until they are MOVED into combat (this includes being left where they are in a joint occupation SZ UPON US’s turn).
Your example has one flaw… when the UK moves in to attack, the US units that were with it in the previous SZ REAMAIN in that SZ… not being able to move until the US’s move.
The US forces can only engage in combat if they are ATTACKED, which will not happen, in your example, until Japan moves, and then only if they remain in or add forces to that jointly occupied SZ.
Since UK can;t bring US forces along on their attack ,then the “new” US forces don;t participate in the attack either.
here’s a picture! =DD
[attachment deleted by admin]
@ncscswitch:
Since UK can;t bring US forces along on their attack ,then the “new” US forces don;t participate in the attack either.
So the US is not involved? correct?
Exactly… The US is NOT invloved in the UK attack, nor in defense by the Japan counters to the UK attack.
In the next Japan move (since Japan will go before the US), Japan can either remain in that sea zone and engage the US forces, or withdraw to someplace else without attacking the US forces.
So, based on the picture, in UK’s move, Britain will attack 1 Japan AC and 2 BB’s with 1 BB and 1 TRN. (BTW: The results of that battle on average is the sinking of the UK BB and TRN with no losses by Japan)
Then, on Japan’s move, Japan can remain to engage the US AC and FIG with the forces currently in the Kwangtung sea zone, or with any additional units they wish to bring in, or they can move to another sea zone and skip that combat. (again, the average is that the US AC and FIG are killed with no losses to the Japan fleet… hits being taken on the BB’s to wound but not kill them)
BTW: I am wondering what kind of game that was to result in the land positions noted…UK in FIC, US in Kwang WITH an IC, USSR holding Manchuria… is this very late in the game after Germany was defeated, or is this mid-game with a strong KJF strategy?
It’s round 4… with KJF strategy.
And yes I am fully aware of the odds of the UK defeat.
In fact I was not fully intending on attacking it. heh
My friend and opponent was thinking that the new US navy units would be attacking in Japan’s turn. sigh
I had to go to the book and prove that wrong. Also, he thinks that the rule of being allowed to place new navy units in a sea zone occupied by the enemy, being too specific for the game. He thinks it shouldn’t be allowed.
In any case, I just wanted to get someone else’s opinion on it to show for. I’m actually glad that we have these forums so we can get unbias clear-thinkers to respond to some iffy questions to help out.
In this game that’s happening… Germany isn’t going so hot. Japan totally depleted itself out early by trying to take a heavily reinfoced India (with IC) in round 1… as well as Pearl harbor, and Buriatia. crazy.
Hhhmmm… they should have done Bury, Pearl and China instead… then slammed India in J2 or J3 and TAKEN that IC…
Only 3 units per round being produced, with Japan able to tranny in 8 units…
Also, hve to ask… what was Germany doing to be in “bad shape” with UK (and apparently US) spending their money on IC’s in Asia and Russia sending forces to Japan? In that situation, Germany should be taking territory left and right… at the gates of Moscow, in control of Africa…with a navy and massive air force…
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=761&start=0
This topic has been discussed to death at that link.
Basically:
1. Yes, the Revised rules are compeltely unclear with regards to what happens here, even LHTR and box rules both do not say explicitly what happens.
BUT
2. The game designer Larry Harris, believes that in this case, though the US forces cannot roll for attack nor defense since the UK initiated the attack and there are no multiational attacks, but they CAN be taken as casualties!!
In Axis & Allies Pacific, the rules there specifically state that if you have allied forces in the combat zone with enemy units and you initiate an attack, your allied units don’t roll, but they can be taken as casualties. Larry likes this, believes most people abide by this, and this is the way he intended it.
thank you both. I’m glad the game designer agrees with my original thinking. Though my opponent HATES that.
very nice link! I searched 3 forums and couldn’t find an answer. THANK YOU BOTH
Now, in regards to Germany’s situation on this game: They are in DEEP trouble. The allies can afford to attack japan a lot right now. Germany is gonna be done for. We will resume this game next week I suspect. So I’ll let everyone know what happens.
What Germany did wrong was they sent their navy on a suicide mission or two. First of all, we bid for Allies, so he got 10, and I lost 10. Germany got two extra tanks AND we agreed to give him a sub off the coast of africa. (I read that is a nice balance somewhere). well he invaded Brazil, and Germany was looking fine- until like I said, he sent his divided navy on two missions of doom. He attacked a stronger US navy, and a stronger UK navy. Meanwhile they weren’t doing much serious damage to Russia because UK managed to block and annoy the north, while Russia was buying tanks and striking back- hey… it’s only round 4 or 5 though.
Biggest mistake Germany made recently: He bought two Battleships and stuck them under Norway. Bad Bad Bad. That cost him like 50 IPC, and without tanks to push the land war against Russia, you look at Europe now and it’s in dire straights. +_+
Or at least I hope so, because I’m allies and I worked hard to get where I’m at. =P
Oh yeah, sorry for the explanation of this game being so poor. It is a very very interesting game though.
I could write a novel on it.
Anyway: PS. Those two Battleships died in the following round. =D
Those two Battleships died in the following round. =D
Silly Germans :-D
People who buy battleships don’t realize that you could instead be buying EIGHT infantry, or 3 infantry and 3 tanks for each one…or are the US trying to bully the Japanese…
I think that the second a navy unit is placed in a sea zone from construction while enemies are in the sea zone, the battle should occur.
I know that this is ancient, but I didn’t feel like making a new thread.
Wiat a minute, by how I’m reading your replies, Switch, you are saying that allied units cannot be used to defend against an attack?
Am I just misreading you? Because standard practice is to land your fighters on allied ships, or move your fleet with your ally for a joined defense force. If that’s not the rule, I’m gunna start getting really wicked with Germany declaring I am only attacking British ships, not Russian, American and British. :evil:
im pretty sure the topic was about a newly built ships.
Wiat a minute, by how I’m reading your replies, Switch, you are saying that allied units cannot be used to defend against an attack?
Am I just misreading you? Because standard practice is to land your fighters on allied ships, or move your fleet with your ally for a joined defense force. If that’s not the rule, I’m gunna start getting really wicked with Germany declaring I am only attacking British ships, not Russian, American and British. :evil:
I think you’re misreading him. In any case you’re picking up on an old thread from February. I’m sure that’s not how he sees it today. :-P
Actually, this was teh thread that started teh whole thing that led to LHTR 1.3. It was about using friendly ships that were already in an enemy occupied sea zone as fodder for your attack on those enemy ships.
Under the new LHTR that came out of this, the Allies can NOT use those US ships that are already in SZ59 as fodder for a UK attack on the Japan ships in SZ59.
This became the “Multinational Forces on Attack” thread.
