AAG40 FAQ

@Global-commander:

can the chinese fighter attack Japanese ships off the coast?

No.  The Chinese fighter is not permitted to move outside of territories that are originally chinese plus burma/kwangtung.  Seazones are included in that restriction, so the chinese fighter cannot enter any seazone.

@kcdzim:

@Global-commander:

can the chinese fighter attack Japanese ships off the coast?

No.  The Chinese fighter is not permitted to move outside of territories that are originally chinese plus burma/kwangtung.  Seazones are included in that restriction, so the chinese fighter cannot enter any seazone.

Could the chinese fighter in a legal coastal territory scramble against an amphib if the territory it was in had an airbase? I’m not sure how scrambling and moving are related. The piece has technically moved into the sea zone, but it hasn’t used any movement points to do so.

@Gamerman01:

@Ziggurat:

@kcdzim:

@Global-commander:

can the chinese fighter attack Japanese ships off the coast?

No.�  The Chinese fighter is not permitted to move outside of territories that are originally chinese plus burma/kwangtung.�  Seazones are included in that restriction, so the chinese fighter cannot enter any seazone.

Could the chinese fighter in a legal coastal territory scramble against an amphib if the territory it was in had an airbase? I’m not sure how scrambling and moving are related. The piece has technically moved into the sea zone, but it hasn’t used any movement points to do so.

No, China cannot use bases.
Just a few posts up Krieghund says chinese can use bases.

IMHO it would be better if the Chinese rule wasn’t that they raze the infrastructure to the ground, but that they could build Artillery at factories on Chinese soil.

They can already get arty from the burma road bonus. This would just allow them to get those units instead of removing the factory piece. (which actually should never happen)

Can you imagine how much effort the Chinese forces have to be exerting to DE-INDUSTRIALIZE an area?
Peasants and conscripts working 24/7 tearing down factories with their bare hands.

I am curious as to how this rule came about when designing the game….what went through Larry’s head.
Were there alternatives?

China cannot scramble its fighter.

@Krieghund:

China cannot scramble its fighter.

Well, that clears that one up. I guess since they can’t go into sea zones they can’t scramble.

@oztea:

Can you imagine how much effort the Chinese forces have to be exerting to DE-INDUSTRIALIZE an area?
Peasants and conscripts working 24/7 tearing down factories with their bare hands.

It’s not just “de-industrialization”.  The level of expertise to actually build a functional tank or plane is pretty high.  Australian aircraft and tank design was lacking on their own, using mainly US or UK designs and equipment.  Every major power could design duds.  You’re suggesting China could design an air superiority fighter or a battleworthy tank just capturing a japanese factory?  Kinda doubt it. These are the same peasants and conscripts you describe tearing down the factory.  They aren’t going to put a squadron of tested planes together very quickly.  :wink:

@Gamerman01:

He didn’t say tanks and planes, he just said artillery, I think

yada yada yada. armor piercing shells then.

@kcdzim:

@Gamerman01:

He didn’t say tanks and planes, he just said artillery, I think

yada yada yada. armor piercing shells then.

Well if the factory is captured, there’s a reasonable chance the tools and dies that Japan was using to make their equipment was captured with it.  But that was not the point…

I think his point was that the factory that Japan built is immediately removed even if Japan retakes the territory right away.  The massive infrastructure upgrade to the territory simply vanishes.

hey guys, quick question.  Say America captures Denmark on its turn.  Can UK go thru the straights on it’s turn or does the US have to hold it for an entire turn?  Thanks in advance  :-)

Yes. I’ve lost Germany more than once thusly.  :|

does anyone ever consolidate the faq thread?  i see there are two of
them and they are quite long.

@Gamerman01:

@Boldfresh:

does anyone ever consolidate the faq thread?  i see there are two of
them and they are quite long.

There’s been talk about it before

I nominate Jennifer

i second the nomination.

@Gamerman01:

@Boldfresh:

does anyone ever consolidate the faq thread?  i see there are two of
them and they are quite long.

There’s been talk about it before

I nominate Jennifer

Gee thanks! lol.

I can do it.  Thought we only had the one official faq thread that Krieghund posted replies in?

Actually, what would be nice is to create a master post of all the questions asked and answers given and make it the first post, then blow out the rest of the pages….

Seeing as its 2 different rulesets and 2 different setups, isnt 2 different FAQs needed?

Combining them doesnt seem to serve any purpose, if im playing the origional G40 and i have a question, then i post here. If im playing 2nd edition i ask my questions in the 2nd edition FAQ.