AAG40 FAQ

Someone is obviously an “in the box” thinker.

If SZ 10 has no ships in it, is it friendly or hostile?  BOTH!  It qualifies for any action that can be done in a friendly sea zone and it qualifies for any action that can be done in a hostile sea zone!

Further, it cannot be neutral, as the rules for neutrals specifically state that invasion of a neutral territory make all other neutral (not leaning) territories lean toward the other alliance (axis).

Thus, a sea zone MUST be EITHER friendly OR hostile OR both.  It cannot, by the very definition of movement through a hostile nation, be neutral as it does not act as such.  That only leaves the other two options.

I am thinking someone needs a tutorial on basic logic (scientific, mathematical or ethical - you choose.)

@Cmdr:

If SZ 10 has no ships in it, is it friendly or hostile?  BOTH!  It qualifies for any action that can be done in a friendly sea zone and it qualifies for any action that can be done in a hostile sea zone! 
Thus, a sea zone MUST be EITHER friendly OR hostile OR both.  It cannot, by the very definition of movement through a hostile nation, be neutral as it does not act as such.  That only leaves the other two options.

I am thinking someone needs a tutorial on basic logic (scientific, mathematical or ethical - you choose.)

No, a seazone is friendly OR hostile.  It is NOT both.  If there are no enemy ships, it’s friendly.  You cannot CONTROL a seazone, so there aren’t neutral seazones, and since no one controls them, they’re friendly unless an enemy ship is present.  Very simple.

And it does NOT qualify for any action.  If it’s a combat move, by letter of the rules you cannot move ships unless there’s going to be combat (or possibility of combat) - either bombardment by battleships or the possibility of scrambling fighters.  Otherwise you aren’t supposed to move ships during a combat phase (most of us do, to avoid forgetting later, just to keep ships grouped during amphibs, even if destroyers/subs don’t participate).  It’s not both and you’re not SUPPOSED to make a combat move that CANNOT EVER result in combat.  Most players simply allow naval combat movements that doesn’t result in combat because in the past we didn’t need to worry about scrambling so all naval assets moved with transports whether or not there was combat in the amphibiously assaulted seazone.  Just means we’re loose with the rules, it DOESN’T mean a seazone is both friendly and hostile.  that silly talk.

At the risk of hijacking the thread longer, I totally disagree with you.  Sea zones are both hostile and friendly, depending what phase of your turn you are in and whether or not there are any surface warships present. (Submarines and Transports do not count.)

Proof (by contradictions):

Any zone on the map must be Neutral, Friendly or Hostile.  No zones exist on the map that are of a fourth designation.
Example: Antartica is neither neutral, friendly nor hostile.  Therefore, it does not exist on the map, and thus, the fourth designation principle has not been violated.

You may not move into a hostile zone during the non-combat movement phase of the game.  However, you may also not end your movement in a friendly zone during the combat movement phase of the game.  This clearly states that all zones in which you end combat must be either friendly or hostile, but never neutral (*invading a neutral makes them hostile or friendly depending on which neutral you invade and with which country.)

There exists three types of neutral nations in the game.  1)  Those leaning towards alliance with the Allies.  2)  Those leaning towards alliance with the Axis.  3)  Those who are true neutral.

Further, any invasion of a neutral nation that is not leaning towards alliance with the Allies or the Axis automatically makes all other true neutral nations lean towards alliance with the opposing force.

However!  We have a dilemna, because sea zones allow you to end your movement phase in them regardless of whether they have friendly ships or hostile ships!  Further, they are not neutral territories, because they are neither leaning towars alliance towards one side or the other, nor does invading them make all other true neutral nations lean towards one alliance or the others.

Therefore, it is clearly established that sea zones are not neutral zones.

Since they are not neutral zones, and since only three categories of zones have been established, then they must - by default - be either friendly or hostile zones.

Since you may end your combat movement in a sea zone regardless of any combat taking place in said sea zone, this implies that the zone is hostile.  Since the zone acts as would any undefended land zone.

Since you may end your non-combat movement in a sea zone regardless of any friendly vessels present or not present, and since you may build new units into said sea zones, this implies they are friendly sea zones. (As you may only place equipment in friendly zones.)  Further, since enemy vessels may be present in a sea zone you place new naval units into, this implies further that the sea zone is friendly.

But wait, if the sea zone must be friendly OR hostile, then we have a contradiction!  Since you can obviously place new units in the sea zone, but you cannot build units in a hostile zone, but there are enemy surface warships present and therefore, the zone must be hostile.

Thus, it is established that sea zones are both friendly and hostile simultaniously.  It is the only logical solution to the dilemna.  Of course, if you wish to supply a counter-proof, please PM me and start a new thread.  I would be glad to hear your arguement, even if I won’t agree with it, probably.

If the sea zone has no enemy ships in it, then it is not hostile - as you say, but then, you cannot end your movement phase during CM in it!  But wait, YOU CAN, otherwise there would be no rules for shore bombarding, as all instances of moving your Battleships and Cruisers into the sea zone would REQUIRE you to engage in naval combat.

@gamerman01:

@gamerman01:

“… units can’t end their movement in friendly spaces during the Combat move phase except in four instances:” (and now I paraphrase) Tanks that have blitzed, units escaping from combat (sea units), sea units that will participate in amphibious assault (this would include scrambling - has been clarified by Krieg) and sea units attacking subs/transports (not considered a hostile zone)

Did you not read what I wrote?  It’s one of the four exceptions.

Did you read what I wrote? It’s an exception because sea zones are BOTH hostile AND friendly simultaniously.

Destroyers that come with the ships are not participating in the battle, but they are permitted to go as well.  For the record.  Because the sea zone (empty) is considered hostile during your combat move.  Aircraft Carriers may also end their combat move in an empty sea zone, because it is considered hostile.

However, destroyers and aircraft carriers may also end their non-combat moves in said sea zones because they are considered friendly.

Therefore, they are BOTH friendly AND hostile at the same time when they are empty (or only have enemy submarines and transports present.)

Since there are a lot of stupid questions in this thread I have got one too:

Is it possible to use other nations naval bases? I assume you can use friendly nations bases, but what about neutrals or enemies? More specifically: Can Japan use Uks naval base in Kwangtung? What about the US naval base in the Philippines (when the US is not at war).

Thanks!

@General:

Since there are a lot of stupid questions in this thread I have got one too:

Is it possible to use other nations naval bases? I assume you can use friendly nations bases, but what about neutrals or enemies? More specifically: Can Japan use Uks naval base in Kwangtung? What about the US naval base in the Philippines (when the US is not at war).

Thanks!

No.  You cannot use another neutral power’s naval base nor an enemy’s naval base.  The US can use its own naval bases while neutral and once it is at war (and no sooner) it can use Allied naval bases.  The UK/Anzac cannot use the US naval bases until the US is at war.  Russia can use its own naval bases and can only use other Allied naval bases once it is at war on that associated board.  For example, Russia cannot use a naval base in Kwangtung until both the UK and Russia are at war with Japan (being at war with Germany has no bearing on the Pacific side), and it cannot use the UK London naval base until at war with Germany or Italy (being at war with Japan has no bearing on the Europe side).  Although it’s nigh impossible to get a Russian naval unit in play in the pacific.

Gamerman01 is right.  Because they have no non-aggression pact with Japan, UK and ANZAC are not under the restrictions of a neutral power on the Pacific board when they’re not at war with Japan.  If USSR is at war with Japan, but UK/ANZAC is not, USSR may use UK or ANZAC naval bases in the Pacific.  Likewise, the US could use UK/ANZAC naval bases if US is at war with Japan and UK/ANZAC is not.

@Krieghund:

Gamerman01 is right.  Because they have no non-aggression pact with Japan, UK and ANZAC are not under the restrictions of a neutral power on the Pacific board when they’re not at war with Japan.  If USSR is at war with Japan, but UK/ANZAC is not, USSR may use UK or ANZAC naval bases in the Pacific.  Likewise, the US could use UK/ANZAC naval bases if US is at war with Japan and UK/ANZAC is not.

right right, I always forget that board neutrality rules for russia are different from the UK’s.  Not that it matters though, because russia will probably never have a naval unit by kwangtung and the UK is pretty much always at war with japan first or at least at the same time as the US.

@kcdzim:

@Krieghund:

Gamerman01 is right.  Because they have no non-aggression pact with Japan, UK and ANZAC are not under the restrictions of a neutral power on the Pacific board when they’re not at war with Japan.  If USSR is at war with Japan, but UK/ANZAC is not, USSR may use UK or ANZAC naval bases in the Pacific.  Likewise, the US could use UK/ANZAC naval bases if US is at war with Japan and UK/ANZAC is not.

right right, I always forget that board neutrality rules for russia are different from the UK’s.  Not that it matters though, because russia will probably never have a naval unit by kwangtung and the UK is pretty much always at war with japan first or at least at the same time as the US.

Screw that, I will have a Russian Aircraft Carrier in SZ 6!  I don’t know when, or who the pitiful fool is that doesn’t surrender first, but I’m sure it will happen one day!

@Cmdr:

@gamerman01:

@gamerman01:

“… units can’t end their movement in friendly spaces during the Combat move phase except in four instances:” (and now I paraphrase) Tanks that have blitzed, units escaping from combat (sea units), sea units that will participate in amphibious assault (this would include scrambling - has been clarified by Krieg) and sea units attacking subs/transports (not considered a hostile zone)

Did you not read what I wrote?  It’s one of the four exceptions.

Did you read what I wrote? It’s an exception because sea zones are BOTH hostile AND friendly simultaniously.

Destroyers that come with the ships are not participating in the battle, but they are permitted to go as well.  For the record.  Because the sea zone (empty) is considered hostile during your combat move.  Aircraft Carriers may also end their combat move in an empty sea zone, because it is considered hostile.

However, destroyers and aircraft carriers may also end their non-combat moves in said sea zones because they are considered friendly.

Therefore, they are BOTH friendly AND hostile at the same time when they are empty (or only have enemy submarines and transports present.)

What you wrote makes no sense. You cannot move destroyers or any other vessel, FOR THE RECORD, during the combat move if there is no chance of them engaging in battle (no threat of scrambled fighters or kamikazi) BECAUSE the seazone is not nor can be made hostile, therefore, by use of proper logic, it is friendly. LOGIC states that something cannot be 2 opposite things, it is either one or the other. Admit that you are wrong and move on.

Do the Allies need to acually place a unit on Dutch New Guiney in order for ANZAC to achieve their national objective? (the description says Dutch not included).

Yes, a land unit is required in order to take control.

Can Japan use a kamikaze attack on the American destroyer in the Philippines J1?. if so and japan destroyed it, the Jap submarine in from SZ 19 would receive a surprise strike on the remaining American submarine, right? and if I also bring the Jap destroyer from SZ 19 it would negate the defending subs surprise strike, right?. I think I can do all this but I wanted to check and be sure.