Can Japan place units in German/Italian controlled (former Russian) territories with/out being at war with russia?
Can Japan place units in German/Italian controlled (former Russian) territories with/out being at war with russia?
By place units, you must mean a non-combat movement of existing units, not a placement of new units at an industrial complex. Also, I assume you mean Alpha2. Under OOB rules, Japan and Russia work out their nonagression pact however they want, basically.
Yes Japan can occupy those territories without DOW on Russia because occupying German/Italian controlled territory is not an act of war against Russia (is not a combat move). AFAIK the only thing Japan can’t do without declaring war on Russia, is attack Russia. That means attacking Russian units or making a combat move on Russian-controlled territory.
If there’s a rule against Japan occupying formerly Soviet territory controlled by G/I when Japan has not declared war on Russia previously, I’ve never seen it. There is, however, the rule that the Soviets can’t move anything (even an AA gun) into CHINA without a DOW on Japan, but I’ve never seen a rule restricting the Japs from joining the Germans/Italians.
To add to this hypothetical, if Russia then wanted to counterattack this territory, they would have to declare war on Japan to do so.
Hi - question on kamikaze usage. Are they only used for defense or can they be used offensively too?
Eg if USA fleet is sitting in z6 and Japanese fleet counter attacks can the kamikazes also be called in as part of the attack?
Thanks for the help!
Hi - question on kamikaze usage. Are they only used for defense or can they be used offensively too?
Eg if USA fleet is sitting in z6 and Japanese fleet counter attacks can the kamikazes also be called in as part of the attack?
Thanks for the help!
Defense only! They can only be used during an Allied combat move (they are rolled at the beginning of the resolve combat phase)
I have spent the past three days reading word-for-word all 87 pages of this FAQ (and accomplishing very little at work in the meantime). I now honestly feel that I know everything there is to know about A&A G40 :wink:
I do want to congratulate Larry (even though he doesn’t visit this site), Krieghund, and all the others on creating what appears to be an excellent successor to A&A Anniv. I have only just acquired the two boxed games over Easter weekend and had time to sit down with a partial game. It took us a several hours to go over the rules and set up the board. By that point we only had time to run through a few rounds before we had to chock it up to just a “learning run”. The US and USSR never even had a chance to declare war.
Most everything that I had wondered about after that partial game was answered somewhere in this massive thread. It has been interesting seeing the flow of changes from the first page to the last. However, there is one area that I/we still remain somewhat foggy on:
In regards to the Japanese and Soviet non-aggression treaty, the rules state that it is left to the Japanese and Soviet players to decide how this is worked out. Or something to that effect (I don’t have the rulebook directly in front of me atm). What is and is not allowed in this treaty between players? When it states the details are left to the players, what can be involved in those details? Surely not trading of IPCs, units, or any other game resource? We are assuming the only real details that can be involved are ones of timing. For example, “I will not [ever] attack you if you don’t [ever] attack me” or “I will not attack you for X turns if you do not attack me for X turns.” After that it is simply an honor-bound treaty that may be broken at any time by either side. This treaty cannot override any game rules, correct? Eg., Japan cannot allow Soviet troops into Japanese territories or “ignore” Soviet troops in Chinese territories as part of the treaty as this would be in violation of the game rules, right? Is there any conceivable detail outside of the timing examples I gave initially that could be used with a Japanese-Soviet non-aggression treaty?
Thanks in advance!
Hey Pan, I enjoyed your input.
The non-agression pact you are referring to is with the out-of-the-box rules. I think you are right - basically it has to do with timing. It was left vague deliberately, I think.
However, in Alpha2 this nonsense has been done away with. In Alpha2 Russia or Japan can invade each other whenever they want, and the consequence is that the other power immediately gets 12 IPC’s added to their account, and then of course the aggressor can never get that same collection of 12 IPC’s themselves, if the other power were to break it.
There are far too few people who read much of this thread. A lot of players don’t even read the manual, as evidenced by the content of several of the questions posed. :-) Not that I mind - I enjoy answering questions. It’s a big reason I’m a teacher by trade.
Don’t be afraid to post more comments or questions to the boards! Good to hear from you. Congratulations on owning the latest and greatest. It’s a beautiful game - I just set it up again in my living room last night, on a huge table. It’s so awesome.
Welcome, Pan!
In the box rules, it’s completely up to the Soviet and Japanese players whether there should be an agreement, what it should be, and whether or not to honor it once it’s made. The only restriction is that the agreement may not break any rules of the game.
If you haven’t already done so, check out the Official Rules Clarifications for Europe and Global, as well as the FAQ for Pacific. They contain a bunch of important rules clarifications and errata.
Thanks to both of you for your quick replies. The Pacific FAQ that Krieghund linked is what was missing from my reading selection. Now I think I have read everything (box manuals, P40 FAQ, E/G40 Rules Clarifications, Alpha 2 changes, and this FAQ thread) and somewhat have it set in my mind how it all works. If I have missed anything that I should read, please let me know.
The tricky part is being able to selectively remove the rules from my mind that have been replaced so as not to get confused. I still have to stop myself when I see someone mentioning scrambling fighters from an airbase on a mainland coastal territory and remember that we can do that now instead of only islands or being able to scramble for an amphib assault without needing a naval battle to justify the scramble. And other such similar situations.
A lot of stuff here to keep in mind but I’m sure after my 20th or so game it’ll start to gel :)
Thanks again!
Yeah, man, you need to start playing!!
I’m like you - I want to know all the rules before I start playing, but actually playing the game is what will clear up the little questions, and make it feel natural. Have fun.
Hi - question on kamikaze usage. Are they only used for defense or can they be used offensively too?
Eg if USA fleet is sitting in z6 and Japanese fleet counter attacks can the kamikazes also be called in as part of the attack?
Thanks for the help!
Defense only! They can only be used during an Allied combat move (they are rolled at the beginning of the resolve combat phase)
Good to know. Those of us too lazy to open the rule book (fine, the ME too lazy to undo the shrink wrap and pull out the rule book, you feel better?) were having issues in that regard.
Hi,
Specific question on nuetrality:
If Japan and Russia are still at peace, the USA takes Korea what happens if:
1. Russia moves troops into Korea to fortify while it is under USA command (ie does that declare war with Japan)?
2. If Japan counterattacks Korea (owned by USA but with Russian troops) – does that declare ware on Russia or does Japan only attack USA troops (happens with boats, but seems implausible on land). However (unlikely), if this occurs and Japan wins what happens to the russian troops? Do they cohabit Korea with Japan or get pushed out or does an immediate war start (and if so who declares – russia since they are in japanese territory)?
Thanks!
I believe everything in the zone has to be attacked, since all nations present are beligerant.
The question is:
Did Russia violate the neutrality giving Japan the NO?
or
Does Japan violate the neutrality if attacking Korea, giving Russia the NO?
or
Is the NO nullified if Japan attacks?
USSR can’t move troops into Korea if it’s not at war with Japan because it’s still under the restrictions of a neutral power on the Pacific map.
I’m pretty sure about this one but my brother want an official confirmation:
I am doing an amphibious assault with only one ship, I am well aware that he is going to scramble his 3 fighters so I’m sending my fighters/tact with the ship in the sea zone to ‘‘protect’’ the assault.
There is no sea zone combat, the ship is alone in the zone, the fight only occurs because he scramble. He is questionning me that I cannot just send the planes there without a fight, this makes no sense. Help us! lol.
Bro is absolutely wrong! You can send all you want to a sea zone in anticipation of scrambling. Even when he has no boats in the sea zone defending.
…. Said the player who hasn’t opened the shrink-wrap to read the rulebook yet…
@Cmdr:
…. Said the player who hasn’t opened the shrink-wrap to read the rulebook yet…
Referred to rules from other games, where I have the rulebooks out of the shrink wrap. :-P
Irrelevant! A lot of rules change from game to game. Unless your ambiguous statement means that you have read the rulebook from a different COPY of 1940!
Anyway, its always been okay to send 5 fighters and a bomber to attack E. Europe, as long as they had a valid landing zone, even if E. Europe was undefended (empty). Or SZ 16, same rationale. You just couldn’t move to friendly territories during combat movement, as that would be non-combat movement which occurs much later.
Whaaaaaa?? Gent is talking about attacking an empty seazone, which does appear to be attacking a friendly space, which is probably why his brother doesn’t think he can do it!
Ahem, never mind….yes, you can attack empty hostile territories, always could, always will be able too.
Territories =/= sea zones
Just don’t even mind Jenn, Pol. She has never even read the 1940 Europe rulebook.
Seriously, Jenn, don’t post answers to the FAQ thread that are products of your common sense and past gaming experiences from superseded Axis and Allies rulesets.
@Cmdr:
All sea zones are hostile and friendly simultaniously anyway.
Jenn, you need to stop. You’re making a bigger and bigger fool out of yourself…
Page 21 of the Europe manual, as one of a myriad of examples:
“A sea unit can move through any friendly sea zone. It can’t move into or through a hostile sea zone.”
The rulebook continuously specifies between “friendly” and “hostile” sea zones. So your statement here is really just complete nonsense, as are your reasonings about how the rules must be this way or that way because of “common sense”.
Please stop embarassing yourself, and spreading misinformation on the FAQ thread.
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.)
