AAG40 FAQ

So one could move the transports from SZ 98 to SZ 97 and back to SZ 99 (assuming you control Egypt’s Naval Base) despite an enemy warship in SZ 98.

@Cmdr:

So one could move the transports from SZ 98 to SZ 97 and back to SZ 99 (assuming you control Egypt’s Naval Base) despite an enemy warship in SZ 98.

That is my reading of the rules.

@Emperor:

@Cmdr:

So one could move the transports from SZ 98 to SZ 97 and back to SZ 99 (assuming you control Egypt’s Naval Base) despite an enemy warship in SZ 98.

That is my reading of the rules.

Yes, but to be clear: that’s not loading units in a hostile seazone on a declaration of war, especially as the UK and Italy/Germany never get to declare war on each other as they start at war, so none of that DOW shenanegins applies between them.

And further, that’s retreating from a hostile seazone and loading in a non-hostile seazone as a combat move (seemingly for an amphibious assault on a territory in SZ99).  You would HAVE to assault one of those territories if you wanted to offload the units, as you moved them during a combat move and cannot offload during the noncombat phase of the same turn.

I’m not certain, but I don’t think you could load them if you weren’t able to (or didn’t want to) perform an amphibious assault either.

The transports would “disengage” during the combat move phase.  The units would load the transports during the non-combat move phase or the combat move phase.  I believe.  Just like you can land fighters on carriers in any movement phase you want, provided you follow the rules of carrier landings. (no more than 2, you cannot magically put more fuel in the planes to get them there, etc.)

@kcdzim:

Yes, but to be clear: that’s not loading units in a hostile seazone on a declaration of war, especially as the UK and Italy/Germany never get to declare war on each other as they start at war, so none of that DOW shenanegins applies between them.

And further, that’s retreating from a hostile seazone and loading in a non-hostile seazone as a combat move (seemingly for an amphibious assault on a territory in SZ99).  You would HAVE to assault one of those territories if you wanted to offload the units, as you moved them during a combat move and cannot offload during the noncombat phase of the same turn.

I’m not certain, but I don’t think you could load them if you weren’t able to (or didn’t want to) perform an amphibious assault either.

Correct on all counts.  Since UK and Italy begin the game at war, the exemption does not apply, and transports may not be loaded in a hostile sea zone.

@Cmdr:

The transports would “disengage” during the combat move phase.  The units would load the transports during the non-combat move phase or the combat move phase.  I believe.  Just like you can land fighters on carriers in any movement phase you want, provided you follow the rules of carrier landings. (no more than 2, you cannot magically put more fuel in the planes to get them there, etc.)

Land and sea units may never move in both the combat and noncombat movement phases.  Transports starting the turn in a hostile sea zone must either fight (assuming they are escorted) or flee in the combat movement phase.  If they flee, they may load (for an immediate amphibious assault only) in a friendly sea zone (unless the exemption described above allows loading in the initial hostile sea zone, which in this case it does not).  In either case, they may not move, load, or unload in the noncombat movement phase.

My opponent and I are having a disagreement in the Alpha +.2 rule set.  It is concerning how war is declared.  Specifically, Japan was not at war with ANZAC and the UK on its turn 4.  Therefore, I wanted to verbally declare war with on UK4 so that UK Pacific and ANZAC could gain their “at war” NOs.  The disagreement was that he thought war was declared by actual combat movement, not just  a verbal declaration.  Hence, no combat movement meant we were still not at war.

We both looked in the rulebook, and it doesn’t specifically state whether a declaration of war is verbal or specifically requires combat movement.

Thank you for an answer in advance.

@gsh34:

My opponent and I are having a disagreement in the Alpha +.2 rule set.  It is concerning how war is declared.  Specifically, Japan was not at war with ANZAC and the UK on its turn 4.  Therefore, I wanted to verbally declare war with on UK4 so that UK Pacific and ANZAC could gain their “at war” NOs.  The disagreement was that he thought war was declared by actual combat movement, not just  a verbal declaration.  Hence, no combat movement meant we were still not at war.

We both looked in the rulebook, and it doesn’t specifically state whether a declaration of war is verbal or specifically requires combat movement.

Thank you for an answer in advance.

You’re right, and he’s wrong.  The DOW is made at the beginning of the combat move phase, but does not require combat movements that turn.

Some silly questions:

1. If the US makes an amphibious assault on for instance Southern Italy, and the sz is occupied only by a cruiser belonging to the UK. If Italy decides to scramble, do they have to fight the UK cruiser in addition to the US fleet?

2. When you are making an amphibious assault, can you always send planes into the same sz in case the defender scrambles?

3. If Moscow has fallen to Germany and the UK moves into a Sovjet territory in NCM, can they claim the IPCs? Or can they just claim the IPCs from territories that are liberated? Can the UK make use of the ICs or AAs in the Sovjet territories they move into/ liberate?

Thanks!

Thinking you can always send planes to escort your transports, regardless of if there are any defending ships or possible planes to scramble.  They just don’t actually do anything.  Of course, been playing online so long, sometimes the lines between combat moves and non-combat moves get blurred…happens after a decade of play (and I refuse to admit to more than a decade!)

Thanks Gamerman! Keep up the good work!

I think A&A has reached its limit when it comes to complexity. This global version is FAR more complex than the original A&A, but either way I really like it. The problem is getting new people to play A&A, especially since its HUGELY time consuming. Oops, sorry, off topic. Thanks again for the help :-)

@gamerman01:

@General:

I think A&A has reached its limit when it comes to complexity. This global version is FAR more complex than the original A&A, but either way I really like it. The problem is getting new people to play A&A, especially since its HUGELY time consuming. Oops, sorry, off topic. Thanks again for the help :-)

I agree.  That’s why it’s awesome that we can play on-line with other addicted loonies like ourselves.  (I prefer to play by forum on this site, btw)

Challenge me sometime!  :-)

finish our game first!

Somebody told me that with UK/ANZAC, you cannot take the DEI Islands if you are not at war with Japan.

Is that true? I never played like that.

@MightyPol:

Somebody told me that with UK/ANZAC, you cannot take the DEI Islands if you are not at war with Japan.

Is that true? I never played like that.

someone lied to you.

@MightyPol:

Somebody told me that with UK/ANZAC, you cannot take the DEI Islands if you are not at war with Japan.

Is that true? I never played like that.

They were probably thinking of Japan.  Japan can not take them until they are at war with the UK or ANZAC.

@Entek:

@MightyPol:

Somebody told me that with UK/ANZAC, you cannot take the DEI Islands if you are not at war with Japan.

Is that true? I never played like that.

They were probably thinking of Japan.  Japan can not take them until they are at war with the UK or ANZAC.

Japan can take DEI even when not at war.
It will cause a war though.

Entek is right.