AAG40 FAQ

So, that brings up another issue. The time to declare war for all powers (if they are eligible to due so) is before their combat move phase (except for the US who unless receive an unprovoked attack may only declare war at the end of their 3rd turn) and must be done verbally or risk the inability to attack legally. Therefore forcing them to wait until their next turn. is this correct?

If some of what you said is true, (which I’m sure it is) wouldn’t that make unprovoked attacks obsolete if all powers who are planning to attack, must declare war before doing so?

@Young:

The time to declare war for all powers (if they are eligible to due so) is before their combat move phase (except for the US who unless receive an unprovoked attack may only declare war at the end of their 3rd turn)

Yes.

@Young:

and must be done verbally or risk the inability to attack legally. Therefore forcing them to wait until their next turn. is this correct?

Technically, that’s correct.  However, the purpose of declaring war at the beginning of the combat movement phase is simply to keep you from moving through units belonging to your new enemy to attack units beyond them.  In practice, it’s OK to make a combat movement and then say, “Oh yeah, I declare war on you”, as long as all of your combat movements are legal under the premise that you declared war at the beginning of the phase.

@Young:

If some of what you said is true, (which I’m sure it is) wouldn’t that make unprovoked attacks obsolete if all powers who are planning to attack, must declare war before doing so?

Not at all.  Provocation has nothing to do with attacking without declaring war.

A declaration of war is considered to be “provoked” under two conditions.  The first is when the declaration is made in reaction to the direct aggression of another power.  An example of this would be the United States declaring war on Japan after Japan has already declared war on the United States.  (Such a declaration is technically unnecessary, as the two powers would already be at war.)  The second condition is when a political rule allows the power to declare war due to a specific action being taken by another power.  For example, the United States is allowed to declare war on any or all Axis powers if an Axis power declares war on it, so if Japan declares war on the United States, a subsequent declaration of war by United States on Germany would be considered provoked.  A declaration of war under any other circumstances is considered to be “unprovoked”.  (Note that a declaration enabled by a political rule that allows a power to declare war on any of its turns or on a specific turn is considered to be unprovoked, as this is a condition based on the passage of time rather than on a specific action taken by a power.)

Great answers as usual,

So for example: Just before the combat move phase of Japan’s turn 2, they verbally declare war on the United Kingdom and attack the lone battleship that the UK failed to protect during its first turn. If that were the only attack Japan made that turn, technically they didn’t owe ANZAC or the United States a declaration of war, even though Japan understands that ANZAC and the United States are now eligible to declare war on Japan due to their actions. So before the combat move phases of the US and ANZAC in their turn 3 they declare war on Japan, and before the combat move phase of Japan’s turn 4, they declare war on the US and ANZAC (even though its not necessary). In this scenario, what actions were provoked and what (if any) were unprovoked?

@Young:

So for example: Just before the combat move phase of Japan’s turn 2, they verbally declare war on the United Kingdom and attack the lone battleship that the UK failed to protect during its first turn. If that were the only attack Japan made that turn, technically they didn’t owe ANZAC or the United States a declaration of war, even though Japan understands that ANZAC and the United States are now eligible to declare war on Japan due to their actions. So before the combat move phases of the US and ANZAC in their turn 3 they declare war on Japan, and before the combat move phase of Japan’s turn 4, they declare war on the US and ANZAC (even though its not necessary).

Almost.  UK and ANZAC are tied together politically, so a declaration of war on one is a declaration on both, and a declaration by one is a declaration by both.  So, at the end of its second turn Japan is at war with UK and ANZAC, and the US is eligible to declare war.

@Young:

In this scenario, what actions were provoked and what (if any) were unprovoked?

Japan’s declaration on UK/ANZAC was unprovoked, as there was no aggression by UK/ANZAC, and no action was taken by them that triggered a political rule allowing Japan to declare war on them.  All other declarations were provoked.  Japan took an action that triggered a political rule allowing the US to declare war on them (the unprovoked declaration against UK/ANZAC), and the other declarations were reactions to direct aggression.

Wonderbar, Thanks for your time.

I have a question about shore bombardment:  Do the bombarding warships have to be in the SAME sea zone as the transports in an amphibious assault?  OR, can they be in another sea zone that borders the territory being amphibiously assaulted?
In a game we were playing, Germany had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 115.  Germany had 2 transports that carried inf & art from Finland to Novgorod in SZ 127.  Both SZ 115 and SZ 127 are adjacent to Novgorod.
Later in the same game, UK had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 98 with transports landing forces from SZ 81 (the Red Sea) to attack Egypt.

Since in both cases, both sea zones bordered the territory in question, can the warships bombard that territory to support the landing troops?  Or do the warships have to be in the same sea zone?  I think it is the latter but I wanted to check for sure.

@knp7765:

I have a question about shore bombardment:  Do the bombarding warships have to be in the SAME sea zone as the transports in an amphibious assault?  OR, can they be in another sea zone that borders the territory being amphibiously assaulted?
In a game we were playing, Germany had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 115.  Germany had 2 transports that carried inf & art from Finland to Novgorod in SZ 127.  Both SZ 115 and SZ 127 are adjacent to Novgorod.
Later in the same game, UK had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 98 with transports landing forces from SZ 81 (the Red Sea) to attack Egypt.

Since in both cases, both sea zones bordered the territory in question, can the warships bombard that territory to support the landing troops?  Or do the warships have to be in the same sea zone?  I think it is the latter but I wanted to check for sure.

If they’re in another zone from which landing takes place, they’re not part of the amphibious assault and they can’t bombard.

@Krieghund:

The only restriction is that a transport may not offload for an amphibious assault if there is an enemy sub in the sea zone unless there is also a warship (of any type) belonging to the same power in the sea zone at the end of combat movement.

why would they need another warship to make it legal?

Few quick questions:

1. Sub against sub.  If the defender decides to submerge, does the attacker still get one first strike attack?

2. Amphibious assault from a sea zone that also contains an enemy transport.  Can I use a sub/destroyer to kill the transport but have my battleship bombard from the same zone, even though there is technically combat in that zone?

3. Defending carrier in an open sea zone (no land nearby) takes one hit but survives.  It’s planes auto-die even though they won the fight?

@shadowguidex:

Few quick questions:

1. Sub against sub.  If the defender decides to submerge, does the attacker still get one first strike attack?

2. Amphibious assault from a sea zone that also contains an enemy transport.  Can I use a sub/destroyer to kill the transport but have my battleship bombard from the same zone, even though there is technically combat in that zone?

3. Defending carrier in an open sea zone (no land nearby) takes one hit but survives.  It’s planes auto-die even though they won the fight?

I think attacking sub gets pot shot, and I believe you loose shore bombardment if you engage the transport, also think planes die.

@Global-commander:

why would they need another warship to make it legal?

This is in the Alpha Rules.

@shadowguidex:

1. Sub against sub.  If the defender decides to submerge, does the attacker still get one first strike attack?

2. Amphibious assault from a sea zone that also contains an enemy transport.  Can I use a sub/destroyer to kill the transport but have my battleship bombard from the same zone, even though there is technically combat in that zone?

3. Defending carrier in an open sea zone (no land nearby) takes one hit but survives.  It’s planes auto-die even though they won the fight?

1. No.

2. No.

3. Yes.

So sub on sub “battles” are basically not going to happen?

So if there is a German sub at the Norway convoy zone, the Russian sub from Murmansk essentially cannott clear it out to regain the +5 NO bonus?

Without a destroyer, the only way you can successfully attack a sub is if it wants to fight.

@shadowguidex:

So sub on sub “battles” are basically not going to happen?

So if there is a German sub at the Norway convoy zone, the Russian sub from Murmansk essentially cannott clear it out to regain the +5 NO bonus?

You can move your Russian sub into that sea zone during your combat movement phase, but only after you do so, the german sub gets the option to submerge or fight before any dice are rolled. therefore you could coax him into a battle but more often than not, he will submerge and continue to deny Russia their NO.

I have a further clarification I would like for the CV example.  Say the CV was attacked by only subs.  They get 1 hit on the CV.  do the ftrs still perish or are they aboard the damaged CV because they couldn’t fight the subs anyways.  Remember this is in open waters.

@JimmyHat:

I have a further clarification I would like for the CV example.  Say the CV was attacked by only subs.  They get 1 hit on the CV.  do the ftrs still perish or are they aboard the damaged CV because they couldn’t fight the subs anyways.  Remember this is in open waters.

This is a quick reply if you are looking for one. Not Official.

During a combat, defending air units on board carriers in that sea zone are considered airborne regardless of if their combat dice get applied to units, people normally don’t roll dice for them if only subs remain and they have no destroyer per the sub special abilities.

The damaged carrier can not land planes. The planes get 1 movement point to reach a landing site. Failure results in removal.

Also, to address allied planes on your carrier if it comes up:

During your combat move, air units on board a carrier are considered airborne if they are yours, they are considered cargo if not. This prevents your air units from “riding” on the carrier, and then “launching”. Hence your planes have 4 movement from where they begin the turn, not where the carrier ends up.

Since this was a defensive battle, any allied planes were airborne to help defend as allied units defend together, allied planes are only cargo if your carrier enters combat through its combat move. If that were the case, they would be stuck on the carrier until repaired should damage be applied and lost if the carrier is lost.

Since that is not the case in your question, they have 1 space to move. Your planes are never cargo on your ships.

I have seen 1 carrier and 2 planes destroyed many times by 1 or 2 attacking subs. Always build a destroyer with the carrier (cost is 24 combined) when enemy subs are near to prevent this.

England is under German control, British troops from Calcutta take Persia and Syria from the Italians. Does the Calcutta economy increase or are those IPCs in limbo?