AAG40 FAQ

@fighter:

A question on sea battles-If I have a fleet of mixed warships can I move them(not including a destroyer) through a sz containing an enemy sub to attack a sz and at the same time attack the sub with a destroyer from another sz,or do they all have to stop and do battle in the sz containing the enemy sub?

Enemy subs and transports do not block naval movement. They may or may not be attacked at the moving players discretion. Attacking subs and transports in a sea zone prevents naval bombardment in that sea zone.

In your example, one fleet may move through the sub sea zone, and a destroyer from another sea zone may enter and attack the sub. You may be thinking of subs having to stop when entering a sea zone containing an enemy destroyer.

Thanks for the answer

According the A3 rules:

“When not yet at war with the United States, in addition to the normal restrictions (see Powers Not at War with One Another above), Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within two sea zones of the Western United States or Alaska territories.”

Does this mean SZ 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are off limits to Japan?

Or does it mean all those SZs plus SZ 4, 7, 14, 15, 13, 26, 27, 28, and 64

Also, does the term “Alaska territories” include the Aleutian Islands or does it just mean Alaska?

The Aleutian Islands are part of Alaska, they are included in the restriction.

So the full off limits list while neutral would be SZs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 14, 15.

While SZs 13, 26, 27, 28, and 64 (among others) are legal.

@Cmdr:

The Aleutian Islands are part of Alaska, they are included in the restriction.

No, they are not.  The restriction includes the two named territories: Western United States and Alaska.  The restricted sea zones are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Then perhaps it should be rewritten as “the Alaska territory” and not plural.  Since the Aleutian islands are, in fact, part of the state of Alaska but the state of Alaska did not exist in WWII, it gets confusing.  Eh?

I mean, ya all are going to print with a new set of rules - or at least officially releasing a new set of rules for AAG40, this would be a good thing and time to do the change, no?

@Cmdr:

Then perhaps it should be rewritten as “the Alaska territory” and not plural.

That would be grammatically incorrect, as there are two territories involved.

@Cmdr:

Since the Aleutian islands are, in fact, part of the state of Alaska but the state of Alaska did not exist in WWII, it gets confusing.  Eh?

Only if you read too much into it.

Krieghund,

How close are the Alpha Global rules from being finalized?, Larry had mentioned that today (Nov. 2nd) could be the deadline for the finished product. Are they 90% done? how about 99%?. I won’t hold you to anything you say, just hoping you could throw me a bone with a ball park answer.

What two territories???  I only see the one on the map.  There’s no restriction against moving adjacent to British territories if that’s the second one you are referring too…/shrug

@Cmdr:

but the state of Alaska did not exist in WWII, it gets confusing.  Eh?

Actually…
As “State” no, but USA owned Alaska since 1867 and was always known as “Alaska” (under various administrative qualification).

As for Aleutians :
During World War II, the Aleutian Islands Campaign focused on the three outer Aleutian Islands – Attu, Agattu and Kiska[24] – that were invaded by Japanese troops and occupied between June 1942 and August 1943. Unalaska/Dutch Harbor became a significant base for the U.S. Army Air Corps and Navy submariners.

Source (easy to find…) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska

sea battle question-if I send 4ftrs to a sz along with ships(no carriers) for a battle,can I plan on moving two carriers into the sz so the ftrs have a place to land but then move them somewhere else if the ftrs die
in the battle?

@fighter:

sea battle question-if I send 4ftrs to a sz along with ships(no carriers) for a battle,can I plan on moving two carriers into the sz so the ftrs have a place to land but then move them somewhere else if the ftrs die
in the battle?

Yes.  But obviously only if the fighters die, or if enemy surface ships remain in that seazone (a retreat occured).  If the fighters are alive, you’re obligated to move carriers to pick them up, if able, unless the fighters have another legal landing space.

@fighter:

sea battle question-if I send 4ftrs to a sz along with ships(no carriers) for a battle,can I plan on moving two carriers into the sz so the ftrs have a place to land but then move them somewhere else if the ftrs die
in the battle?

Yes.
Actually you can even change you mind regarding where to land those fighters. The “non combat move” is not bonded to “combat move plans”. Planes must have legal landing “plan” during combat move… but during non combat move you don’t have to do as planned.

For that matter, it’s even legal to loose carrier (in a battle) you “planned” to land planes on… but without a “plan B” to land those planes, they will be lost during non combat phase.

@Young:

Krieghund,

How close are the Alpha Global rules from being finalized?, Larry had mentioned that today (Nov. 2nd) could be the deadline for the finished product. Are they 90% done? how about 99%?. I won’t hold you to anything you say, just hoping you could throw me a bone with a ball park answer.

Kevin,
Any comment on this earlier post of mine?

Let’s call it 99%.

@Krieghund:

Let’s call it 99%.

Thank you, if thats the case, than I really like the final product. Don’t worry……, I won’t tell Larry that you’re trading national secrets.

In a game I’m playing I built an italian minor in Iraq. My opponent attacked Iraq with Russia and then took it with uk. I took it back with Italy but managed to loose it again to 1 French inf attacking from Syria. My friend now claims that Russia (for some reason) should get the ipcs from Iraq and use the factory there since Paris is under axis control and it’s “unfair” that nobody gets the money or the use of the factory.
I say that France gets the ipcs if and when Paris is liberated. Please tell me I’m right for once?

You’re right.  Your friend can at least be happy that the Axis doesn’t get the IPCs or use of the IC.

Thanks krieg, two more questions:
During an amphibious assault, you can’t retreat land units back on the transports (if I remember correctly). But can you still retreat planes (leaving the land units behind)?

If you combine an amphibious assault with a normal attack on the same territory, can you then retreat all land units to the territory the normal attack came from?