If USA does an ambhibious assault can British ships in same sea zone take a part in shore bombardment?
If USA does an ambhibious assault can British ships in same sea zone take a part in shore bombardment?
No.
If USA does an ambhibious assault can British ships in same sea zone take a part in shore bombardment?
Btw, no Ally can ever assist in any kind of attack (with units rolling dice) under any circumstances. The closest an ally can get to helping during “your” turn, is carriers for landing planes on, or transports for loading/unloading your units.
Allies defend together, but attack separately!
Two rules queries please relating to AAG40 Alpha 3.
1. If the Allied player makes an amphibious attack on a Japanese island with a Kamikaze symbol with a single unescorted transport, can the Japanese player use his Kamikaze planes against this transport? Logically one would think so as it happened historically, yet in the rulebook it does specify that transport or subs cannot be targeted by Kamikaze attacks. It wasn’t clear if this has changed in the Alpha rules. My mate is annoyed that I took two islands in one turn in this manner.
2. I understand that when a capital is taken all the remaining money goes to the victor for example when Germany takes Paris, the German player receives the unspent French money ($17 in round 1). Where I am not clear is what happens when the US/UK liberate Paris to be recaptured by Germany in the following turn (or down the track for that matter). I understand that 4 French Infantry units are placed in Paris and that all the French territories under Allies control revert back to French territories (bumping up their IPC). The French player will not be able to make any purchases as they have no money, but will collect the appropriate income at the end of the turn. If the Germans then recapture Paris, is it déjà vu, i.e. does Germany take the French money again and furthermore do all the hard earned Allied captures territory revert back to French territories denying the Allies player the IPC? If this is the case then there really is not advantage to taking Paris unless you know you can hang onto it. As the Germans I would bait the UK/US in taking in.
Two rules queries please relating to AAG40 Alpha 3.
1. If the Allied player makes an amphibious attack on a Japanese island with a Kamikaze symbol with a single unescorted transport, can the Japanese player use his Kamikaze planes against this transport? Logically one would think so as it happened historically, yet in the rulebook it does specify that transport or subs cannot be targeted by Kamikaze attacks. It wasn’t clear if this has changed in the Alpha rules. My mate is annoyed that I took two islands in one turn in this manner.
Kamikazes can only target surface warships. Anything but subs and transports. This has not been changed through Alpha2 (I have not yet read Alpha3)
2. I understand that when a capital is taken all the remaining money goes to the victor for example when Germany takes Paris, the German player receives the unspent French money ($17 in round 1). Where I am not clear is what happens when the US/UK liberate Paris to be recaptured by Germany in the following turn (or down the track for that matter). I understand that 4 French Infantry units are placed in Paris and that all the French territories under Allies control revert back to French territories (bumping up their IPC). The French player will not be able to make any purchases as they have no money, but will collect the appropriate income at the end of the turn. If the Germans then recapture Paris, is it déjà vu, i.e. does Germany take the French money again and furthermore do all the hard earned Allied captures territory revert back to French territories denying the Allies player the IPC?
Yes. You have it all right.
If this is the case then there really is not advantage to taking Paris unless you know you can hang onto it. As the Germans I would bait the UK/US in taking in.
That’s right. This has always been the case for ALL capitals in A&A, since the days of Classic! You are only collecting money for your enemies if you can’t hold the capital!
@Young:
During the combat movement phase of G1, Germany attacks SZ #109 with, 1 u-boat, 1 fighter, 2 tactical bombers, and 1 strategic bomber, the allies scramble 3 fighters from London into the battle. During the resolve combat phase Germany hits with the u- boat, and 1 strategic bomber for a total of 2 hits (the hit from the sub must be applied to the destroyer, and the allies also choose to move a French fighter behind the casualty line).
For defense rolls, the UK misses with the destroyer but hits twice with fighters, now can Germany use the sub as a casualty even though the destroyer missed (I think so as long as there is a destroyer, subs can be used as casualties from hits by air units). In the next round, the sub will have nothing to hit because they can’t attack air units, and even though the air battle is still in progress, the sub can’t be hit by air units if their destroyer is off the board, is all this correct?
Actually, if you instead choose 2 air units as casualties on round 1, you can keep the sub in the battle and roll at the transport until it dies (it is not an autokill since a battle still rages)….this means losing more air units for Germany, but if you are going Sea Lion, trading air may not be a bad thing. Essentially, if you are OK losing your air units, you can get the transport even if the defender has air units scrambled so long as they removed the destroyer on round 1.
The point to rolling is that if you score a hit on round 2 with the sub and you have surviving air, you can retreat at the end of the round, thus giving you the transport sunk if that is your mission. Otherwise, you would fight until the Germans have no air units left, then to save time, remove the UK transport as any UK air will not save it from the subs eventual hit.
Friendly Neutrals Question:
If a Power attacks a friendly neutral of the opposing powers (ex. Italy attacking Greece), and the power fails to take the neutral and withdraws, what happens to the remaining neutral troops? Do they convert to active troops that can then leave their original terriotry (ex. former Greek troops move into Bulgaria)? Does a power start collecting money from the friendly neutral now being fully turned to their side by virtue of a failed invasion? Do the surviving troops convert to a power nation, if so which one?
I know this is probably in the rulebook, but don’t have it handy and these days most of what is in there is no longer relevant…
Friendly Neutrals Question:
If a Power attacks a friendly neutral of the opposing powers (ex. Italy attacking Greece), and the power fails to take the neutral and withdraws, what happens to the remaining neutral troops? Do they convert to active troops that can then leave their original terriotry (ex. former Greek troops move into Bulgaria)? Does a power start collecting money from the friendly neutral now being fully turned to their side by virtue of a failed invasion? Do the surviving troops convert to a power nation, if so which one?
I know this is probably in the rulebook, but don’t have it handy and these days most of what is in there is no longer relevant…
The surviving country (Greece) and its units join the allies(since Italy attacked). They are not under direct control until you send a land unit there, but their territory is a valid landing site for air units. (once you convert it to your control by sending a land unit, you get the income)
They are not under direct control until you send a land unit there
Meaning they cannot leave Greece or attack.
At the end of round 1, the US has 1 sub and 1 destroyer off Queensland in SZ #54, and ANZAC has 3 fighters in Queensland. During the combat phase of J2, Japan decides that their only attack will be against the American boats in #54. My question is, do ANZAC immediately ally themselves with America during this unprovoked attack and scramble their 3 fighters into the battle adjacent to Queensland, even though they were not directly attacked by Japan?
@Young:
At the end of round 1, the US has 1 sub and 1 destroyer off Queensland in SZ #54, and ANZAC has 3 fighters in Queensland. During the combat phase of J2, Japan decides that their only attack will be against the American boats in #54. My question is, do ANZAC immediately ally themselves with America during this unprovoked attack and scramble their 3 fighters into the battle adjacent to Queensland, even though they were not directly attacked by Japan?
No. The British Empire is not diplomatically triggered by attacks against the US, and ANZAC would not be at war with Japan unless Japan had declared war on ANZAC or UK prior to that combat move and would not be able to declare war until their turn.
@Young:
At the end of round 1, the US has 1 sub and 1 destroyer off Queensland in SZ #54, and ANZAC has 3 fighters in Queensland. During the combat phase of J2, Japan decides that their only attack will be against the American boats in #54. My question is, do ANZAC immediately ally themselves with America during this unprovoked attack and scramble their 3 fighters into the battle adjacent to Queensland, even though they were not directly attacked by Japan?
No. The British Empire is not diplomatically triggered by attacks against the US, and ANZAC would not be at war with Japan unless Japan had declared war on ANZAC or UK prior to that combat move and would not be able to declare war until their turn.
Same situation, but Japan makes a second combat movement in the same round against a lone ANZAC transport, now can their fighters scramble to help the American boats?
@Young:
@Young:
At the end of round 1, the US has 1 sub and 1 destroyer off Queensland in SZ #54, and ANZAC has 3 fighters in Queensland. During the combat phase of J2, Japan decides that their only attack will be against the American boats in #54. My question is, do ANZAC immediately ally themselves with America during this unprovoked attack and scramble their 3 fighters into the battle adjacent to Queensland, even though they were not directly attacked by Japan?
No. The British Empire is not diplomatically triggered by attacks against the US, and ANZAC would not be at war with Japan unless Japan had declared war on ANZAC or UK prior to that combat move and would not be able to declare war until their turn.
Same situation, but Japan makes a second combat movement in the same round against a lone ANZAC transport, now can their fighters scramble to help the American boats?
Prior to making any combat movement against a power you started the turn at peace with, you need to declare war. As soon as you declare war against a power, it can/will defend with friendly units in territories or seazones that are attacked. That includes scrambling fighters to defend.
If you declare war on the US and UK/ANZAC in the same round, they’re now allied, and will/can defend together.
So, yes.
I’m not near a rulebook, can you build fighters and place them in a sea zone adjacent to your factory, but on an allies carrier? (assumes both powers at war)
I’m not near a rulebook, can you build fighters and place them in a sea zone adjacent to your factory, but on an allies carrier? (assumes both powers at war)
No, never
I’m not near a rulebook, can you build fighters and place them in a sea zone adjacent to your factory, but on an allies carrier? (assumes both powers at war)
No, never
I was going to say that, but figured I didn’t want you demanding the page number or yelling at me for not reading my own book. :p
@Cmdr:
I was going to say that, but figured I didn’t want you demanding the page number or yelling at me for not reading my own book. :p
Silly - only when you give the wrong answer without qualifying it
Page 22 under “restrictions on placement”. Only took 15-20 seconds to find, in this well-organized rulebook…. :-)
@Cmdr:
I was going to say that, but figured I didn’t want you demanding the page number or yelling at me for not reading my own book. :p
Silly - only when you give the wrong answer without qualifying it
Page 22 under “restrictions on placement”. Only took 15-20 seconds to find, in this well-organized rulebook…. :-)
Screw your rulebook, in it’s place I put my own (literally!)
What is the math on damaged major ICs becoming minors? Is it 7 on a major equals 6 on a minor, and 4 on a major becomes 4 on a minor. Does it go something like that?
@Young:
What is the math on damaged major ICs becoming minors? Is it 7 on a major equals 6 on a minor, and 4 on a major becomes 4 on a minor. Does it go something like that?
A major that’s damaged discards damage markers in excess of the total damage it can sustain. So, a major with 20 that’s captured becomes a minor with 6. And a major with 4 damage that’s captured becomes a minor with 4 damage.
