AAG40 FAQ

@Alsch91:

Yes, in those extreme and unlikely examples it seems strange.
But in the much more likely scenario that US is allowed to attack Japan’s home territories without fear of repercussion, the rule makes a lot of sense.
The rule prevents a lot more abuse than anything else.

Actually it’s also historical -
US bombers that had to emergency land in siberian territory were actually confiscated by the Russians.  They were neutral in the conflict between Japan and US, and so couldn’t just give back the equipment.

From your own link:
When a power is not at war with anyone, it is neutral. Powers that begin the game neutral, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, aren’t initially part of the Allies or the Axis. The Axis powers are on the opposite side of these neutral powers, but they are not yet considered enemies. While a power remains neutral, it operates under even tighter restrictions. A neutral power can’t move land or air units into neutral territories. It can’t move units into territories or onto ships belonging to another power or use another power’s naval bases, nor can another power move land or air units into its territories or onto its ships or use its naval bases.

However, this is not the case and as Russia is indeed at war across both theatres.  So, I get why Russia is prohibited in the Pacific theatre, but the allies should be able to take advantage of their Allies landing territories.  Thus, I would like better clarification.

@Auswanderersland:

However, Russia is not Neutral.  It is in fact an allied power across the 2 boards, it has a non-aggression pact with Japan - I would not refer to this as “neutral.”

No, the USSR is not “neutral”, however it is “still under the restrictions of being a neutral power” in the Pacific.  Even though the Soviets are at war with Germany and Italy, they may not violate their non-aggression pact with Japan without going to war with Japan.

@Auswanderersland:

For example, China at war with Japan may land a plane in Burma while India is neutral yet Britain is at war on the Atlantic side if I recall.

India cannot be neutral, as it is not a power.  It is part of the United Kingdom, which is not neutral.

@Auswanderersland:

Also, the United States may drop men off in Karelia, walk them until the hit the Pacific Board?  Then all of a sudden stop, saying…well, we reached the pacific theatre…we can’t kill those German units on the other side?

That’s correct.  The moving of Allied units into Soviet Pacific territories would be a provocation of Japan.

@Auswanderersland:

Or for example Russia lands planes on the carrier in Z80 on the European board then moves to India’s waters to help defend their waters against Japan?  So the planes would not defend?

The carrier could not move there with Soviet planes on board.  See above.

@Krieghund:

@Auswanderersland:

However, Russia is not Neutral.  It is in fact an allied power across the 2 boards, it has a non-aggression pact with Japan - I would not refer to this as “neutral.”

No, the USSR is not “neutral”, however it is “still under the restrictions of being a neutral power” in the Pacific.  Even though the Soviets are at war with Germany and Italy, they may not violate their non-aggression pact with Japan without going to war with Japan.

@Auswanderersland:

For example, China at war with Japan may land a plane in Burma while India is neutral yet Britain is at war on the Atlantic side if I recall.

India cannot be neutral, as it is not a power.  It is part of the United Kingdom, which is not neutral.

@Auswanderersland:

Also, the United States may drop men off in Karelia, walk them until the hit the Pacific Board?  Then all of a sudden stop, saying…well, we reached the pacific theatre…we can’t kill those German units on the other side?

That’s correct.  The moving of Allied units into Soviet Pacific territories would be a provocation of Japan.

@Auswanderersland:

Or for example Russia lands planes on the carrier in Z80 on the European board then moves to India’s waters to help defend their waters against Japan?  So the planes would not defend?

The carrier could not move there with Soviet planes on board.  See above.

The moving of allied units into Pacific Soviet territories constitutes a declaration of war for Russia against Japan, but allowing allied units to walk across?

So, if I may use Soviet’s territories/land to put allied units upon in the Pacific theatre, but this would invoke a DoW by Soviets against Japan, and Japan would receive the 12 IPC’s?

It doesn’t work that way.  Actions that would be considered “acts of war” don’t trigger a state of war in the game - they are simply prohibited unless the parties involved are already at war.  So, the movement of Allied units into Soviet Pacific territories doesn’t trigger war between the USSR and Japan, but rather Allied units may not move into Soviet Pacific territories unless the USSR is already at war with Japan.

Alpha 3 question…

What are the rules governing USA fleet movement in the Pacific prior to war with Japan?

Can the USA fleet go to places like sz 54?

@Zhukov44:

Alpha 3 question…

What are the rules governing USA fleet movement in the Pacific prior to war with Japan?

Can the USA fleet go to places like sz 54?

Yes, that’s my understanding. The USN is only limited in movement in the Atlantic, any move by the USN is legal in the Pacific so long as they don’t end their move in a sz adjacent to a Japanese territory.

In addition to the normal restrictions (see Powers Not at War with One Another above), while it’s not at war with Japan, the United States may not move units into or through China or end the movement of its sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to Japanese-controlled territories. While not at war with Germany or Italy, the United States may end the movement of its sea units on the Europe map only in sea zones that are adjacent to US territories, with one exception - US warships (not transports) may also conduct long-range patrols into sea zone 102.

Powers not at war with each other rules apply.

USA may not unload units on allies territories even in the pacific. So you can go to anzac zone and sit there with loaded xports.

japan cannot move out to crazy places anymore either.

So here is a good question. While being neutral can America us their exstensive funds to place an major industrial complex on the the Phillipine islands? I have this friend that does this as America every time first turn and it always makes the Japanese player attack it, bringing America into the war on turn 2. Is this legal?

@De:

So here is a good question. While being neutral can America us their exstensive funds to place an major industrial complex on the the Phillipine islands? I have this friend that does this as America every time first turn and it always makes the Japanese player attack it, bringing America into the war on turn 2. Is this legal?

No power can build either major or minor ICs on an island no matter what their neutrality status.

The only exception to this rule is Japan (UK is not considered an island)

Also you can only place a Major IC on territories worth 3 or more (Philippines is only worth 2)

So building a major IC (or a minor) on the Philippines is illegal

Can’t find it (kinna hard to find a particular FAQ), so sorry for asking something answered once…

As non combat move, is a sub can enter a sea zone with ennemy DD?

I’m sure I once read Krieghung answering that : Yes, a sub can enter the sea zone but not go thru.

Please, anyone confirm.

Ok, why does it make sense that an enemy sub can move into a “hostile” sea zone containing a dd as a non combat move?

If there is no dd then fine the sub can do whatever, now add a dd, and all of a sudden the sub cant move through anymore - is that because the dd can detect the sub? then why is it allowed in the sea zone?

How can it be a NCM to move a sub into a “hostile” sea zone.  Especially now that it can conduct convoy damage in the same sea zone that is supposedly protected by a dd?

Just wondering what the reason for the rule change was.

@ksmckay:

Ok, why does it make sense that an enemy sub can move into a “hostile” sea zone containing a dd as a non combat move?

If there is no dd then fine the sub can do whatever, now add a dd, and all of a sudden the sub cant move through anymore - is that because the dd can detect the sub? then why is it allowed in the sea zone?

How can it be a NCM to move a sub into a “hostile” sea zone.  Especially now that it can conduct convoy damage in the same sea zone that is supposedly protected by a dd?

Just wondering what the reason for the rule change was.

I’m guessing the rational is that subs may move through enemy fleets during combat and noncombat moves, but an an enemy dd prevents all of a subs special characteristics, thus stripping the sub of its move through ability and thus freezing it in the zone. Also, in this game’s rule set subs and transports do not block enemy movement and are ignored, maybe that is some of the reasoning as well.

@ksmckay:

If there is no dd then fine the sub can do whatever, now add a dd, and all of a sudden the sub cant move through anymore - is that because the dd can detect the sub? then why is it allowed in the sea zone?

It’s because the sub has to move more carefully to avoid detection, thus slowing it down.

@ksmckay:

How can it be a NCM to move a sub into a “hostile” sea zone.

Subs are sneaky.

@ksmckay:

Especially now that it can conduct convoy damage in the same sea zone that is supposedly protected by a dd?

Destroyers protect convoys by sinking subs, not by scaring them away.  Many convoy ships were sunk right under the noses of their escorts.

@Krieghund:

Subs are sneaky.

+1

Working on a “partial” solution to the Japan building a DD in z6 to block USA transporting of Korean men to Japan continually.

Scenario: USA holds Manchuria with a factory; USA convoy fleet in z6; Transports from USA and Anzac in z6

Japan builds a DD each turn to “freeze” the pickup of Allied Koreans. USA sinks the DD.

Question: During USA noncombat, can USA land units board empty Anzac transports which were in the same sea zone?
I suspect yes, as the z6 naval battle this turn only involves USA units since allies may never attack together. This means that USA transports (that did not leave the sea zone) are done for their turn(because of naval combat), however boarding an allied transport is movement of land units, not of the allied transport.

Later: On Anzac’s turn, their Korean land units can now board empty USA transports, correct?

@JamesAleman:

Working on a “partial” solution to the Japan building a DD in z6 to block USA transporting of Korean men to Japan continually.

Scenario: USA holds Manchuria with a factory; USA convoy fleet in z6; Transports from USA and Anzac in z6

Japan builds a DD each turn to “freeze” the pickup of Allied Koreans. USA sinks the DD.

Question: During USA noncombat, can USA land units board empty Anzac transports which were in the same sea zone?
I suspect yes, as the z6 naval battle this turn only involves USA units since allies may never attack together. This means that USA transports (that did not leave the sea zone) are done for their turn(because of naval combat), however boarding an allied transport is movement of land units, not of the allied transport.

Later: On Anzac’s turn, their Korean land units can now board empty USA transports, correct?

Yes and yes

@JamesAleman:

Scenario: USA holds Manchuria with a factory; USA convoy fleet in z6; Transports from USA and Anzac in z6

I assume you mean “USA holds Korea with a factory”, as only Axis factories may exist in original Chinese territories.

Yea, Korea…brain fart