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?
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.
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.
Confirmed. Yes, Krieghund said that very thing. Into but not through, during non-combat.
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.
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.
Krieghund can answer that best.
It wasn’t a rule change, it was there all along, since November 2008 when AA50 came out. We just all assumed incorrectly that a sub couldn’t move into a DD zone during non-combat.
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.
How can it be a NCM to move a sub into a “hostile” sea zone.
Subs are sneaky.
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.
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?
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
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
Can USSR and USA take neutral proallies if they are not in war with enybody yet?
Example: USA R1 NCM in Brasil, or USSR R1 NCM in Persia.
Can USSR and USA take neutral proallies if they are not in war with enybody yet?
Example: USA R1 NCM in Brasil, or USSR R1 NCM in Persia.
Don’t believe so.
Can USSR and USA take neutral proallies if they are not in war with enybody yet?
Example: USA R1 NCM in Brasil, or USSR R1 NCM in Persia.Don’t believe so.
Thnx i think the same.
But we are not sure, teoreticly USA and USSR doesn’t have to go to war at all.
Can USSR and USA take neutral proallies if they are not in war with enybody yet?
Example: USA R1 NCM in Brasil, or USSR R1 NCM in Persia.
Nope. They can’t even walk/land outside their respective territories (i.e other’s “allies to be” land)
