AAG40 FAQ

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

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.

@crobattalion:

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.

@techroll42:

@crobattalion:

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.

@crobattalion:

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)

I just want to make this clear and to be rid of any doubt.  Controling Norway has NOTHING to do with controling the danish straits right?  You need to have friendly control of just denmark at the beginning of your turn in order to move through it right?  I’ve heard some people talk about allies contesting Norway every turn to lock the german navy in the baltic.

At what phase of the turn are new units placed upon taking a Pro-Axis or Pro-Allied move?

Are those new units eligible for NCM moves?

Thanks, helps out determining timing of UK TT being in place off Persia to get Russian units (per Persia) into Ethiopia.