AAG40 FAQ

@Hobbes:

@calvinhobbesliker:

So for all intents and purposes, it is a sea zone. If so, why is it not numbered?

Probably has to do with the Caspian Sea has been a part of the map since Classic and on Classic the SZs weren’t numbered.

Sort of.  On all past maps the Caspian Sea has only touched two territories that also touch each other, so it has not needed to be a game space.  On this map, it touches more than two territories, so it does need to be a game space.  It was simply missed when the sea zone numbers were assigned because we’re not used to it needing a number.

@Mistergreen:

One further hostile sea zone question:
Can I leave a hostile sea zone with one or more naval units and still conduct combat in that sea zone with units I leave or move into the same sea zone?

Yes.  In fact, you must conduct combat if any of your units are in the sea zone after combat movement is completed.

Thanks for the help.  :-)

@Krieghund:

@Hobbes:

@calvinhobbesliker:

So for all intents and purposes, it is a sea zone. If so, why is it not numbered?

Probably has to do with the Caspian Sea has been a part of the map since Classic and on Classic the SZs weren’t numbered.

Sort of.  On all past maps the Caspian Sea has only touched two territories that also touch each other, so it has not needed to be a game space.  On this map, it touches more than two territories, so it does need to be a game space.  It was simply missed when the sea zone numbers were assigned because we’re not used to it needing a number.

@Mistergreen:

One further hostile sea zone question:
Can I leave a hostile sea zone with one or more naval units and still conduct combat in that sea zone with units I leave or move into the same sea zone?

Yes.  In fact, you must conduct combat if any of your units are in the sea zone after combat movement is completed.

But in previous editions, you couldn’t build in it. Why can you build in it now?

Because in previous editions it was not a game space, but in this one it is.

This question would be easier asked with an example I think:

If Rome is under the control of the US and Germany enters Northern Italy that is still under Italians control but currently unoccupied, does the value of North Italy switch to Germany since Germany is the only one occupying it? What about if Rome is under US control and Germany enters a formerly-neutral territory such as Greece that is currently under the Italians control but unoccupied? Does the IPC value of the territory switch to Germany since they are the only one’s occupying the territory?

@GrandMasterC:

This question would be easier asked with an example I think:

If Rome is under the control of the US and Germany enters Northern Italy that is still under Italians control but currently unoccupied, does the value of North Italy switch to Germany since Germany is the only one occupying it? What about if Rome is under US control and Germany enters a formerly-neutral territory such as Greece that is currently under the Italians control but unoccupied? Does the IPC value of the territory switch to Germany since they are the only one’s occupying the territory?

No to both

came up late in a recent game. Italy had taken most of Africa, then US swooped in and took Rome. Italy didn’t have hardly any forces left in Africa and was wiped out by UK. Germany had already finished off USSR, but could not get the income from Africa for the Axis because UK refused to take back over the empty territories. UK knew that Germany was waiting nearby by to retake Africa. It just seemed wrong that a superior Axis force could not get the income in Africa or formerly neutral territories just East of Italy. Germany was hoping to forget Rome since US built a Major IC there and was pumping 10 infantry a turn into it.

@GrandMasterC:

came up late in a recent game. Italy had taken most of Africa, then US swooped in and took Rome. Italy didn’t have hardly any forces left in Africa and was wiped out by UK. Germany had already finished off USSR, but could not get the income from Africa for the Axis because UK refused to take back over the empty territories. UK knew that Germany was waiting nearby by to retake Africa. It just seemed wrong that a superior Axis force could not get the income in Africa or formerly neutral territories just East of Italy. Germany was hoping to forget Rome since US built a Major IC there and was pumping 10 infantry a turn into it.

How does one forget Rome if it’s building 10 inf a turn?

@gamerman01:

@calvinhobbesliker:

How does one forget Rome if it’s building 10 inf a turn?

Pretty sure he meant Germany wanted to BYPASS taking Rome over because of the 10 build per turn.

GrandMaster, Calvin is correct.  When a capital falls (Rome), its allies (Germany and Japan) are unable to take control of any of those (Italian) territories.  However, if an enemy takes control of Italian territory, then Germany and Japan would be able to take control by taking those territories out of Allied hands.

It’s the same reason the Allies can’t take control of French territory after Paris falls on turn 1.  As soon as an Axis power takes a French territory, however, it is then available for any Ally to take it over and control it.  Same rules.

Yeah, it prevents the US from taking Canada if Sealion is successful

@gamerman01:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@gamerman01:

@calvinhobbesliker:

How does one forget Rome if it’s building 10 inf a turn?

Pretty sure he meant Germany wanted to BYPASS taking Rome over because of the 10 build per turn.

GrandMaster, Calvin is correct.  When a capital falls (Rome), its allies (Germany and Japan) are unable to take control of any of those (Italian) territories.  However, if an enemy takes control of Italian territory, then Germany and Japan would be able to take control by taking those territories out of Allied hands.

It’s the same reason the Allies can’t take control of French territory after Paris falls on turn 1.  As soon as an Axis power takes a French territory, however, it is then available for any Ally to take it over and control it.  Same rules.

Yeah, it prevents the US from taking Canada if Sealion is successful

However, USA could still use the naval base of Z106 as long as UK still controls it.

But that naval base, for some reason, can repair US ships but not UK ships

@gamerman01:

@calvinhobbesliker:

But that naval base, for some reason, can repair US ships but not UK ships

That can’t be right.  Why are you saying that?  Of course it can still repair UK ships.  Who, or what page of what rulebook or FAQ said they can’t?

Well, UK skips it purchase and repair phase if London has fallen, so it can’t repair ships. i think Krieg has confirmed this somewhere.

In Alpha set up for Global does Japan gain +10 IPCS a turn for not being at war with US, England, Anzac, or does that only apply to Pacific.  I am confused on this.  Was this gotten rid of all together.

Thanks in Advance.

@Frank:

In Alpha set up for Global does Japan gain +10 IPCS a turn for not being at war with US, England, Anzac, or does that only apply to Pacific.  I am confused on this.  Was this gotten rid of all together.

Thanks in Advance.

I don’t think that NO exists in alpha at all

Okay then I was just confused.  I know back when they were talking about balancing Pacific I saw somewhere to get Japan to not do a J1 they were offered a 10pt a turn National Objective.  Maybe it was just someones suggestion I saw and not offical set up by Larry Harris.  My friend mentioned it to me last night and I told him I was not sure.

@Frank:

Okay then I was just confused.  I know back when they were talking about balancing Pacific I saw somewhere to get Japan to not do a J1 they were offered a 10pt a turn National Objective.  Maybe it was just someones suggestion I saw and not offical set up by Larry Harris.  My friend mentioned it to me last night and I told him I was not sure.

Yeah, that was in the works, but is not currently part of alpha. it may be added if alpha swings the game to the allies too much