Krieg,
Are convoy disruptions mandatory? For example if Germany knows that it will be launching sea lion next turn, may it chose to not convoy disrupt UK that way it plunders more cash when it captures London?
Thanks.
Krieg,
Are convoy disruptions mandatory? For example if Germany knows that it will be launching sea lion next turn, may it chose to not convoy disrupt UK that way it plunders more cash when it captures London?
Thanks.
They are optional.
Actually, I don’t believe they are optional. Both players are supposed to be on the lookout for convoy disruptions and point them out. If you don’t want to disrupt the convoy, you have to move your ships away.
Krieg is on vacation for a lil while and asked Calvin and I to answer questions while he’s gone. If Calvin and I are not in agreement, then I guess you have to wait for Krieg. Or, if you look back through the FAQ thread, you may find the answer to your question for sure.
But I am quite sure I remember Krieg clarifying that they are actually not optional. If an enemy ship is in your convoy zone, it is always disrupting.
Perhaps you’re right. The rulebook and FAQ are ambiguous.
Krieg,
A question/clarification with Russia in regards to activating Pro-Allied neutrals. Russia starts at war with no one, so they are not part of the Allies yet and can not enter Pro-Allied neutrals during non-combat movement, right?
If the above is correct, does declaring war on Japan make them Allied and allow them to enter Pro-Allied neutrals or is it only when they are at war with Euro-Axis?
The way we read the rule is that war with Japan fulfills their obligation and allows them to enter Pro-Allied neutrals.
To wit:
pg. 10, under “Friendly Neutrals”, here are the passages we thought were relevant…
“A pro-Allies neutral would be considered a friendly neutral to the US, UK, Soviet Union, and France.” [side note, why no mention of ANZAC in that sentence of the rule book? Was that an omission?]
“They [referring to pro-Allied neutral in my case] can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power at war (see Noncombat Move, pg. 21).”
I just wanted a clarification that we read this correctly and war with Japan is intended to allow Russia to enter pro-Allied territories.
Thank you,
Dave
Krieg,
A question/clarification with Russia in regards to activating Pro-Allied neutrals. Russia starts at war with no one, so they are not part of the Allies yet and can not enter Pro-Allied neutrals during non-combat movement, right?
If the above is correct, does declaring war on Japan make them Allied and allow them to enter Pro-Allied neutrals or is it only when they are at war with Euro-Axis?
The way we read the rule is that war with Japan fulfills their obligation and allows them to enter Pro-Allied neutrals.
To wit:
pg. 10, under “Friendly Neutrals”, here are the passages we thought were relevant…
“A pro-Allies neutral would be considered a friendly neutral to the US, UK, Soviet Union, and France.” [side note, why no mention of ANZAC in that sentence of the rule book? Was that an omission?]
“They [referring to pro-Allied neutral in my case] can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power at war (see Noncombat Move, pg. 21).”
I just wanted a clarification that we read this correctly and war with Japan is intended to allow Russia to enter pro-Allied territories.
Thank you,
Dave
Yes, declaring war on Japan allows them to take neutrals. Thus, my Russia DOW every R1 to take NW Persia on R1 and Iraq R2
Krieghund is out for several days and has asked Calvin and I to keep up with the questions, so you won’t get any answers from Krieghund for several days.
Calvin is correct, and you are correct. Russia DOW on Japan on R1 allows them to take over neutrals starting on R1.
If a US carrier with a British fighter attacks and is damaged, the UK ftr is trapped. Does this mean the fighter cannot defend the sea zone if it is attacked?
If a US carrier with a British fighter attacks and is damaged, the UK ftr is trapped. Does this mean the fighter cannot defend the sea zone if it is attacked?
Yes it does. The fighter is trapped until the carrier is repaired.
Fighter can’t attack per rule on page 29, 1st paragraph
Fighter can’t attack per rule on page 29, 1st paragraph
I know, but a CV with an allied fighter can still attack.
Calvin, your question was about the fighter.
Why do you bring up “but a CV with an allied fighter can still attack”?
Calvin, your question was about the fighter.
Why do you bring up “but a CV with an allied fighter can still attack”?
My question was not whether a fighter trapped on a carrier can attack, but if it can DEFEND
Correct, it is stuck. It can neither attack or defend, as per the rulebook on page 29, 1st paragraph.
Correct, it is stuck. It can neither attack or defend, as per the rulebook on page 29, 1st paragraph.
Okay
Oh, I see. My bad, I typed the word ‘attack’ in my statement.
I meant to type ‘attack or defend’.
If the allies get a sub into the Med Sea does that take away the NO bonus for Italy?
Thanks
If the allies get a sub into the Med Sea does that take away the NO bonus for Italy?
Thanks
No. It has to be a destroyer, cruiser, carrier, or battleship.
If the allies get a sub into the Med Sea does that take away the NO bonus for Italy?
Thanks
No. It has to be a destroyer, cruiser, carrier, or battleship.
I concur. Surface warships only.
Thank you guys
