AAG40 FAQ

@Krieghund:

@calvinhobbesliker:

If Italy controls Egypt and UK controls Jordan, can a Japan not at war with UK go through the Suez canal? If it wants to go through it, does it need only UK’s permission, or both UK’s and Italy’s permission?

No one can go through it, as it’s not controlled by either side.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Can italy go through a British controlled Suez canal if UK gives permission?

No, because they’re at war with each other.

@calvinhobbesliker:

And when you ask permission, you have to say exactly what you want to move, right?

That’s up to the players involved.

If the UK controls Suez and Japan wants to go through it and is neutral to UK, can it go through if UK allows it?

If Italy contols the Suez canal, does Japan need Italy’s permission to go through?

@calvinhobbesliker:

If the UK controls Suez and Japan wants to go through it and is neutral to UK, can it go through if UK allows it?

Yes.

@calvinhobbesliker:

If Italy contols the Suez canal, does Japan need Italy’s permission to go through?

No.  They’re on the same side.

Can a tank or mech inf non-com move through a recently conquered territory to reinforce another territory?  Here is what happened, Italy controlled Egypt and Iraq, attacked and captured trans-jordan, so could Italy move a mech inf or tank in egypt (did not move during combat move phase) through trans jordan to reinforce Iraq?

Thanks!

There is a tiny piece of Turkey that borders Greece on the other side of the straight.  Does this make it possible for land units to cross from Greece into Turkey without transports if Turkey is hostile or neutral?

Yes.

I figured this out after my first Global game.  I noticed that if the tech worked the way AA50 did with the “tech tokens” keeping the purchased tech for further tries in later rounds, then the US would have a dominating edge because of the increased salary jump at DOW.  The IPC increase from AA50 to Global is a big factor to cut the “token” rule out of the Global game.

Maybe Larry or Kreighund can give us some insight??? :?:

I had a question about the French IPC’s.  My understanding is that if an axis player captured them after the fall of Paris then an allied player could capture them back and would hold them until the liberation of Paris at which point France would take them back.  My understanding was that allies could not capture French IPC’s that had not yet been taken by an axis player.  So the points in Africa would not be in play for the allies unless say Italy took them first.

Could someone please explain to me if this is the correct reading of the rules.

Thanks

Yes, Chompers, that’s correct.

@gamerman01:

@cond1024:

Can a tank or mech inf non-com move through a recently conquered territory to reinforce another territory?  Here is what happened, Italy controlled Egypt and Iraq, attacked and captured trans-jordan, so could Italy move a mech inf or tank in egypt (did not move during combat move phase) through trans jordan to reinforce Iraq?

Thanks!

Yes.  Even just a mech (as you said), because TrJ was friendly during the noncombat phase.

Thanks for the response gamerman, and that is how I see the rule, but there was disagreement about it, so I need Krieg’s official ruling.
Krieg is gamerman correct?

Yes.

In E40, if Germany holds Novosibirsk at the end of Russia’s turn, does Russia still place the 2 inf there?

Situation: What if a tank originally purchased by India (Calcuta) moves accross the board and captures Iraq for 2 IPC’s, who gets to spend the money and who can build a factory there (which economy?). Can the Pacific half of the U.K. build a factory in Iraq if they take it with there units?

Italy liberated Iraq first.

@Sasquatch_Lives:

Situation: What if a tank originally purchased by India (Calcutta) moves across the board and captures Iraq for 2 IPC’s, who gets to spend the money and who can build a factory there (which economy?). Can the Pacific half of the U.K. build a factory in Iraq if they take it with there units?

London and Calcutta use the same units, the money goes to the Capital on the same board as the territory….Iraq goes to London, Siam would go to Calcutta. In other words, left side(Europe map) of board goes to London, right side(Pacific map) of board goes to Calcutta. Lose the capital on that board and you lose any money that board would have collected. Pieces don’t belong to one board or the other, they are all the same and need not be tracked back to their origin.

@Flashman:

If the setup was historically accurate, the Baltic States would be neutral and Bessarabia part of neutral Romania; this would give the Russians something to do R1.  Also, Persia should be Pro-Axis giving them something to think about on their southern border.

But I don’t think Soviet units should EVER be allowed to share territory with other Allies.  Even when at war ships can share the same sz, but not fight together.  Similarly I’d allow US/UK units to land in Russia on NCM, but not defend with them if the tt is attacked. Stalin simply didn’t want to share the glory with anyone else.  He’d take your money but he wouldn’t plough your path for you. He didn’t even help the Polish partisans in the Warsaw uprising.

To balance, the same thing should apply to Japan in regard to German and Italian units and tts, as there was practically no military cooperation between Japan and the Euro Axis.

In other words Japan and the USSR should be considered to have allies only in the sense that they have enemies-in-common with other powers.  They are still members of the two great alliances for game victory purposes, but are essentially fighting different wars.  Some monetary aid to Russia from the West is authentic, but then Germany got huge non-military aid from Russia until it decided to invade the place…

Excellent stuff Flash, and for (at least house rules) easy enough to correct in the game.

In the Europe only version, does a captured major IC become a minor one?  That rule is only mentioned in the Global rules.

It only applies in the global rules.

Thanks for the confirmation.