Capturing Allied territories

@P@nther:

This is covered in the rulebook:

@Rulebook:

Multinational Forces: Transports belonging to a friendly power can load and offload your land units.  This is a three-step process:
1. You load your land units aboard the friendly transport  on your turn.
2. The transport’s controller moves it (or not) on that  player’s turn.
3. You offload your land units on your next turn.

Unloading in an enemy territory occurs in your scenario in US’ combat move phase, followed by the battle.
Unloading in a friendly territory occurs in US’ NCM phase.

Thanks, sorry I missed that.

Arminius Germanicus is correct.  Pro-Allies neutral is still neutral.

@Flashman:

Because the Irish people supported Britain.

The government was not so keen, hence they didn’t join the war and claim the North as their reward.

Another example of the arbitrary assignment of neutral leanings, almost all of which can be questioned.

I like the idea of a set of cards, one for each neutral.  One of these is picked up by each player on finishing his turn until all are collected.  The player can reveal a card at any time to assign “pro” status to that neutral. If an unassigned neutral is attacked it joins the opposing alliance in the usual way.

Maybe a couple of “joker” cards can be included, which allow a player to stage a coup on a revealed but unoccupied neutral thus reversing the alignment.

Then make Spain or something pro-axis.

@SAS:

I wasn’t referring specifically to you, Dany, I just don’t understand why everyone thinks this is such a big mistake.  Someone earlier referred to Crete being part of Greece just like Hawaii is part of the US.  However, if Japan invades Hawaii, they don’t receive control of the Eastern US; and even if they invade the Eastern US and take the capital but don’t invade Hawaii, they don’t automatically get control of Hawaii.

That was my quote - but again - I wasnt referring to issues regarding “control” or occupation, merely when and where related forces are activated.  For sake of clarification, I was looking at the issue from the perspective of an Axis attack on Crete - not from the perspective of an Allied player sending forces to Crete in order to bring Greece into the war.

The analogy was simply intended to illustrate that when Japan attacks Hawaii on J1,2, or 3 - Japan and the US (i.e. ALL territories of the US) are at war.  In my mind it seems to follow that if the Axis attack a portion of Greece (be it Greece proper or Crete) then all territories part of the Greek state are at war - and so any troops so designated on the board are activated.  I certainly wasn’t getting “bent out of shape” - I was simply offering what I thought was a plausible explanation of what happens - understanding official clarifications will eventually come from those positioned to do so.

But I also understand (based on the earlier poster’s Mongolia clarification offered by Krieg) the idea that Crete and Greece are treated as separate and distinct tt - and not part of the same greek  nation-state so to speak.

I’ve said it many times, by why not do it again! :-D

2 Player Game
1. Germany, Japan and Italy
2. USSR, UK, ANZAC, US, China, and France

3 Player Game
1. Germany, Japan, and Italy
2. USSR, UK, and France
3. ANZAC, China, and US

4 Player Game
1. Germany and Italy
2. USSR, UK, and France
3. ANZAC, China, and US
4. Japan

5 Player Game
1. Germany and Italy
2. USSR
3. UK, France, and China
4. Japan
5. US and ANZAC

6 Player Game
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. USSR
4. US and ANZAC
5. Japan
6. UK, France, and China

Yeah

Also in 5 and 6 China can be with the Russians.

Stalin also allowed German destroyers to sail around northern Russia to attack Allied shipping in the Pacific.

I personally believe that if the US/UK can drop land units off into Archangel/Karelia the game is essentially broken.  By all means allow them to send IPC aid to Russia, but historically Stalin did not want to share the glory of victory in Russia with foreign troops.

There must be a handicap to doing this; at the very least the turn it takes for Russia to convert this income into units and get them into action.

In a sense, the eastern and western fronts are depicted in different scales, certainly in regard to the numbers of units represented by infantry and Armoured pieces.  If it were accurate, the IPC income and starting units for Russia relative to the other Allies would be significantly bigger, perhaps 50%+.  That’s why introducing US/UK units into Russia can be so imbalancing.

There was an area called the Black Zone where land based planes could not patrol due to range, however when they developed longer ranged aircraft the German subs had nowhere to hide.

@Imperious:

1 French inf

???

Theres a French Infantry that starts in the UK, like ANZAC had a guy in Malta.