Das Boot!

@Ichabod1862 said in Strict Neutrals - Planes Flying Through:

@Krieghund

I get you have been declared an official ruling somehow.

That would be because I was a developer and editor for the game.

I’ve been playing Triplea live a lot lately…gotten used to clicking “DOW on the strict neutrals.” That’s besides the situation really.

Triple A doesn’t get everything right. Some shortcuts are taken for whatever reason. Page 10 of the Rulebook is clear on this matter.

Your ruling to me I think eisegetes into the text a fuller meaning not intended.

Germany conducts combat moves into Turkey while simultaneously combat moving planes through Turkey, but due to the ruling this means they somehow really have to simultaneously respect their air space? Makes no sense which makes me think you exegeted into the rule book an unintended end state.

page. 11 Europe book. “Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it.”

The point of the rule on page 11 is that you cannot simply fly planes through strict neutrals in general.

For your interpretation, the rule should say all air units no matter what until AFTER attacking it. Because I think they should be able to fly over it even if just 1 infantry attacks the same neutral territory. The point of the rule is you can’t fly through like ground cannot go into the pripet marshes.

Germany is attacking it with air units. Why the interpretation that other air units cannot simultaneously fly through? The rules intent is to prevent flying through when never and not attacking them in general.

It’s not a ruling, it’s the rule. The rule is straightforward as written. “Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it.” It says air units cannot fly over an unfriendly neutral, then provides an exception for attacking it. An air unit that is flying through a neutral territory is not attacking it, so it is not allowed. It may only fly into one to attack it. That is the intent of the rule. Any other interpretation is simply reading something into it that isn’t there.

Per page 11 of the Rulebook, once a neutral territory is invaded, it is no longer neutral, so the restriction no longer applies. However, since all combat movement is simultaneous, the restriction is not lifted until after the combat movement phase in which it was invaded.

I hope this clears things up.

but any planes attacking Rome still attack. Which sucks for them.

@Panther Thanks for clarifying. It may be best not to even include a carrier with a guest fighter when attacking.

@Olmate
Welcome to the forum.

The rulebook should be clarification enough (1940 Pac.2nd ed., page 15):
“A quick reaction team of no more than 3 defending fighters and/or tactical bombers (strategic bombers can’t scramble) located on each island or coastal territory that has an operative air base can be scrambled to defend against attacks in the sea zones adjacent to those territories.”

As you correctly stated this wording clearly doesn’t include fighters located on carriers in seazones.

Why should something not being part of the rules be explicitly stated in the rulebook? Or in any FAQ/Errata when the wording of the rule is clear enough? There are hundreds of House Rules that might fill what people are missing being included in game rules / rulebooks.

There of course exist player created variants of Global1940 that have scrambling from carriers included.

@smildgeii said in US Pacific Ocean Movement Restriction:

So the US could if it wanted while at peace put vessels adjacent to Guam?

Yes.

@allister

BM4 refers to the “Balanced Mod [4th edition]”. It’s broadly similar to the original Global 1940 with some minor modifications and additions to make it more balanced.

If you’re trying to use one of these for Pacific 1940 2nd edition (no modifications), then you’ll have to do a few things to make it work. You’ll have to ignore the European nations and all the new additions. Keep in mind that the US has significantly fewer national objectives in the Pacific-only map as opposed to the European map (tip: If a national objective mentions a territory not on the board, it’s a good indicator that it’s not in the Pacific-only version). You’ll need to still consult the rules to account for all the changes though.

I’m going to say that I don’t really like that this strategy is as effective as it is. If Japan changed the J2 buy to 2CV+1TT even full Pacific naval buys by USA wouldn’t stop this half the time, although obviously that would weaken the ground attack.

My view is that the game is a little broken here.

UK helping defend USA should stop this strategy pretty dead with troops/planes dropped in Quebec but really, should they have to? The other possibility is UK/Anzac retake of the Philippines which would help USA income if they can hold it but distracting Japan from its objectives may be enough.

@Pinch1

Thanks for the advice. I’ll look into it.