@LebaneseWarlord
turn 12 I like it :)
yea allies got a tough row to hoe oob. They might need a boost :)
Rock On
Peace Out
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
I believe that somewhere in the new rulebook it said that once you declared your combat moves and your opponent declared his scrambling fighters you could not then change your attacks. is this correct?
-
I believe that somewhere in the new rulebook it said that once you declared your combat moves and your opponent declared his scrambling fighters you could not then change your attacks. is this correct?
Yes. Scrambling is declared after combat moves are completed.
-
I believe that somewhere in the new rulebook it said that once you declared your combat moves and your opponent declared his scrambling fighters you could not then change your attacks. is this correct?
I do not have the page number to site you right now (do not hve the book here with me atm) but yes, once you have finished your combat moves you may not alter them (legally.) Since scrambling occurs after your combat move, but before conduct combat, you are stuck with what you moved and where you moved it.
-
@Cmdr:
I believe that somewhere in the new rulebook it said that once you declared your combat moves and your opponent declared his scrambling fighters you could not then change your attacks. is this correct?
I do not have the page number to site you right now (do not hve the book here with me atm) but yes, once you have finished your combat moves you may not alter them (legally.) Since scrambling occurs after your combat move, but before conduct combat, you are stuck with what you moved and where you moved it.
I thought that was the correct order.
-
@Cmdr:
Chicochico in black - response in red
I have a ton of little questoins that came up while playing (AAG40.2) and i doubt i can remember them all. Some aren’t 1940-related, but bear with me :-P8. all allied units defend togheter (like UK and anzac troops in egypt); i was told this is not the case for allied planes loaded on carriers? Say, an uk and a soviet plane on Uk carrier, both at war with italy, are attacked, the soviet plane won’t fight?
All allied units defend together - in the air, on land or at sea. An American carrier carrying a Soviet fighter and a British tactical bomber, being attacked by a German destroyer would have all three nations defending.
I know the context of the original question was w/all parties are at war, but this was a pretty broad statement so I felt the need to clarify (not trying to nitpick).
“All allied units defend together - in the air, on land or at sea” is true only if all parties are at war. Powers not at war can’t be on their future ally’s territories, carriers or transports (so this part holds up because it can’t happen). At sea however, a neutral power could share a sea zone with its future ally, and the enemy could attack and ignore the neutral power (so they won’t defend together).
*See side bar on page 15 of E40 2nd Ed “Powers Not at War with One Another”
Example: US (not yet at war) moves fleet to join Anz ships in sz 54 (off Queensland). The Japanese could attack only the Anz ships in sz 54, and ignore the US fleet.
In the same scenario, if the Japanese aren’t at war with either US or Anz, they could DOW and attack only the US ships, and the Anz ships would just sit and watch (no Anz scramble either).
-
Have the actual maps changed in the 2nd Edtion releases? Or is it just the addition of new pieces and rule changes? Thank you.
-
Hi Antholin. The only map changes I can see are that the National Production chart is on the map now(40 on each) and the two Canadian territories on the Pacific map(Yukon and BC) are now one (no change in IPCs)called Western Canada.
As you said, rules and some pieces have changed. -
There are a couple of other minor changes on the map that I noticed.
1 – The upper border of Sea Zone 6 now connects directly with the border of Korea and Amur. On the old map it connected on Korea and made it look like Sea Zone 5 was also adjacent to Korea.
2 – The Western United States no longer has that annoying “50” on it, which was only used in Pacific 1940 and was supposed to represent the 40 IPCs that the US got for switching to a wartime economy, basically the US National Objective. The thing is that Western US is only worth 10 IPCs – Like if Japan captured it, even in the Pacific game, they only raised their IPC income 10 points. Of course, in the Pacific game, Western US was considered the US capital so Japan also got any unspent US IPCs and, let’s face it, pretty much won the game. Anyway, it’s nice not to have that “50” on the Western US territory. I just think it looks better.I have a question. If US ships join ANZAC ships in SZ 54, and Japan declares war on ANZAC only and goes after the ANZAC ships in SZ 54, the US ships would still not participate in the battle? In the rules, it says any unprovoked declaration of war by Japan on UK and/or ANZAC makes it possible for the US to declare war on Japan. However, since Japan moves before the US and the US DOW has to happen during the US Combat Move phase, then when Japan declares war on ANZAC and attacks it’s ships in SZ 54, the US ships are still neutral, right? So they have to sit there and watch the ANZAC ships get slaughtered. After that battle, the Japanese ships will be stuck in SZ 54 with the US ships. Then on the US Combat Move phase, they can declare war on Japan and kill the Japanese ships in SZ 54, right? Or, I guess they could even NOT declare war and just sit there sharing SZ 54 with the Japanese ships too. Or they could retreat, like if the Japanese fleet was bigger.
You know, that would be an interesting way for Japan to invade Australia without committing a lot of warships if they didn’t mind losing transports. They send just enough warships to take out the ANZAC ships and possible scramble fighters, a few transports full of guys and tanks to land on Queensland. Then if the US declares war and kills the Japanese navy there, Japan already has a large force of troops and tanks right there on Australia which the US can do nothing about. -
Knp7765: Except if US has taken his APs to SZ54, he would have them loaded with ground units and could drop them on Australia to retake it. Suppose it would come down to who had more troops.
Also because the capital is in NSW, not off SZ54, am not sure Japan can reach it before US and is probably only worth doing if you capture Sydney.
I do not have time to do the moves. Have you tried?
Cow might know.
Start a thread though. Not here. -
Yep in rare circumstances it could happen. Just think if after the Anz fleet/air was taken out, and the Japanese fleet still outgunned the US fleet. The funny thing is that if the Japanese amphib was also successful and Japan got control of the naval base on Queensland, the US fleet couldn’t outrun the Japanese fleet either (couldn’t retreat to the safety of Hawaii).
You would really have to catch the US asleep at the wheel. There is normally a lot of Allied fire power off Queensland, and the Anz generally have some ftrs on the Queensland airbase to protect their tiny navy. The Japanese navy could be pretty dinged up if they scrambled so it would defiantly be a situational thing or really lucky dice. Not sure if it is in Japans best interest to go “all in” early on, they are nothing w/o the navy.
-
If germany attacks yugo and fails, does the UK (or other allied power) take control of it or does it remain pro-allied?
-
One Allied country takes it over and can use its Remaining Inf in its go. UK makes the most sense, but the Allies choose.
It is no longer Pro Allied, as the German invasion has activated it. -
Sorry Wittman, that’s not exactly accurate. From pg. 11 of the rulebook: “If the attack upon the formerly neutral territory is unsuccessful (the territory is not captured), any remaining defending units stay in the territory but can’t move. The territory remains uncontrolled (place a national control marker on it face down to indicate its new status), but units from the side it’s now allied with can move into it and take control of it and its remaining units in the same way as if it were a friendly neutral.”
Even though the territory is now a part of the appropriate alliance, the units still cannot move until activated by a major power.
-
Thank you. Do remember someone saying that now.
Thank you Ziggurat.
Makes sense, otherwise Yugoslavia/UK could leave and activate Greece and really stir things up for poor old good meaning Germany!
My apologies Karl. -
Which begs the question - can England land there now, since Germany failed to take it? (yea right, aint never gunna happen, but it may be a plausible landing zone now.)
-
England can land there anytime, but it would be madness!
First SZ 97 has to be made friendly, then they would have to face the wrath of 15+ German and Italian units.
Greece I can understand, a half dead Yugoslavia landing, never! -
Thanks all. I figured it out after reading the rule 3 times. Not the clearest exposition.
-
on the turn a friendly neutral is occupied(liberated?) by a power at war, can the power land air?
-
Allweneedislove: No. See page 22 of Europe Rules. They can only land on a territory that was Friendly at the beginning of the turn. Not in a recently converted Friendly Neutral.
-
@wittmann:
Allweneedislove: No. See page 22 of Europe Rules. They can only land on a territory that was Friendly at the beginning of the turn. Not in a recently converted Friendly Neutral.
thank you wittman, it was on page 22, i must have missed it.
Suggested Topics
