Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

@Tizkit:

This implies that some of the surface warships in the sea zone can be elected to “support” the amphibious assault and some can be elected not to.  Those supporting would not be able to move in non-combat move like you said.
…
Do you see any way the amphibious assault can be done in the sea zone without subjecting the loaded aircraft carrier to possible kamikaze strikes?

It looks like you misinterpreted Gamerman’s statement. Gamerman simply stated that Kamikaze does not inititate a sea battle. So there was no sea battle at all. So no ship was part of a sea battle. So all ships may move during NCM.

For Kamikaze the question whether ships support an Amphibious Assault or not is irrelevant:

@rulebook:

A kamikaze strike can target any specific enemy surface warship (not a submarine or transport)
belonging to the attacking power.

So if the carrier is already in the Kamikaze zone, maybe as a result of a Noncombat Move prior to the current turn, and you now during Combat Move Phase announced an Amphibious Assault from that seazone, this would trigger a possible Kamikaze strike to any surface warship (of the attacking power) present in that seazone, including the carrier, unless the carrier can do a rules compliant Combat Move to a hostile seazone elsewhere.

@P@nther:

@simon33:

If you can move to escape a combat which might hurt your ships, why can’t you move to escape a Kamikaze which also might hurt your ships?

You can escape but only during Combat Move Phase, provided the seazone is hostile!
In that case you escape combat from a hostile seazone as allowed by the rules, avoiding Kamikaze as a side effect.

In the discussed scenario the Kamikaze seazone is friendly. There is no escape from a friendly seazone (also there is no and can’t be combat).

Attacking ships are brought to a Kamikaze seazone for a reason - accepting the risk of Kamikaze.
So if you want to “escape” from that risk, don’t bring surface warships there.

Yes, but it strikes me as a bit unfair.

As for your comment about “escaping” from the risk of Kamikazes by not bringing the ships there, I am referring to the scenario that the ship starts in the sea zone but there was also to be an amphibious assault from that sea zone. Was that unclear?

@simon33:

…
As for your comment about “escaping” from the risk of Kamikazes by not bringing the ships there, I am referring to the scenario that the ship starts in the sea zone but there was also to be an amphibious assault from that sea zone. Was that unclear?

No, pretty clear. But the ships must have been brought to a Kamikaze seazone at any time before. Whenever you bring ships to a Kamikaze seazone they are exposed to that risk, in case any action that triggers a Kamikaze strike will be taken.

Hopefully someone can help me with this, I remember there being a rule that Russia can take control of allied units in Russia, supposed to represent lend lease. Is that just a first edition rule? I can’t seem to find it in the rule book.

There is no lend lease in Global 40.

@FastHeinz:

Hopefully someone can help me with this, I remember there being a rule that Russia can take control of allied units in Russia, supposed to represent lend lease. Is that just a first edition rule? I can’t seem to find it in the rule book.

Sounds like a house rule to me. That could also allow you to collect the Lend Lease NO for SZ125, Archangel and no allied units in USSR.

@FastHeinz:

Hopefully someone can help me with this, I remember there being a rule that Russia can take control of allied units in Russia, supposed to represent lend lease. Is that just a first edition rule? I can’t seem to find it in the rule book.

This is the lend-lease-related rule in Global 2nd ed. (the same in first edition):

@rulebook:

When the Soviet Union Is at War in Europe:

• 5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and
  there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet
  Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.

@FastHeinz:

Hopefully someone can help me with this, I remember there being a rule that Russia can take control of allied units in Russia, supposed to represent lend lease. Is that just a first edition rule? I can’t seem to find it in the rule book.

What you’re probably thinking about is one one of the optional National Advantages in A&A Revised (2004).  The original A&A Europe (1999) also had this rule.

@Krieghund:

What you’re probably thinking about is one one of the optional National Advantages in A&A Revised (2004).  The original A&A Europe (1999) also had this rule.

Yes a NA for revised game. I use it in my WW2 40 game.

I noticed in the Pacific rules when Japan declares war unprovoked on the US, Britain, or Anzac the US collects 30 bonus IPC’s but I did not see this in the global portion of the political situation rules for the US. Does the US still get this bonus in Global? Sorry if this is a noob question.

@Minotaur:

I noticed in the Pacific rules when Japan declares war unprovoked on the US, Britain, or Anzac the US collects 30 bonus IPC’s but I did not see this in the global portion of the political situation rules for the US. Does the US still get this bonus in Global? Sorry if this is a noob question.

They do not get this bonus in global.  Sorry.

They do not get this bonus in global.  Sorry.

Thanks for letting me know.

Ah ok thanks everyone for clearing that up for me, I remember playing games where that was a rule but I couldnt remember what game.

can Germany blitz through NW Persia if still pro-allied neutral?

Or must they stop?

It can, Karl.
Germany can’t Blitz a Pro Axis; instead it has to stop.

Thanks

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.75

You can blitz unfriendly neutrals.  Germany can blitz through NW Persia when it’s pro-Allies

The following situation needs clarification:
A German submarine and a British battleship are sharing a sea zone.  As the UK, I want to attack that submarine with a destroyer and a fighter, but I would prefer to leave the battleship out of the battle so I can retreat it.  However, if I am attacking that submarine, I am forced to use the battleship in the fight, correct?  Or could I move the battleship out first as a combat move?  There is the rule that says that a ship may move away from a hostile sea zone as a combat move, but technically a submarine does not make a sea zone hostile.

In short, I would not be able to send the battleship away, but instead it would have to fight, correct?

@Charles:

…
In short, I would not be able to send the battleship away, but instead it would have to fight, correct?

Indeed, the “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones”-rules do not apply in your scenario.
So you can only keep your battleship out of the battle by moving it away by a rules-compliant combat move.
That means attack somewhere else or support an amphibious assault somewhere else.
If a combat move is not possible in your scenario, the battleship will join the battle.

HTH :-)

Thanks.  I was quite angry when this happened to me and another player pointed it out.  Then I ended up finding a better move, leaving the submarine behind.  In my case, I wanted to retreat the battleship to a port so I had no alternative but to give up the attack.  Good to know.