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

@squirecam Yep, there’s a lot of Abstract things about the game but it’s such a Great time playing it that we have learned to accept it as is- otherwise it’s just not A&A anymore if it was almost as realistic as the Real War was, you could always use your Own House rules to your personal liking anyway!!!

@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@panther

I know what is in the rule book. But it’s still nonsense. Why are Norway and Romania considered original German territories? Because that makes no sense either…

Ok, for further answers to this, if Kiangsu was originally Japanese they could build a major factory on it so that is prohibited. Would also require a long list of exceptions to the non chinese territories that China is allowed to occupy, and also require exceptions to allow China to mobilise there. Far easier to just call it originally Chinese.

Whereas Norway could be its own power with no capital like the Dutch but that would have no effect on the gameplay except that Germany couldn’t build a major complex but they would never want to. I guess Italy or Japan could retake it from the allies.

Also the Chinese coastal territories could become US/UK/ANZ.

@simon33

These territories should be colored differently then. Have Norway neutral with a German control marker. So the rule is consistent and applied equally.

@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@simon33

These territories should be colored differently then. Have Norway neutral with a German control marker. So the rule is consistent and applied equally.

Might as well do the rest like Finland,Hungary, Yugo, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece etc etc. pro neutral ? Strict neutral ?

@gen-manstein

Finland got hosed by the Allies during the winter war so I have no issue with them being Pro Axis.

You could make the argument for the others remaining as is. But Norway was the subject of invasion by both sides.

So it’s not an original German territory and Germany shouldn’t be able to build a major IC there if we are following the Manchria reasoning.

Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.

@squirecam check out Sired Bloods map for face 2 face games. He kept all territorys in Sand colors. Maybe this is something for you to Look in.
He also realigned some territory connections. Very good made. Also i think Young Grashoppers maps are remodelt.

If you are interested in these let us know and we provide the links or look for the house rule forum or the Customizing forum.

@colt45554 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.

I dont see the relevance to being able to build a major factory there or not. Germany never owned Norway. In fact, they conquered it right before the game started.

Manchuria has a government for years that has favored the Japanese. At least as much as the Romanian government “favored” Germany. Logically, you should be able to build a major ic there.

If China takes it, burn down the ic.

@aequitas-et-veritas said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@squirecam check out Sired Bloods map for face 2 face games. He kept all territorys in Sand colors. Maybe this is something for you to Look in.
He also realigned some territory connections. Very good made. Also i think Young Grashoppers maps are remodelt.

If you are interested in these let us know and we provide the links or look for the house rule forum or the Customizing forum.

It’s not really the colors but the ic restriction I have an issue with.

Also the colors on the map make it easier to count up the ipc. But thanks and I’ve seen his map on youtube. People should check it out.

@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@colt45554 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.

I dont see the relevance to being able to build a major factory there or not. Germany never owned Norway. In fact, they conquered it right before the game started.

Manchuria has a government for years that has favored the Japanese. At least as much as the Romanian government “favored” Germany. Logically, you should be able to build a major ic there.

If China takes it, burn down the ic.

“Power” is relevant. Should the player controlling and representing China be totally OK if US captures Shantung/Manchuria instead of liberating it? Would the Chinese people be happy with that? Or does China consider that rightful Chinese land.
There’s no player representing Norwegian/Romanian/Dutch interests.

If your question is why must the territory be originally controlled by your Power to make a major factory, it’s because US can make 10 tanks per turn in Norway without it.

So, Manchuria is originally Chinese because an Ally can liberate, but not capture it and that makes sense. Why can’t Japan build the major there anyway? because of game fairness shown in norway factory example, rule states it must be originally yours.

@colt45554 Very well put, never had that aspect explained any Better!!!👏

@colt45554 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@colt45554 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Romania, Norway, and the Netherlands are not Powers(rule term). China is. That’s the difference.

I dont see the relevance to being able to build a major factory there or not. Germany never owned Norway. In fact, they conquered it right before the game started.

Manchuria has a government for years that has favored the Japanese. At least as much as the Romanian government “favored” Germany. Logically, you should be able to build a major ic there.

If China takes it, burn down the ic.

“Power” is relevant. Should the player controlling and representing China be totally OK if US captures Shantung/Manchuria instead of liberating it? Would the Chinese people be happy with that? Or does China consider that rightful Chinese land.
There’s no player representing Norwegian/Romanian/Dutch interests.

If your question is why must the territory be originally controlled by your Power to make a major factory, it’s because US can make 10 tanks per turn in Norway without it.

So, Manchuria is originally Chinese because an Ally can liberate, but not capture it and that makes sense. Why can’t Japan build the major there anyway? because of game fairness shown in norway factory example, rule states it must be originally yours.

So like I’ve said, the rule should be that germany cant build a major IC in Norway or Romania.

But as long as they can, I find it problematic with the manchuria rule.

Do you think the manchuria major ic is game breaking? What about Korea?

@squirecam No, I don’t find it game-breaking but I think US’ Norway can be so i’m fine with the rule and consistency of applying it throughout board

Some questions to clarify.

1.) Are the Aleutian Islands separated from Alaska? Or in other words, can land units move from the Aleutian Islands to Alaska without the use of a transport and vice versa?

2.) When it says “Japan may not end the movement of
its sea units within 2 sea zones of the United States’ mainland territories (Western United States and Alaska)” Does it mean two sea zones away from the mainland US (like sea zones 13, 14, 15, and 7)? Or does it mean two sea zones off of mainland US (like sea zones 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10)? My understanding that it is the latter and not the former.

3.) If Japan attacks the UK and ANZAC and not the US, is the US immediately at war with Japan, or does it only allow for the US to declare war on Japan during its turn? Here is what is said in the rule book, “The United States may not declare war on any Axis power unless an Axis power either declares war on it first or captures London or any territory in North America, or Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the UK or ANZAC, after which it may declare war on any or all Axis powers on its following turn.” My understanding is that it only allows the US to declare war on its turn and not that it is immediately at war with Japan.

4.) If all the Allies (including the USSR and the US) are at war with Germany and Japan is at war with the Pacific Allies, but not with the USSR, could the Allies that landed in original Soviet or Soviet-controlled territories (because both are at war with Germany) attack Japan from them even though Japan and the USSR are not at war?

5.) Neutral Powers may not enter friendly Neutral territories, right? The Soviet Union when not at war with Italy or Germany may not enter any Persian territories?

That is all and thanks!

@frederick-ii said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Some questions to clarify.

1.) Are the Aleutian Islands separated from Alaska? Or in other words, can land units move from the Aleutian Islands to Alaska without the use of a transport and vice versa?

2.) When it says “Japan may not end the movement of
its sea units within 2 sea zones of the United States’ mainland territories (Western United States and Alaska)” Does it mean two sea zones away from the mainland US (like sea zones 13, 14, 15, and 7)? Or does it mean two sea zones off of mainland US (like sea zones 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10)? My understanding that it is the latter and not the former.

3.) If Japan attacks the UK and ANZAC and not the US, is the US immediately at war with Japan, or does it only allow for the US to declare war on Japan during its turn? Here is what is said in the rule book, “The United States may not declare war on any Axis power unless an Axis power either declares war on it first or captures London or any territory in North America, or Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the UK or ANZAC, after which it may declare war on any or all Axis powers on its following turn.” My understanding is that it only allows the US to declare war on its turn and not that it is immediately at war with Japan.

4.) If all the Allies (including the USSR and the US) are at war with Germany and Japan is at war with the Pacific Allies, but not with the USSR, could the Allies that landed in original Soviet or Soviet-controlled territories (because both are at war with Germany) attack Japan from them even though Japan and the USSR are not at war?

5.) Neutral Powers may not enter friendly Neutral territories, right? The Soviet Union when not at war with Italy or Germany may not enter any Persian territories?

That is all and thanks!

The Japanese fleet can be within striking distance of the US mainland. The Japanese fleet can legally be in the third sea zone from the US mainland which is not within two sea zones of the mainland.

For example the Japanese fleet can be in SZ 14 (capable of attacking the sea zones adjacent to Alaska and Western US) as SZ 14 is not within 2 sea zones from the US coast.

USA declares war on its turn. Japan can choose to only attack UK/Anzac.

@frederick-ii

1. They are separated. You need a transport
2. Covered by @squirecam
3. You are correct. If Japan does not attack the US, the US is not at war. On the US turn, the US can declare war on the Japanese. So if a mix of US and ANZAC forces were in SZ54 of Queensland, for example. The Japanese could declare war on the ANZACs and not the US, and attack the fleet. The US forces would just sit idle and watch the ANZAC fleet go down.
4. If the Russians are not at war with the Japanese, Russian territory in the Pacific is considered neutral territory for the Allies–so no attack possible, since the Allied forces cannot get there.
   This is enforced for air units trying to land in Russia Pacific territories.
   I have never had it come up, but not sure if the TripleA engine enforces the neutrality for a British land unit in let’s say Moscow trying to move to Samara or Novorbirsk (I’m not clear where the land border is between Pacific and European Russia). But regardless the players should enforce the rule.
5. Correct. Neutral powers do not have “friendly neutrals”. The “friendly” part is for those countries at war. If you are neutral, not at war–no invasion of other countries territory (friendly, enemy or neutral)

This hasn’t been used in a while but I heard this rule in a different forum and wanted corrections.

If you do an amphibious assault and there’s no defending ships they can still scramble apparently? If so, are the transports autokill if you don’t bring any warships and if your warships get destroyed by fighters the transports just retreat right?

@tin-can-of-the-sea said in AAG40 FAQ:

This hasn’t been used in a while but I heard this rule in a different forum and wanted corrections.

If you do an amphibious assault and there’s no defending ships they can still scramble apparently? If so, are the transports autokill if you don’t bring any warships and if your warships get destroyed by fighters the transports just retreat right?

Yes, you can scramble to defend even if there are no defending naval units.

If amphibious assault is attempted using transports with or without accompanying navy, the defender can scramble. If he does you have to resolve the naval battle first, before the assault. If there are no other units to take casualties, the transports are hit. Presumably, the attacker would then retreat any remaining units.

I don’t know if you can legally send unescorted transports against territory defended by fighter airbase, but the only result would be a round of combat that would hit transports, and then you could retreat. No autokill.

Although… your opponent may choose not to scramble, and the the assault would commence. Good luck with that.