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

@Boldfresh:

@Gamerman01:

OK, so on G1 Germany invades Yugoslavia.

Say they hit and run, leaving 1 surviving infantry in Yugoslavia.
Before the noncombat movement phase, Yugoslavia is no longer neutral. �It is an alliied territory, but not controlled by any of the allies. �Germany could fly aircraft over Yugoslavia on G1 non-combat movement (doesn’t help them, but that’s not the point. �The point is, they can)

Yugoslavia is now considered a part of the Allies (but no one gets its income). �It’s not neutral anymore, so anyone can fly over it just as you fly over any Axis or Ally’s territory during normal game play.

On UK1, the UK COULD land aircraft in Yugoslavia. �It is now friendly to the allies.
As long as Yugoslavia is not conquered by an Axis power, an Allied power could activate it by getting a ground unit there. �They would then convert the surviving infantry to their own infantry, take control of the territory, increasing IPC income by 2 for that Allied power.

ah as i was writing the question you were answering it…� :lol:

so if the allies leave yugo infantry alive after a hit and run, the brits could actually send in a transport, land on yugo, activate the infantry, AND land aircraft in the territory.� INTERESTING.

you know what, i just noticed players can modify or delete posts from this FAQ…  why is that?  you wouldn’t want someone to come in and start deleting valuable posts!   :-o

@Gamerman01:

An attacked neutral is a friendly neutral and is now a friendly territory, that none of the controllable powers control.

Once it’s attacked, it’s not neutral at all.  It is allied with the side opposite the side that attacked it.  This is important, because the restrictions of a neutral territory no longer apply to it.

here is part of why i’m confused, the rules are not precise in their wording on this point…

“If the attack upon the neutral territory is unsuccessful (the territory is not captured), it’s no longer considered neutral and becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it.  For example, if Germany attacked Yugoslavia but failed to capture it, after the attack Yugoslavia would join the Allies.  Any remaining defending units stay in the territory, but can’t move.  The territory remains uncontrolled, 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.”

this is a tricky one… i THOUGHT “friendly neutral” in this sentence should actually read “pro-allied or pro-axis neutral”.  BUT friendly neutral is actually a special status, which means any neutral that has been attacked but not conquered…  so to me the wording is misleading.  it says “in the same way as if it were a friendly neutral” when it should say, it now BECOMES a friendly neutral, which means x, y, and z…

RIGHT???

@Boldfresh:

this is a tricky one… i THOUGHT “friendly neutral” in this sentence should actually read “pro-allied or pro-axis neutral”.

Yes, that’s what it means.  That’s what a friendly neutral is, if you’re on the side that it’s “pro”.

@Boldfresh:

BUT friendly neutral is actually a special status, which means any neutral that has been attacked but not conquered…

No, it isn’t.  See my last post.

@Krieghund:

@Gamerman01:

An attacked neutral is a friendly neutral and is now a friendly territory, that none of the controllable powers control.

Once it’s attacked, it’s not neutral at all.� It is allied with the side opposite the side that attacked it.� This is important, because the restrictions of a neutral territory no longer apply to it.

based on this, the word neutral would no longer apply to yugo after a german hit and run.  it would have to have a different term than “friendly neutral”…  so i think my understanding is correct that friendly neutral is the same as pro-axis or pro-allied neutral.  after ANY neutral is attacked, it takes on the status of friendly territory? perhaps or maybe a better term, which means it is now joined with one side for all intents and purposes except for income and control of it’s standing army (if any remains).  that standing army will be activated by whichever friendly power enters it first with a land unit, and that power will then also receive the territory income.

Exactly.

maybe we need to call them FRIENDLY, but previously neutral, territories.  FBPN

so any attacked neutral if not conquered, becomes a FBPN territory.  if a true neutral (or more than one) is/are attacked for the first time, the ones actually attacked become FBPN territories if not conquered.  all other true neutral territories become friendly neutrals at that moment.

Yep

Good idea to have a special term for neutrals that have been attacked but not conquered.  Because it is a unique status, as you have discovered.

I have seen it in TripleA, so the question is in Alpha 3+

Can UK in NCM move a transport with only a AAgun to sz 86 than unload the transport to activate Brazil with only a AAgun?

@Babubaer:

I have seen it in TripleA, so the question is in Alpha 3+

Can UK in NCM move a transport with only a AAgun to sz 86 than unload the transport to activate Brazil with only a AAgun?

No.  Lone AA guns are not sufficient to take control of a territory.  It must be infantry, artillery, mech, or tank.

@Gamerman01:

@Babubaer:

I have seen it in TripleA, so the question is in Alpha 3+

Can UK in NCM move a transport with only a AAgun to sz 86 than unload the transport to activate Brazil with only a AAgun?

No.  Lone AA guns are not sufficient to take control of a territory.  It must be infantry, artillery, mech, or tank.

I disagree. Where in the rulebook is this mentioned?  This is a quote from the Europe 1940 2e rulebook (bolding by me):

@Europe:

Friendly neutrals may not be attacked, and air units may not fly over them. They can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power that is at war (see Noncombat Move,” page 22).

AAA are land units. These rules and the AAA rules do not disallow AAA from doing this.

@Krieghund:

It’s not friendly - it’s a friendly neutral.  There is a difference, in that it is still neutral.  A friendly territory is one that is controlled by you or another member of your alliance.  A friendly neutral does not meet that requirement.

There is a procedure for converting a friendly neutral territory into a friendly territory, which involves moving a land unit with an attack value into it.  Until then, no other unit may be moved into it, as it is still neutral (though friendly neutral).

You may be right that it isn’t clear in the rulebook, but you’re still oh so wrong!  Krieghund is the rulebook, and this is what he has told us.

AA cannot activate a friendly neutral by itself.

AAE40 2nd Edition Rulebook, page 28:

Only infantry, artillery, mechanized infantry, and tanks can capture hostile territories or convert friendly neutrals.

Sure enough!

Very easy to miss that one spot, though…

P-Unit has a good point that you should be able to read about that under “friendly neutrals” or under the details for “AAA guns”  :-)

But it is in there!  Read all 41 pages and memorize every word of them!  :wink:

Speaking of no combat values, I remember you answered my question that you can’t “attack” with transports only, because there is no attack value.

So this also means that an “attack” with all aircraft carriers and/or transports is illegal, correct?
This would rule out a tactic of moving units strategically (up to 4 spaces and to the other side of enemy naval units) using retreats.  If there is no combat value, you are guaranteed that you won’t accidentally win, like when attacking a single unit.

Anyway, it’s illegal to attack with only carriers and/or transports, right?

@Gamerman01:

Speaking of no combat values, I remember you answered my question that you can’t “attack” with transports only, because there is no attack value.

So this also means that an “attack” with all aircraft carriers and/or transports is illegal, correct?
This would rule out a tactic of moving units strategically (up to 4 spaces and to the other side of enemy naval units) using retreats.  If there is no combat value, you are guaranteed that you won’t accidentally win, like when attacking a single unit.

Anyway, it’s illegal to attack with only carriers and/or transports, right?

are you allowed to send units with no attack value (acc, trn) into attacks in order to retreat them with the rest of the fleet?  i could see a rationale for the acc since they can take hits, but the transports?

@Boldfresh:

@Gamerman01:

Speaking of no combat values, I remember you answered my question that you can’t “attack” with transports only, because there is no attack value.

So this also means that an “attack” with all aircraft carriers and/or transports is illegal, correct?
This would rule out a tactic of moving units strategically (up to 4 spaces and to the other side of enemy naval units) using retreats.  If there is no combat value, you are guaranteed that you won’t accidentally win, like when attacking a single unit.

Anyway, it’s illegal to attack with only carriers and/or transports, right?

are you allowed to send units with no attack value (acc, trn) into attacks in order to retreat them with the rest of the fleet?  i could see a rationale for the acc since they can take hits, but the transports?

not the best wording, but i’m saying if you were sending some units from one zone west of the attack zone and one zone east of the attack zone, for example, in order to retreat together to one zone.

Um, yeah, I asked Krieghund about it awhile back when it came up in a game I was in.  I was trying to get an ANZAC transport from like Z57 back to Z54 by “attacking” a Japanese destroyer in 55 and then retreating to 54.  I would have sent a transport from 54 or 62 as well.

Now I see what you’re meaning….

Yes, you can send transports and carriers into battle with the rest of the fleet in order to retreat them.

You just can’t send them alone.  I’m trying to ask him if it’s the same for carriers too.