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

Chico answer to all of your question is no

@Chicochico:

So all you have to do is move out then into the seazone, to get a retreat route?

Yes

I have 3 retreat questions that came up last game. 1) can ou retreat from a territory you just attacked and cleared all defenders, without invading it?

I am guessing that when you say “without invading it”, you mean without conquering it.  Once you clear all defenders you can not retreat.  Also, if you cleared all defenders except AA guns or transports, you can not retreat.

2. Can you retreat part of your army? ex, Im attacking with 20 units, after reducing the defenders to 1 single unit i retreat with everything except 2 units, which keep attacking?

No, you can’t do that.  You can only do partial retreats in the case of amphibious assaults.  You should keep track of which units came off transports and which came overland.  You can make ONE retreat of ALL AIR and overland units together.  All land units must retreat to one territory that one of the land units came from.  The ground units attacking off transports must fight to the death.

3. I’ve read that you can retreat from land battles before the first turn of combat? We ruled that you need at least 1 round of combat before retreating, otherwise why not make every single possible combat move, every turn. Just get rid of the combat move turn, then, like in 1914.

What you read is wrong.  You can NEVER retreat from ANY kind of battles without rolling any dice - you must always go 1 round.  Note however that if you are attacking with sub(s) and there are no enemy destroyers, you could immediately submerge and no dice would be rolled.  But even in this case, the sub cannot retreat back to a different zone - it would stay in the same one.  
Note also that if you are doing an amphibious assault and you fail to win the naval battle (so you can’t unload any ground units) and IF you are attacking the coastal territory with aircraft, those aircraft are REQUIRED to go 1 round of combat before retreating.

I am currently in a game and placed a UK sub in SZ 98.  After Italy’s turn, Italy received it’s 5PU NO for controlling the Med.  The only thing in the Med is a British sub in SZ 98.

Shouldn’t that sub prevent the NO?  Even in the game notes (regarding SZ 125), here is what it says:  5 PUs if Russia is at war, sz125 has no Axis warships (all sea units except transports), Archangel is Russia-controlled, and there are no allied units in any originally Russian territories.

For the Med, it states the following: 5 PUs if no Allied ships are in the Med: sz92,…,sz99.

So, from inference, it would appear that even an allied trannie in the Med would negate the NO, let alone a sub, correct?  Of course, my core question is regarding the sub.

Game notes are not exactly accurate there!

The Med NO has always been Allied SURFACE ships!  You need at least 1 destroyer in the Med.

Cool, so could we make a request that TripleA reword what the current NO says to state “surface” ships?  It’s only a word, but it’s a big one in this instance… :)

You can make a request, but Veqryn has brushed off many requests that I have made for corrections, which actually affect game play.  For example, requiring amphibious assaults to be conducted before other combat (and SBR’s before amphibious).  Also complained that Triple A does not track or enforce Allied fighters on carriers.  Veq brushed me off on this too.
Triple A also does not tell you which allied ground units are on which transports.  This can be very significant.  You have to make manual game notes yourself whenever you have mixed units on carriers/transports, if you are to play the game properly.

As you noted, the game actually interprets the rule correctly - it gave Italy the NO when there was a UK sub in the med.

Very cool… thanks for the quick responses Gamer!  I’m still really a newbie at G40 (obviously lol), but now I know.  :)

In any event, it’s just very cool that TripleA exists for us to play so many different games.

I think that Veqryn may be down a programmer from what I saw on a different A&A site, so I bet it’s not all his fault.  I just hope they can find someone before too long.  (remember, the preceding sentence contains heresay lol)

Yep, and as always, you’re welcome

2 Questions: Convoy Disruption and UK National Objective

1.) Conduct Convoy Disruption (CCD):
is CCD an option or is it a must do, if warships are present?
Take, for example, Japan has warships in sea zone 54, but wants to conquer “New South Wales” next round, and I do not want to use convoy disruption, to capture all the Anzac IPCs.
Can I decide not to use the convoy disruption in this case when Anzac collects his income, in Triple A there is no option for this?

2.) About UK-Pacific NO:
5 PUs if UK Pacific controls both Kwangtung and Malaya, and is at war with Japan.
Need I also to control all the original UK Pacific territories to collect this NO?

@Babubaer:

1.) Conduct Convoy Disruption (CCD):
is CCD an option or is it a must do, if warships are present?
Take, for example, Japan has warships in sea zone 54, but wants to conquer “New South Wales” next round, and I do not want to use convoy disruption, to capture all the Anzac IPCs.
Can I decide not to use the convoy disruption in this case when Anzac collects his income, in Triple A there is no option for this?

Hi Babubaer,

Convoy Disruption occurs in the Collect Income Phase of the nation that is affected. In your case in the Collect Income Phase of ANZAC.
So if there are Japanese warships in SZ 54 during ANZAC’s Collect Income Phase CCD occurs automatically.
It has nothing to do with Japanese moves during Japanese move phases.
HTH :-)

@Babubaer:

2.) About UK-Pacific NO:
5 PUs if UK Pacific controls both Kwangtung and Malaya, and is at war with Japan.
Need I also to control all the original UK Pacific territories to collect this NO?

No. The NO is only about Kwangtung and Malaya. Of course Calcutta must be in UK’s hands.

Hi P@nther  :-)

first, thxs for your fast answers:

Convoy Disruption occurs in the Collect Income Phase of the nation that is affected. In your case in the Collect Income Phase of ANZAC.

ok that is clear so far.

So if there are Japanese warships in SZ 54 during ANZAC’s Collect Income Phase CCD occurs automatically.
It has nothing to do with Japanese moves during Japanese move phases.
HTH :-)

Sorry but i need to ask again, why should i destroy IPC´s when i can capture them on my next turn? I cant find nothing in the rules that that happens automaticly but i can as well nothing find in the rules that it is an Option! I guess you are right P@nther but i would be happy to have a clarification from Krieghund or gamerman.

@Babubaer:

Sorry but i need to ask again, why should i destroy IPC’s when i can capture them on my next turn? I cant find nothing in the rules that that happens automaticly but i can always nothing find in the rules that it is an Option! …

Because it is not on Japan to decide about anything when it comes to ANZAC’s Collect Income Phase.
If you don’t want that to happen as Japan just don’t leave warships in that Convoy Raid zone. You can attack Sydney starting from other seazones without provoking Convoy Raiding in ANZAC’s Collect Income Phase before.
Japan decides to move when it is up to Japan’s decisions: In Japan’s CM or NCM phase. If Japan decides to move into SZ 54 it decides to disrupt convoys in ANZAC’s Collect Income Phase.

hi P@nther,  8-)

your detailed comments have convinced me absolutly!!  :-D :-D

Thxs for your help, maybe you are also such a great rule “Guru” like Krieghund and Gamerman. Have a nice day!

just an FYI, I do not monitor this thread, or any other threads

so if you have a bug report for triplea, please follow the proper procedure of actually making a bug report:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=44492&atid=439737

This link is also found within the triplea game, by clicking the “HELP” menu, then clicking “Bug Report”

Also, to Gamerman, I have not brushed off anything.  All bug reports that are made through proper channels (ie: an actual bug report using above link) are added to a PERMANENT list of bugs for the game engine.  They are never closed or brushed off until fixed. 
I then make a value judgement on which to prioritize and where to spend my time, including such factors as how much it affects the game, if there is a workaround (such as the user simply knowing what order to pick their battles in, etc) or whether triplea specifically forces the ‘bug’ to occur, how hard it is to fix the bug (ie: how many hours to fix, how many hours to test, is there a possibility of fixing this bug accidentally creating a new bug elsewhere because this part of the engine is very complex or not, am I waiting to redo this part of the engine and do not want to touch it until it is properly abstracted/refactored/recoded/redone, etc).  Please remember that I am basically putting in hundreds/thousands of hours for free, and that my time is rather valuable in this sense.

Babu -

From page 24 of the 2nd edition Europe manual, under “conduct convoy disruptions”:

“A review of the map, specifically looking for such situations, is the responsibility of all the players… …All players should be on the lookout for such convoy attack situations and point them out.”

This means that even if your opponent does not see that you need to roll for convoy damage, you are supposed to be honest (not sneaky) and conduct the damage rolls, because ALL players are supposed to be on the lookout for convoy attack situations AND point them out.  (If you still see any wiggle room in the language of this rule, I can assure you that Krieghund HAS weighed in on the question and answered definitively that convoy raiding die rolls and damage are mandatory)

As Panther said, the only way to be sure to avoid disrupting the enemy’s income (because you are planning to take their capital next turn) is to keep your ships away from their convoy sea zones.

Or you can just make sure you roll 4’s, 5’s, and 6’s  :wink:

As always, the help in this forum is awesome!!

@ Gamerman
I will do my best to roll 4’s, 5’s and 6’s    :wink:

The issue has been raised:

Are there any official rules stipulating that China may not have Armor, Fighter, Tactical Bomber or Strategic Bomber units bid for it.

I believe, per page 10:

China may only purchase infantry.

There exists an American plane representing volunteers that, for the purpose of movement and combat, is considered part of the Chinese army.

So there is a precedent that says, American units can volunteer for the Chinese army, so long as they do so prior to the start of the game, and that, said units, are considered part of the Chinese army for the purpose of movement and combat.

ATM, my league ruling is that these units may exist, and TripleA be d@mned for not allowing you to put them on the board.  Unless someone can explicitly show me where they cannot in the rules, as printed by WOTC.  (I knew these dang house rules for bidding would bite me in the butt one day, I just didn’t think it was going to take from Classic until now to do so! lol.)

I’m looking for rules that ban it, btw.  Something like the rule, on page 10 of the Pacific SE book, that says, to the effect “China may not have an industrial complex” but it saying something like “China may not have armor, tactical bombers, strategic bombers, etc under any circumstances.”

I think it’s within your authority to allow all air and ground units for Chinese bid in the league, Jenn.
You’re right - there is no statement in the rule book prohibiting this.  Or, to answer your question directly - no, there are no official rules stipulating that China may not have armor, fighter, tactical bomber, strategic bomber, or mechanized infantry.

“At the beginning of the game, China has a U.S. fighter unit located on the map.  This represents the …. Flying Tigers.  This fighter is considered part of the Chinese forces for purposes of movement and combat…”

As you point out, bidding is an “extra rule” already (is not mentioned in the rule book), so allowing Chinese units in the bid that would normally not be possible, is merely an extension/interpretation of the already extraneous bidding procedure.
In other words, since bidding adds some units to the setup, and you control the bidding rules, it is logical that you can authorize Chinese bombers and tacs (or a 2nd flying tiger unit - twin tigers), which follow the same restrictions as the flying tigers (can’t fly away from Chinese territories), or mechanized infantry or armor.

Those were my thoughts on it.

Of course, normal Chinese movement restrictions would apply.  So even a strategic bomber wouldn’t be able to fly into the Sea of Japan to attack, but a second fighter surely would be a great boon to China.

Then there are the off the wall bids where you say “Allies for 18 IPC” and the guy goes “okay” and you say “woot, I want 3 tanks in China, 1 here, 2 there” and he goes “oh crud, well, Japan’s boned” or whatever. lol.