Mongolian Neutral Clarification.

Thanks for the tip there GHG…~!~ :wink:

I think there is one point worth adding to the answers you already have Southside:

If India has fallen, whichever allied power captures UK Pacific territories gets the ipcs until such time as India is liberated. As you realise, China can only capture Kwangtung and Burma. China would get the ipcs if they capture these territories.

That was probably already clear, but just in case ……

Cheers!

If UK attacks and does not finish the standing army off, the standing army stays there.

I generally represent such a scenario with French units atop of chips as the French are the least utilized army.

If the Axis then moves in, you would represent all units there with the Axis nation that claims the remaining standing army.  So in example:

UK attacks Turkey and has to retreat after killing 4 units.
Put 1 French Inf atop of the remaining units (3, I think?)
Italy then moves in and claims Turkey.
Remove the French INF, place an Italian INF atop the chips.  They now move and act as Italian units.

Pretty sure that is how the scenario would work.  Just remember that claiming neutral standing armies is part of the NCM phase, so those units in Turkey can only defend until the subsequent Italian turn.

1. No.
2. Yes.

No, it wasn’t on my list.  I just added it as 16e

It is in the Triple A list in the program, though.  If you look down the description of the G40 map, one of the things is “rules Triple A engine doesn’t recognize” or something like that.  That’s the list I meant it was already on

What I thought… just hoping against hope because you don’t take the territory by force.  thanks!

@Cmdr:

knp,

I dont believe America would have to TAKE Korea, in your scenario.  You are free to NCM warships into hostile zones without risk of Kamikazee attacks so long as there are no enemy warships present.

So if Japan had no units in SZ 6, but had 6 Kamikazees left, America could waltz in with 3 battleships during NCM and nothing could be done about it.

Yeah, you are right.  USA could lose the land battle for Korea and still move in the warships to SZ6 in the NCM with no kamikaze attacks.  I worded that a bit wrong, but the point I was making was that as long as there are no Japanese naval units in SZ6, then the USA could move warships into SZ6 in the NCM and Japan could not use it’s kamikaze.  The battle for Korea has no influence one way or the other in this example.

@marechallannes:

Q1: A battleship enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. The sub submerges.

Following the rules, the sub emerges after the combat (that doesn’t take place)

Who controlls the seazone after the battleship owners turn?

Is the sub able to raid the convoy zone in that seazone, or is it impossible, cause the battleship owner “won” the battle and controls the sea zone?

Q2: Does the sub emerges before the collect income phase of the battleship owner and is it able to raid the sea-zone of the battleship-owner?

Q3: A submarine enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. Both sub submerges before any round of combat.

Are both submarines are able to make convoy raids? (For example a UK-sub and a Jap-sub in SZ 37)

1:  No power can “control” a seazone.  That’s why you don’t mark it.  The sub is able to raid, because it remains in the seazone during the collect income phase.  Powers occupy a seazone, and a seazone can be hostile, but it’s never really “controlled”.  A power can still place units in a seazone adjacent to its factory, regardless of how many enemy units might remain in that seazone (that may even be disrupting a convoy).
2:  Yes.
3: Yes,  assuming each is present during their respective enemy’s collect income phase (when the disruption occurs).

“Submerging” is simply a term for the option to retreat but remain in the same seazone.  It serves no other function, and it does not have any impact on any other phases of a turn.  After combat, all subs are effectively no longer submerged.