Yes, Calvin
Yes, Calvin
Perhaps I’m interpreting this incorrectly, but the rules say:
“These two powers [meaning the United Kingdom and ANZAC] have an arrangement with the Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch territories in the Pacific. As a result, they are free to move units into these territories as a noncombat movement at any time, as long as they have not yet been captured by Japan. They may actually take control of them (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into them. Additionally, the United Kingdom and ANZAC consider attacks against any Dutch territories to be acts of war against them directly. Once a Dutch territory has been captured by Japan, however, it may be captured and controlled by any power.”
Because these rules are specifically referring to “the Dutch territories in the Pacific”, I’m assuming that the part which says that the UK and ANZAC “are free to move units into these territories” only applies to the DEI. Suriname is in South America, on the continent’s Atlantic side, not its Pacific side, so it’s not a “Dutch territory in the Pacific.” The later part which refers to “attacks against any Dutch territories” certainly seems broad enough in scope to cover Suriname, but it concerns what the UK and ANZAC consider to be an act of war, not what territories they can occupy by special arrangement with the Dutch government.
It’s written like that because it’s written in the Pacific rulebook only
Which brings up another gripe. There should be a complete rulebook that is designed for the global game. This hodgepodge of putting 2 different games together…
It’s written like that because it’s written in the Pacific rulebook only
Nope, it means what it says - Pacific only.
Well, I guess TripleA is wrong then…not that it matters much.
thanks this was helpful
Thank you for the feedback
Refresh my memory on neutrals…
say an ally attacks a neutral, but not myself. does it then mean my whole alliance is at war with all neutrals or just that player who attacked the neutral?
Yeah, it doesn’t matter that it’s an ally -
If your ally attacks a strict neutral, all other strict neutrals go pro-the other side
Question: Can an ANZAC FTR land in Dutch New Guinea even though it has yet to be taken by an Allied force? i.e. Still Orange in colour
Yes
They’re friendly allied territories when Dutch controlled - they’re not like neutrals or anything
Think of them as French territories - the difference being that France has a capital that could be liberated, and the other difference being the “special relationship” ability of UK/ANZ ground units to claim them in non-combat
Please see also the 2nd post of this thread, reply #1
If Japan attacks a Mongolian territory (but not a Soviet territory bordering Mongolia) then all strict neutrals (or neutral neutrals as I like to call them) become pro-allied, including the rest of Mongolia, correct? Does the rest of Mongolia then directly join the Soviet Union?
Neutrals:
- You can’t move a tank through a friendly neutral that you just activated
 a) You CAN blitz strict neutrals and unfriendly neutrals
 b) You also can’t non-com mech or tanks through the friendly neutral that you just took control of.
Rule 1 b) the mention of tanks seems redundant, as the initial line already says you can’t move a tank through a friendly neutral.
Mongolia:
- If Japan attacks a Russian controlled territory bordering Mongolia, all of Mongolia is immediately Russian
a) If Japan attacks Mongolia in the same combat move (as attacking a Russian controlled territory bordering Mongolia), they break neutrality of all strict neutrals
b) This is the ONLY way all of Mongolia will immediately turn Russian without territories needing to be activated.
Re-read 1)b) for the answer to your second question
Mongolia:
If neither of the above takes place, Mongolia continues on as a strict neutral, but
- Will NOT go pro-Axis if the Allies break neutrality elsewhere
a) Mongolia ONLY goes pro-Axis if Russia directly attacks Mongolia. This would break neutrality around the world (all strict neutrals go pro-the other side).
i) Any OTHER Ally can attack Mongolia directly and this will break neutrality around the world, but the rest of Mongolia will stay neutral
b) Mongolia WILL go pro-Allied if the Axis break strict neutrality anywhere, including Mongolia
Re-read this 1)b) for the answer to your first question :-)
Rule 1 b) the mention of tanks seems redundant, as the initial line already says you can’t move a tank through a friendly neutral.
Yeah I see what you’re saying, but it’s not redundant and I’ll explain why it’s not.
1)b) makes it clear that you can’t take control of a friendly neutral with one tank, and then move others through it.
My summaries were written in April of 2013 if you look, and back then that was a common question or misconception, so it makes total sense to word it that way.
Quick question…
Here is a situation that is confusing: Britain lands a mech inf in French West Africa, can it “blitz” through French Central Africa and French Equatorial Africa and take ownership of both? Assuming France is Axis controlled? I know that mechs can move 2 spaces through friendly territories but may not blitz through enemy terrs and take them over. Can they blitz through friendly terrs and take them over?
Stonewall, there’s something you’re missing there -
You can’t take control of French territories just because Paris is Axis-controlled. Germany, Italy, or Japan would have to take control of the originally French territory first (e.g. French Central Africa), in order for one of the Allies to take control of an originally French territory (e.g. French Central Africa). So then it would be enemy territory
Ok, yes I did miss that, thank you Gamerman01!
Mongolia rule still applies if Italy and Germany attack USSR territories too or does this exclusively apply to Japan?
Mongolia rules only concern Russia, Mongolia, Japan
