Guys,
Here’s the set-up:
––We were playing a Global-1940, 2nd edition rules game last week and had a new player as Japan. :roll:
At the instant that the Japanese player entered and captured India:
ANZAC was the only player with any troops garrisoning:
1.) Kwantung (Hong Kong) :-o
2.) Malaya :-o
3.) Borneo :-o
––As ALL of the above territories are UK-Pacific owned/controlled territories from the start of the game,….
Once the UK-Pacific Capital(India) is captured,….are the former UK-Pacific territories MENTIONED ABOVE now AUTOMATICALLY CAPTURED BY ANZAC since they have forces(Anzac) located in them? 8-)
––I’m familiar with the two paragraphs concerning liberating/capturing countries whose Capitals have been subjugated,…but this adds a new dimension to these rules and I needed a definite answer. :-D
----Since I can see that this “situation” might be open to quite a bit of “interpretation”,…I would very much appreciate an Official answer,….like from Kreighund.
“Tall Paul”
Territories only change hands when an enemy power takes control of them. Even though Japan has taken control of the UK Pacific capital, that does not mean that it has captured the rest of UK Pacific’s territories. So unless Japan actually sends units into those territories, she will not have control of them.
This is not an interpretation of the rules. This is the rule. There is no automatic capturing of territories at all in Global 1940 any edition. Unless you count Mongolia for the Russians, but that is something different entirely.
Gliven,
––Thanks,…But I am NOT concerned with the question of Japan capturing these countries,….
My question concerns if ANZAC, who now owns and controls the above mentioned territories that originally belonged to a friendly country that now has had it’s capital conquered, would automatically capture them and claim their IPC income for themselves as stated in the rules concerning CAPTURING A FRIENDLY TERRITORY
––If you read the two paragraphs concerning liberating/capturing countries you’ll understand my question.
----Liberating is when you conquer a friendly territory and turn over it’s control and income to it’s original owner.
––Capturing is when you conquer a friendly territory and and raise your flag and claim it’s IPC income.
“Tall Paul”
The way I interpret your situation, I’d say…
No, UK Pacific would still have control.
In order for ANZAC to control another ally’s territory, they’d have to capture it from an enemy while said ally doesn’t have control of their capital.
Just because ANZAC is already there doesn’t mean the territories will switch ownership…
They don’t have a Dutch like relationship with UK. (Even though I really think they should… and vice versa.)
read my first sentence.
Insert Quote
Territories only change hands when an enemy power takes control of them
This is true for every axis and allies game. Just because you lose your capitol. That does not mean you magically lose all your territories and anyone left in them gains control.
How long have you been playing this game?
In order for anzac to take control of those territories they would have to declare war against the british. Which you cannot do…since they are allies
Or take it from the japanese after they have taken it themselves. and only when india is taken otherwise they are liberating it for the british
chosenfktard,
The way I interpret you situation, I’d say…
No, UK Pacific would still have control.
––IMHO The UK-Pacific could NOT retain control of the specifically mentioned territories mentioned above as it’s capital has been taken , and the territories have had a friendly force “CAPTURE” them.
In order for ANZAC to control another ally’s territory, they’d have to capture it from an enemy while said ally doesn’t have control of their capital.
––Excuse me,…but this is EXACTLY what I have described above.
Just because ANZAC is already there doesn’t mean the territories will switch ownership…
––Please refer to the Axis & Allies Rulebook, Pacific 1940 Second Edition, page 20 & 21, two paragraphs,…but specifically the second paragraph concerning “CAPTURING” instead of “LIBERATING”.
They don’t have a Dutch like relationship with UK. (Even though I really think they should… and vice versa.)
––A “Dutch Relationship” is completely irrelevant in this situation. We are concerned simply with the “CAPTURE of a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side”.
Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”
Gliven and ch0senfktard are correct. This is not a “capture” situation, as there was no combat to resolve. The ANZAC units are merely occupying UK territory.
Gliven,
read my first sentence.
Insert Quote
Territories only change hands when an enemy power takes control of them
––Excuse me,…but this is an INCORRECT STATEMENT. Please refer to A&A-Pacific 1940 2nd Edition rulebook, page 20, 21 “Liberating a Territory”. The second paragraph on the top of page 21 says, and I quote:
“If the original controller’s Capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated th territory, you CAPTURE it instead. You adjust your national production level, and…”
This is true for every axis and allies game. Just because you lose your capitol. That does not mean you magically lose all your territories and anyone left in them gains control.
––My question has nothing to do with ALL of the territories from a country that has had it’s Capital subjugated(“MAGICALLY” or otherwise),…only the SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED TERRITORIES outlined above where ANZAC has the ONLY force in them.
How long have you been playing this game?
––Since 1984.
----And IMHO you should refrain from personal criticisms and/or sarcasm in your dealings with others.
----I understand that this is an somewhat unusual situation,…and question. But that is exactly why I asked for someone who can give me an OFFICIAL answer instead of countless “opinions” from players, right & wrong.
----Gliven,…I honestly wish you nothing but good fun in your A&A games,…
but you didn’t read my question thoroughly and so jumped to the wrong conclusion that I was speaking about JAPAN taking ALL of the territories which I was NOT.
----Now you say that “ONLY AN ENEMY POWER can take control of these territories”, which is INCORRET according to the rulebook, pages 20-21.
----Also you said that “in order for Anzac to take control of these territories they would have to declare war against the British, which they can’t do”. This is also INCORRECT according to the just referred rules, pages 20-21.
––I truly do not wish to “argue” with anyone,…especially when they are both wrong and also sarcastic. This is exactly why I requested an OFFICIAL answer.
“Tall Paul”
Kreighund,
This is not a “capture” situation, as there was no combat to resolve. The ANZAC units are merely occupying UK territory.
––First off, thanks for your time in answering my question.
----Secondly,.what would the Anzac player need to do in order to “Capture” these former UK-Pacific territories where it is now the only force present? If I’m reading you correctly,….a “COMBAT” must take place in order for the Anzac player to “Capture” these territories, is that correct?
––So for example,…the Japanese player subjugates the UK-Pacific territory of India and controls it. On the next turn of the Anzac player, any former UK-Pacific territory that he attacks in combat and wins, he now “CAPTURES” and controls them and increases his IPC income.
----Basically stated,…a “Combat” has to occur in order enable any “Capturing of former friendly territories”. Is that correct?
Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”
Yes, a combat has to occur, and since you can’t attack an ally, ANZAC can only take control of UK Pacific territories while India is Axis-held by recapturing them from an Axis power.
Krieghund,
Yes, a combat has to occur, and since you can’t attack an ally, ANZAC can only take control of UK Pacific territories while India is Axis-held by recapturing them from an Axis power.
––Thank you very much for this “Official” answer.
––Like I had outlined when I asked this question,…we had a player who was “new” to playing Japan that lead to some unusual situations. Thanks again.
“Tall Paul”
Tall Paul. I apologize for sounding rude. Your question was when Japan takes control of India the rest of Uk pacific is able to be captured by an ally like Anzac. I stated that in order for anzac to take them they would have to take it back from the japanese. they way you worded your question. you made it sound like that once Japan took India they took the rest of their territories or subjugated as you called it. And i answered you according to that. I also said that territories only change hands when an enemy takes it. you cannot attack an allied territory unless it was taken from an enemy. which is true and backed up by Krieghund. This has been the case since the first edition. which is why i asked you how long you have been playing this game, since i thought you have been on this forum and have been playing longer than I have and would have already known this. If that sounded sarcastic i’m sorry it was not my intention.
I stated my answers not as an opinion or an interpretation but by the rules and how the game is played.
Plus think of it this way. Say Moscow was captured by the Germans, then the British came up through the middle east and started confiscating the caucus and the Americans took Siberia. This is an act of war.
In your scenario the Anzac are DEFENDING british lands not CAPTURING them. because they are ALLIES not ENEMIES.
When you take an enemy capital. The ONLY things that happen,
1. You take control of said territory and earn the printed IPC in that territory only
2. You confiscate any held money by said defeated defender
3. Said defender can no longer gain income and can no longer build units
The rest of the lands remain yours and yours alone. Your allies don’t come and steal your undefended lands, because that would be an act of war.
I’d also like to ask Krieghund. In this scenario Japan has already captured India. Say japan walks into an empty Burma capturing the territory with no combat then leaves thier next turn. ANZAC’S next turn they walk into Burma and claims it as there own. There is no combat but ANZAC gains the territory.
Different scenario. India is taken but Burma is still British controlled, only ANZAC troops remain in Burma. Japan attacks Burma, loses and Anzac still remains. Territory stays British or is ANZAC because there is combat.
first Scenario question. do you classify taking an empty enemy territory as combat?
I classify enemy controlled friendly territory as enemy territory because they have gained control of it. plus its shorter to say :P
Second scenario
My understanding, and hopefully everyone’s understanding, is that Burma remains British, unless Japan won and took the territory itself, and that ANZAC would NEVER take an allies territory unless an opponent such as japan took it first and then ANZAC took it back with combat or simply walking into an empty territory. AND only if the capital was taken. Otherwise they would be liberating it.
Also in the rule book about capturing friendly territories is it referring to capturing enemy controlled friendly territory? Because I think this is where Tall Paul’s confusion is coming from. taking the same quote from pages 20-21 it states that when you are attacking an ENEMY CONTROLED friendly territory if the capital is taken you take it instead of liberating it.
I’d also like to ask Krieghund. In this scenario Japan has already captured India. Say japan walks into an empty Burma capturing the territory with no combat then leaves thier next turn. ANZAC’S next turn they walk into Burma and claims it as there own. There is no combat but ANZAC gains the territory.
Yes. Moving into enemy-controlled territory counts as combat, whether or not it is occupied.
Different scenario. India is taken but Burma is still British controlled, only ANZAC troops remain in Burma. Japan attacks Burma, loses and Anzac still remains. Territory stays British or is ANZAC because there is combat.
It remains UK-controlled. ANZAC defended the territory - it did not attack and capture it.
Also in the rule book about capturing friendly territories is it referring to capturing enemy controlled friendly territory?
Yes. You can only capture a territory through attacking it, and you can only attack a territory that’s controlled by the enemy.
Yea TP, the rule u quoted only helps gliven’s point
Guys,
––The “Official” answer is just as I thought. Thanks again, Krieghund. In the game mentioned I was playing America,…and simply wanted/needed to give a definite answer to the Anzac player.
----Axis & Allies is not only the greatest game in the world,….but this forum, A&A.Org, that supports it is a very valuable asset!
“Tall Paul”
this is not an unusual situation at all. in basicly every game paris is taken. Then you can only gain controll over the french terretories with UK if the axis have taken it first. I hope there are not many people out there allowing uk to take all the french terrs south of sahara, bumping their income.
this is not an unusual situation at all. in basicly every game paris is taken. Then you can only gain controll over the french terretories with UK if the axis have taken it first. I hope there are not many people out there allowing uk to take all the french terrs south of sahara, bumping their income.
In oztea’s 1942 or 1943 setup, all those French territories are sort of split up between Italy, Germany and England. I think England gets French Equatorial Africa, French Central Africa and Syria, Germany gets Algeria, Morocco, French West Africa and Madagascar and Italy gets Tunisia.
Oh, and of course Germany also gets France, Normandy and Southern France while Japan gets French Indo-China.
Kind of an easy way to settle who gets what.
