League General Discussion Thread

Can Japan declare war to USA, but not to ANZAC and UK ?

Or it is possible only in the opposite direction?

@Amon-Sul said in League General Discussion Thread:

Can Japan declare war to USA, but not to ANZAC and UK ?

Or it is possible only in the opposite direction?

Japan can make an unprovoked declaration of war against the UK & ANZAC without also declaring war on the US. However, this then allows the US to declare war on Japan.

Bascially, you are going to be at war with them anyway so I guess why not just do it all in one go and save on the paperwaork.

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

[…] The PTV rule is the same as the G40 rule, so the US fleet must vacate any sea zone that touches a Japanese-controlled territory (in the event of an unprovoked declaration by Anzac/UK for example.

Thank you. Is there an exception for SZs 21,22,32,36? These sea zones are adjacent to both American & Japanese territories. I doubt any of those would be of interest to a US player, except perhaps 32: Wake Island, Marshall Islands.

@Stucifer said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

[…] The PTV rule is the same as the G40 rule, so the US fleet must vacate any sea zone that touches a Japanese-controlled territory (in the event of an unprovoked declaration by Anzac/UK for example.

Thank you. Is there an exception for SZs 21,22,32,36? These sea zones are adjacent to both American & Japanese territories. I doubt any of those would be of interest to a US player, except perhaps 32: Wake Island, Marshall Islands.

No exceptions. Also means US ships need to leave Philippines on US1.

@mikawagunichi
@Stucifer @max334 @gamerman01 @Adam514

I had a rough read here and remembered that
@Krieghund said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@pacifiersboard

No, it applies to all Japanese-controlled territories. However, New Zealand was not Japanese-controlled when the destroyer ended its movement there. It can remain there indefinitely, but if it moves away it may not return.

So to sum it up in my words it is about ending a movement not about ending a movement phase.

@Adam514 ty, good to know

@max334 Um. I think @Adam514 got it wrong. According to quote “New Zealand was not Japanese-controlled when the destroyer ended its movement there. It can remain there indefinitely, but if it moves away it may not return.”

Thus, the US navy in the Philippines in a PTV does NOT have to leave SZ36 on US1. Now, usually they would want to move and would not be able to come back until the war started, but the G40 rule which applies to PTV states they can remain in a SZ even if surrounding territory becomes Japanese.

To be honest, before I read this I was of the “majority” opinion that the US would need to move.

@surfer said in League General Discussion Thread:

@max334 Um. I think @Adam514 got it wrong. According to quote “New Zealand was not Japanese-controlled when the destroyer ended its movement there. It can remain there indefinitely, but if it moves away it may not return.”

Thus, the US navy in the Philippines in a PTV does NOT have to leave SZ36 on US1. Now, usually they would want to move and would not be able to come back until the war started, but the G40 rule which applies to PTV states they can remain in a SZ even if surrounding territory becomes Japanese.

To be honest, before I read this I was of the “majority” opinion that the US would need to move.

Correct. If I were writing the rule from scratch I would require ships to move out of sz touching Japanese territories, but it’s a minor detail.

Do Allied units in Mongolia or other Russia-controlled but not originally Russian territories negate the National Objective for Great Patriotic War?( The +3 one in PtV)
I know the game engine stops it but I believe that is due to the script trigger changing them to Russia and think this might be a (PE) exception item but don’t have my laptop handy

I believe it is the same for Balanced mod worded thus:

3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.

So I believe they would not count against. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks 🤓

@Stucifer said in League General Discussion Thread:

Do Allied units in Mongolia or other Russia-controlled but not originally Russian territories negate the National Objective for Great Patriotic War?( The +3 one in PtV)
I know the game engine stops it but I believe that is due to the script trigger changing them to Russia and think this might be a (PE) exception item but don’t have my laptop handy

That NO should only check original Russian territories, so units in Mongolian territories should not affect it, same as BM.

@Adam514 thanks! It did count a U.S. bomber in Olgiy in a current PTV game, if I removed that bomber with edit it triggered the NO. as a heads up.

@Stucifer Good question. Wish i had an answer for you but that’s a little above my pay grade

Hey everyone,
does anybody else encountered an issue with triple not applying the Siberian NO correctly?
As I playing Japan in PtV and have a DD in sz 5, the NO still goes to Russia several Rounds?

@aequitas-et-veritas To cancel Siberian lend-lease NO, there must be an “enemy warship”. So Japan must be at war with Russia for it to cancel.

@Stucifer

2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Amur is Russian-controlled, and sz5 has no enemy warships (“Pacific Route”)
--------------------

So am i got it wrong then?

@aequitas-et-veritas There’s two conditions and both must be true.
1- Russia is at war with European Axis, then
2- SZ5 has no enemy warships.

The first is true in your game, but likely the second is not. For if Japan & USSR are not at war, Japanese warships are not enemy warships. Thus only a German or Italian warship would cancel the NO. You can declare war as Japan and your DD will cancel (you can test this by opening as a Local Game and editing the Politics)