In your faqs, you say that friendly powers who are not at war cannot move their pieces to each others territories (except UK and Anzac). However, it clearly states in the rule book on page 19 that during non combat movement you may move your pieces to ANY friendly territory…Friendly is defined on pg 8 as “controlled by you or a friendly power”. There should be no reason why the US forces on the Phillipines should not be able to move to Australia or even Burma during their turn 1 non-combat. The UK and the US were freindly to each other at this period in history were they not? :roll:
In your faqs, you say that friendly powers who are not at war cannot move their pieces to each others territories (except UK and Anzac). However, it clearly states in the rule book on page 19 that during non combat movement you may move your pieces to ANY friendly territory…Friendly is defined on pg 8 as “controlled by you or a friendly power”. There should be no reason why the US forces on the Phillipines should not be able to move to Australia or even Burma during their turn 1 non-combat. The UK and the US were freindly to each other at this period in history were they not? :roll:
The US and UK were “Friendly” in terms of reality but not in terms of the game. Until drawn into war, why would allied nations reinforce each other’s positions? The US wouldn’t send troops to Australia out of the goodness of their hearts. The US was neutral at the outset of the European theater and was not particularly interested in getting involved in any conflict after WWI. Simply put, even with their strained relations with Japan pre Pearl, they probably weren’t exactly dumping any substantial troops at their allies bases without good reason. And they didn’t want to go to war. So, no, it makes perfect sense that the US is not going to send its airforce to Australia, ESPECIALLY if anzac tries something with Japan (remember, the US didn’t WANT to go to war and wasn’t going to support some aggressor nation).
Powers are neutral until declared at war, and only then are there “friendly” nations.
However, Anzac and UK would have given US forces “safe harbor” if we had decided to retreat from an area we suspected the Japanese may hit at any time with overwhelming forces, would they not have?
However, Anzac and UK would have given US forces “safe harbor” if we had decided to retreat from an area we suspected the Japanese may hit at any time with overwhelming forces, would they not have?
The US didn’t exactly expect Japan to stomp Pearl, so why would they abandon the Philippines before they were at war? As the US, you’re sort of supposed to expect NOT to go to war. Unfortunately, by setting the game in 1940, the element of surprise is shot (of course the US is going to war), so the idea of forcing the allied players to stick to their own territories is the best you can do. It puts the allies at a disadvantage, which is what they’re supposed to have. Why would they be consolidating their forces together if they didn’t expect Japan to attack? The neutral rule is the only way to provide the japanese with an attack against the allies that doesn’t have a coordinated defense. As it is supposed to be.
As with all A&A games, the war as the allies is supposed to be HARD, depending on economy and smart purchases to get them better positioned. The axis started out fast and geared for it and it was always an uphill battle for the allies to push them back because it simply wasn’t anticipated, expected, or desired (to go to war).
In your faqs, you say that friendly powers who are not at war cannot move their pieces to each others territories (except UK and Anzac). However, it clearly states in the rule book on page 19 that during non combat movement you may move your pieces to ANY friendly territory…Friendly is defined on pg 8 as “controlled by you or a friendly power”.
The restrictions on a power that is not at war override the normal rules of movement.
I believe LH himself has stated Axis and Allies is supposed to be a game of “what ifs”, and not just follow the historical moves. I would also argue that the US did infact expect to be attacked, the only question was where and when….both answered at Pearl Harbor.It could have just as easily been PI and we could have had intel about when, so we could have evacuated…all these coulds are what I (and apparently LH) believe this games all about.We were “freindly” with the UK not “neutral” otherwise the US should not be forced into war with Japan if Japan attacks the UK/Anzac. I’m just saying , stick to the rulebook wherever possible and stop mucking it all up with minute additions or “oh yeah…” rule adjustments.
I can assure you that Larry Harris has approved everything in the FAQ. I can also assure you that any “adjustments” being made were intended to be in the rules and are necessary for proper game play, otherwise we’d just let them go.
