@Private:
Keep counting AB. There is no maximum. :-)
Thank you.
Naval base question
-
This question is for the case when the US is still neutral.
Does a US ship stationed at a ANZAC or UK naval base get the benefits of the naval yard (such as movement bonus). Naval bases offer the benefits to any friendly power but I am a little confused on exactly what friendly means in regards to the US while they are neutral.
My guess is yes but I am not quite sure.
If you have an answer I would prefer if you can back it up rather than just opinions (though if Krieghund answers than thats good enough for me)
Thanks
-
I would say no, with the same “allied” rules applying here that prevent the UK from reinforcing China before they are technically at war. Just like the US can’t place units in ANZAC or UK territory until they are in the war, I believe they also would not be able to use their bases until they are true allies.
-
Is it true that US can not place in UK or ANZAC Terr. until they declare war ?
What if UK declares war on Japan?
-
Is it true that US can not place in UK or ANZAC Terr. until they declare war ?
What if UK declares war on Japan?
All that is true even if the UK and anzac is at war with Japan. That is all in the faq.
-
I would say no, with the same “allied” rules applying here that prevent the UK from reinforcing China before they are technically at war. Just like the US can’t place units in ANZAC or UK territory until they are in the war, I believe they also would not be able to use their bases until they are true allies.
Yeah the “allied” rules are what make me a little unsure but thats why I think clarification is needed. The rulebook says friendly powers get the beneft. Even in the errata US and UK/Anzac are referred to as friendly powers but they cant move units into territories. So the fact that even though they are still neutral they are referred to as friendly with UK and ANZAC and thus it seems like they should get the benefits of the naval base.
-
Yeah the “allied” rules are what make me a little unsure but thats why I think clarification is needed. The rulebook says friendly powers get the beneft. Even in the errata US and UK/Anzac are referred to as friendly powers but they cant move units into territories.
Any power not at war is neutral, not friendly. US and UK/ANZAC are referred to only as friendly as they inevitably WILL be the “Allies”, while Germany/Japan are friendly powers as they inevitably will be the “Axis”. But if a power isn’t at war, they are not yet aligned, and are as such “neutral”. And Neutral powers don’t enjoy the benefits of friendly powers, and cannot use someone elses air strips, naval bases, or enter another powers territory. They can share a sea zone, but don’t necessarily defend with another power. If the UK attacks Japan, Japan can attack a seazone containing both US and UK ships and choose only to attack the UK naval forces without causing US naval forces to join or declare war.
-
Any power not at war is neutral, not friendly.
It doesnt say that anywhere in the rules or the errata.
Nor does it say this anywhere.
US and UK/ANZAC are referred to only as friendly as they inevitably WILL be the “Allies”, while Germany/Japan are friendly powers as they inevitably will be the “Axis”. But if a power isn’t at war, they are not yet aligned, and are as such “neutral”
Here are some things that it does say.
The powers that begin the game neutral, the United States, the United Kingdom and ANZAC, are initially not considered to be fully part of the Allies. While Japan is considered to be on the opposite side from these neutral powers, they are not considered to be enemies. While they remain neutral, these powers have some special conditions and restrictions on what they can and cannot do.
It says the US, UK, and ANZAC are neutral, and not FULLY part of the allies. Then it says that Japan is considered on the opposite side of these power inferring that the US, UK, and ANZAC are somewhat aligned even if they arent fully part of the allies. It doesnt say all of these powers (US, UK, ANZAC, and Japan) are all neutral and on opposite sides even though they arent enemies.
Powers that are not at war may not move units into a friendly power’s territories or onto its ships, nor may friendly powers move units into its territories or onto its ships.
If there is no such thing as a friendly power while a country is still neutral then there is no reason to specify friendly power in the above statement. Simply saying Neutral powers cant move units into other territories or ships and vice versa. Instead it says friendly powers indicating that such a thing does exist even to a neutral power.
Now, you might be right and the US cant use the naval base (I am not sure which is why I asked the question); however, nothing in the rules or errata says that it cant and statements similar to the ones I posted above suggest that they can. If somebody sees something I don’t then please let me know. Right now everything in the rules seems to suggest that the US and UK/ANZAC are friendly and thus can enjoy the benefits of naval bases.
-
I would like the rules to allow Allies to receive the early Naval Base benifit. However, I don’t think the rules allow it. My best argument against the logic of “neutral” powers using a naval base is, could the US player use a Japanese base before US3 collect income phase? I don’t think anyone would imagine this so it appears to me we can’t use air bases and navy bases until the powers are at war on the same side.
But I can’t point to a rule that says it straight up.
-
Any power not at war is neutral, not friendly.
It doesnt say that anywhere in the rules or the errata.
Nor does it say this anywhere.
US and UK/ANZAC are referred to only as friendly as they inevitably WILL be the “Allies”, while Germany/Japan are friendly powers as they inevitably will be the “Axis”. But if a power isn’t at war, they are not yet aligned, and are as such “neutral”
To-may-to, To-mah-to. I was just trying to help a rule discussion with black and white terms (not the somewhat muddy definitions with exceptions the game has now that it has incorporated neutrality). I’m trying to explain that you’re either at war or you’re not. How would you be neutral and friendly at the same time? Neutrality denotes absense of sides, and while the US is/will be on the Allies, and Japan is/will be part of the Axis they are permitted to share seazones and denied the ability to share territory because of this neutrality.
The errata defines Japan on the opposite side because we know they’re going to be on the opposite sides. Imagine if that weren’t defined and people were asking if the UK could attack the US. However, the Allies start the game neutral. Only UK and Anzac can freely move into each others spaces, hence I would describe that as “friendly” to each other (and not neutral to each other). I also always refer to them as UK/ANZAC because they’re almost considered a single power and probably will be in the global game. They’re also the only powers that can provoke Japan.
The US will become part of the Allies. It can never be part of the Axis (this is why the rules say it’s not FULLY part of the Allies) but is still Neutral at the start of the game.
A neutral power cannot move into a (future) friendly territory and as long as they are neutral, and the US can never actively declare war (or US3). They cannot land planes on a future friendly carrier.
When sharing a seazone they are effectively hundreds of miles apart, not in a convoy (thus you can attack one fleet but not another).
Modus Ponens (nearly): they are not sharing a port. As you say, there’s nothing actually saying they can’t. However, there’s nothing that implies they could, as the established neutrality rules specify that you can’t do anything else either and again, if P = Q and we have P, we have Q.I’d be shocked if Naval bases were shared. In the US mindset of the 30’s if Britain started some stuff with Japan unprovoked and headed to Pearl with Japan steaming down on them… well, good luck Brits. better high tail it for Canada.
-
My best argument against the logic of “neutral” powers using a naval base is, could the US player use a Japanese base before US3 collect income phase?
Agreed that there is no way neutral powers could use each other’s naval bases. While neutral powers certainly can’t use them the rules say that friendly powers can. So the question is what is a friendly power.
Nothing that I can see explicitly answers this question.
Statements such as
The powers that begin the game neutral, the United States, the United Kingdom and ANZAC, are initially not considered to be fully part of the Allies.
seem to indicate that while they arent FULLY part of the allies they are in part allies and could potentially be considered friendly as opposed to a power like Japan which the errata says is on the opposite side of these partially allied powers even though they aren’t exactly enemies.
Certainly, everything kcdzim is saying could be true.
However, there’s nothing that implies they could
I disagree as I said before but it doesnt really matter.
But right now there is no clear answer to the question and that is what I am looking for. Most likely the only person who can give a clear answer is Krieghund.
-
I suppose this would be the same question for air base’s, and un answered answer….yet!
-
well airbases are different because you cant land planes in other territories while you are “neutral” US cant land planes at a UK/ANZAC airbase so that one is clear. Naval bases are a little different though as you can be in the neighboring sea zone even if you are neutral.
-
You cannot use an ally’s naval base to extend your ships’ movement if you aren’t both at war.
-
Thanks.
Suggested Topics
