kcdzim, all neutrals being hostel to Russia is very interesting, and probably more realistic (don't think it will be adopted though). Russia being a hostel ally (not allowing units to mix w/western allies) is also historic and would give the game a good twist. The boards have shown some support for something like this in the past and would be a cool house rule. If the allies end up having an advantage in E40, or G40, adopting a hostel Russia could swing things back to center. Of course you could work in a lend lease program w/western powers and mobile industry so Russia could continue to build if Moscow falls.

No.  By the rules, you must declare war on a power before attacking its territories.  There's no exception made if the power doesn't control its capital.  As I said, we'll need a more elegant solution.

If it makes you more comfortable, just say that Japan gets the NO if it's not at war with US or UK/ANZAC and it has not invaded any French territories.

I still don't see the logic here. After Paris fell (June 1940), Japan occupied FIC (Sept 1940) and it fits in the time line. Once you loose your capital your tt should be up for grabs. Hell even UK attacked the French during this time, so why not Japan. I don't see any reason why Japan should be penalized for invading FIC. It was a historical action Japan took to cut off aid to China, a power it's is at war with. I know the game doesn't include any Vichy type rules, but FIC should be fair game for Japan (along with any other French tt Japan can reach). In global Japan needs something to conquer while it is stalling its full blown attack. It needs to be able to increase its income other then just China (as its enemies will be doing so in the region). I don't see why you would be considering a ��� NO (bribe), to stall its attacks on the UK/US tt, only to handicap it.

With this thinking before we know it a ��� invasion of FIC will bring the US into the war early (which it obviously should not do), so why would it take away its proposed NO involving war with UK/US.

They should at least be able to attack neutrals, like they did historically(Baltic States, Bessarabia, Poland)

Again, we're talking about G40 here.  Those regions are not Neutral in the OOB setup I see.  Russia starts with E Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltics.   No need for them to attack any of those on R1, they took them on R-Zero.

Yeah, those tt are not neutral to start. OOB shows Russia's aggression, and they are "RED". However, I think that Russia (as an aggressive nation) should be given the right to invade any of the remaining neutrals that it can get to w/o a DOW w/Japan. War w/Japan really has nothing to do with what Russia does in Europe/Middle East. Invading neutrals should just be part of Russia's political situation rules IMO (expand the Empire). If this clause is changed (DOW w/��� allows Russia to invade neutrals before its at war w/Euro axis) you would have a better chance of putting a NAP together too (would only concern ���/Russian relations). Russia did invade NW Persia (as UK took control of the rest). Stalin wanted access to the just finished rail lines (Soviet interests-trade routes, protect its Caucasus oil etc), plus Stalin didn't want UK that close to its boarders either (trust issues). As far as Russia going further in the middle east, that's up to the allies to sort out (I think that's why Larry made Persia 3 tt's). Russia can't get to Bulg, Yogo, or Greece (blocked by Romania). Furthermore if the German player makes a blunder, and forgets to invade Finland, the Russian player should be able to take advantage.

Just for the record I think that Russia should stay out of all UK tt until officially at war w/Euro axis (and vise versa).

Than Japan can only get that NO once since France will declare war on it F1.

Good point.  For purposes of this exercise, let's just say that a power must control its capital in order to declare war.  France should be in no position to do so if Germany does its job.  If this ends up being the way we want to go, we can come up with a more elegant solution.

Wouldn't this be a two way street?
Would it be safe to say that once France looses its capital (G1), that ��� could take FIC J1 w/o loosing its 10 ipc NO? ��� has nowhere to send its DOW to. Paris is in axis hands, and the French government is in chaos.

Krieg, for clarification when Russia is not yet at war w/Euro axis, but is at war w/Japan (I know it is subject to change in the future, and I hope it does). Theoretically Russia can get a ftr/tac on a UK carrier on R2. UK could move the carrier it has w/in range or build one. If Germany or Italy attack the UK carrier w/Russian air unit on it do we follow the at sea or on land rules.

1) treat it as a naval unit and ignore the Russian air unit allowing it one movement point to get to safety in noncombat (No DOW).
2) treat it like cargo and it is trapped on a damaged carrier, or goes down if carrier is sunk (No DOW).
3) treat it as hostel like an at war friendly ftr on carrier (or a ftr on a land tt) allowing it to def in the air (needing an axis DOW), and after words the ftr follows normal rules if it survives.

This may be part of the problem with perception that there is a UK E & UK P. You can't swap out UK P (India) units for Anz and play out of book. It would make the UK look like two different powers (your basically giving India to Anz) and be nearly impossible to tell which units are UK and which are Anz.

Not really as they are all part of the single UK power, just income and unit creation are seperate, the confusion was the OP wording and KH reply, which he has now clarified, which implied they were seperate beyond that.

Ok well at least things are straight now.

Just out of curiosity if you are playing OOB rules, but replacing all the UK units on the Pac side, along with any units produced in India w/Anz (just for tracking their progress I guess), don't you have a hard time figuring out what units are Anz and what units are UK later as time goes on. Plus there is even an Anz inf that starts in Egypt and Malaya. The UK and Anz turn order is back to back, but not at the same time. Just seem like things might get mixed up, unless you use a third color, or a marker/paint to depict the difference.

I think that Krieghund did a nice job of clearing things up.

I already use the Anzac Indian pices as seperate colored CW units, but for visual rather than game reasons, if however Pacific UK creatred units cannot take control of regions in Europe, that may be the only answer to adopt.

This may be part of the problem with perception that there is a UK E & UK P. You can't swap out UK P (India) units for Anz and play out of book. It would make the UK look like two different powers (your basically giving India to Anz) and be nearly impossible to tell which units are UK and which are Anz.

The UK E & UK P units can cross maps, they can join forces and liberate tt anywhere on the board. What is different is that if UK E capital (London) is in enemy hands it collects no income for the Euro side (and vise versa).

quote from above:
"your explanation of the rule is counter intuitive and lacks logic, as it denys the same power to do what all other same powers can do"

Actually it follows the same rules that all AA games have regarding capitals. If Russia (or any power) looses its capital, any tt that Russian units liberate of its own, or tt that were originally controlled by the other side would be lost income until Moscow is also liberated. You are confusing the fact that UK E & UK P are the same power (use the same units on the same turn), but has two economies, its not two separate powers (like UK/Anz).

You may have an argument that the capture capitals rule is altogether flawed (and many would agree), but in this case the game mechanism works like it always has.

2 - UK Pacific can't take control of UK Europe's territories under any circumstances.  They are separate economies under the same power.

Same power?, that means it can liberate its ocupied regions in Eurpe or pacific by use of other theatres units, ie gain control, but not gain/genertae income unless or untill the capaital is also held, your explantion of the rule is counter intuitive and lacks logic, as it denys the same power to do what all other same powers can do, and just because they are seperate economies has nothing to do with the question of whome may take control of a region.

 When the OP wrote its a  mess, he refers to Europe UK regions being Axis controlled, and libertaed by Pacific Uk same power unit, yet the control and thus income stays with axis, which is indeed a mess brought about by a misaplication of the rules as set out.

In this case the income and control would not still be axis, it would simply be lost. UK as a whole would have control of the tt, but not get paid until London is also liberated. What you do in this case is have Anz, US or Russia liberate UK Euro tt so the income stays w/allies.

quote from above:
"your explanation of the rule is counter intuitive and lacks logic, as it denys the same power to do what all other same powers can do"

Actually it follows the same rules that all AA games have regarding capitals. If Russia (or any power) looses its capital, any tt that Russian units liberate of its own, or tt that were originally controlled by the other side would be lost income until Moscow is also liberated. You are confusing the fact that UK E & UK P are the same power (use the same units on the same turn), but has two incomes, its not two separate powers (like UK/Anz).

You may have an argument that the capture capitals rule is altogether flawed (and many would agree), but in this case the game mechanism works like it always has.

I know its a little hokey but that's the way it is. If you don't like it that way make a house rule, or exchange all the UK Pac units for Anz units making them separate powers. You could call them the Pac Commonwealth.

Ok just a simple question, if the british player take denmanrk...  after the US player  can pass trought the denmark channel???

i think the reply is yes...

That's why the axis should keep some Italians close by. Italian tanks can make it to Denmark from France or Northern Italy. Might even be worth it to keep a couple Italian inf in W Germany. This Denmark move gets a lot of play, be ready for it.

Regarding US IC in Persia:

I think it could be a good strat for the allies, but it could backfire and be another target of opportunity for Japan. They could bypass India, and have an IC just one move away from Caucasus (with tanks/mech). Normally Japan has a pretty sizable invasion force in the Indian Ocean. It could work, depending on what Japan is doing, and how fast you can get allied reinforcements there once the US takes the tt. I would make sure that Russia or UK could move in to protect the new US base until it could stand on its own.

The Field Of Dreams quote seems very fitting: "Build it and they will come".

Dooming moscow is not a gamebreaker in this edition
It opens the possibility of getting france back in the game, if the Allies can push past normandy

At 17 if it controls all but FIC, it is a power that is near Russia's IPC stockpile when it fell.

This is interesting, trade Russia for France (at some point). The axis strengthen would be way out of range unless most of it was lost in the battle for Moscow (make them pay). The US swoops in to destroy Italy and you now have 3 allies all in western Europe (knocking at Germany's front door), instead of two coming from the west, and Russia in the east. If Italy does fall the 3 allied powers will have back to back turns (ooch).

My understanding is that ��� & France are not yet at war at start of game, but there is nothing stopping them from doing so (war between ���/France has no effect on other powers). You (���) would have to declare war on France (beginning of your combat phase) to take FIC  (not sure if you did or not), if you did then France is automatically at war w/you (and can/will block movement like any power your at war with). If you (���) didn't start the war w/France, then France would have the option to declare war on ��� in its own combat phase on its turn in order to block you (on your turn). If neither of you have declared war yet then you can chose to ingnore the French dd when your turn rolls around.

I agree with the others, and take out as much of the Royal Navy as possible w/subs & air G1. This is the only time those BB's will be exposed. Your right though it will make the battle for Paris go an extra round (or so) which is costly for German ground troops. You'll probably loose a couple planes too in the sea battles, but its been worth it IMO. The thing is if you destroy those BB's, you can keep the Brits stuck on their island longer and force them to rebuild (money they aren't spending in Africa). You also have a chance of knocking out the Americans if they come over light (went heavy Pacific) w/o the backing of those English BB's & cruisers. I have also seen one of the BB's survive, and it becomes the back bone for the combined allies amphibs on the continent. Your 100% right their going to come just don't make it easier for them though. If nothing else destroying the RN will delay the inevitable landings. Its been my experience that the longer you can delay the allies the better, and any time you can trade expensive allied war ships for cheap subs you do it.

I have to say though that I was surprised that the France tt didn't have an AA gun (I think France has AA gun in one of the AA50 set-ups, but of coarse it starts out German). Maybe this was done intentionally to encourage the use of air units in the Battle for Paris sparing some of the RN. I know I would think twice about using air units in the land battle if there was an AA gun def, then the RN would become even a more juicier target.

I don't think I like the UK Egyptian IC, to many mouths to feed for UK. I could see doing it though if Germany poses no real threat to England itself, and most of the Italian navy is gone (it is rare now a days that Germany doesn't at least threaten some kind of amphib). That's what is so cool about this game, you can try different things. Some will work, and some won't. I don't like to get locked into the same strats every time.

The others are right though, if UK builds additional IC's it could defiantly backfire. UK only has so much money, and if you cut off the head, all those minors are useless (until US gets involved).