|
Emperor Mollari
|
 |
« Reply #810 on: January 01, 2011, 12:15:55 pm » |
0
|
Which territory is the Capital for Italy. N. Italy has a Major IC but it looks like Rome would actually be in S. Italy which only has a Minor IC.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
calvinhobbesliker
|
|
« Reply #811 on: January 01, 2011, 12:23:37 pm » |
0
|
Which territory is the Capital for Italy. N. Italy has a Major IC but it looks like Rome would actually be in S. Italy which only has a Minor IC.
South Italy contains Rome. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MEGAEINSTEIN
A&A.org Artillery
Posts: 202
|
|
« Reply #812 on: January 01, 2011, 05:02:56 pm » |
0
|
Can you give me a link to the most recent text of alpha plus setupand rules updates?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gamerman01
|
|
« Reply #814 on: January 01, 2011, 05:44:40 pm » |
0
|
Question about surface warships starting in hostile sea zones (See top right of page 13 of rulebook).
There is the exception, that you can load units in a hostile sea zone only if you just declared war on that power in that turn - you can still load ground units.
Our question is, can you load units in that zone and go conduct amphibious assault with them elsewhere, and also attack the enemy surface ship(s) in that loading zone all in the same combat move phase?
I'm attacking an American destroyer in Z6 with aircraft and warships, while also loading ground units from Japan for battles elsewhere and my opponent's understanding of the page 13 rules is that you can't do both.
I thought the purpose of the rule was to point out that you can't just stay in the zone without conducting any combat (ignore it), and that you can't load ground units from that zone (there is the exception for when you just declared war that turn, though).
Who's right?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Krieghund
|
|
« Reply #815 on: January 01, 2011, 08:30:15 pm » |
0
|
It is allowed. The purpose of the rule is to keep a power from blocking the loading of transports by moving ships into the sea zones with them before they are at war.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jeffdestroyer
|
|
« Reply #816 on: January 01, 2011, 10:43:46 pm » |
0
|
Krieg.
scenario:
US moves into sz 6 on its non combat move during its turn 3, and it declares war at the end of mobilize units.
I believe this would prevent Japan from loading units on a TR in sz6 the following turn since Japan is already at war from the previous turn.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
calvinhobbesliker
|
|
« Reply #817 on: January 02, 2011, 06:43:26 am » |
0
|
^
That is the exact reason that some people want the US DOW to be moved.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Krieghund
|
|
« Reply #818 on: January 02, 2011, 07:01:32 am » |
0
|
Krieg.
scenario:
US moves into sz 6 on its non combat move during its turn 3, and it declares war at the end of mobilize units.
I believe this would prevent Japan from loading units on a TR in sz6 the following turn since Japan is already at war from the previous turn.
I guess that's an incentive for Japan to not wait until turn 4 to declare war on the US. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gamerman01
|
|
« Reply #819 on: January 02, 2011, 10:25:51 am » |
0
|
^
That is the exact reason that some people want the US DOW to be moved.
Interesting. I also think there should be a rule change. USA should not be able to noncom next to the Asian coastline, just as it can't non-com to African or European. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
leddux
A&A.org Mechanized Infantry
Posts: 69
|
|
« Reply #820 on: January 02, 2011, 10:31:17 am » |
0
|
maybe we should also allow the chinese to liberate ALL of the territories included for the burma road bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
calvinhobbesliker
|
|
« Reply #821 on: January 02, 2011, 10:32:24 am » |
0
|
^
That is the exact reason that some people want the US DOW to be moved.
Interesting. I also think there should be a rule change. USA should not be able to noncom next to the Asian coastline, just as it can't non-com to African or European. Define "Asia." Does that include the DEI? The Philippines? Japan? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
calvinhobbesliker
|
|
« Reply #822 on: January 02, 2011, 10:32:51 am » |
0
|
maybe we should also allow the chinese to liberate ALL of the territories included for the burma road bonus.
So you want china to be able to liberate India? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
leddux
A&A.org Mechanized Infantry
Posts: 69
|
|
« Reply #823 on: January 02, 2011, 10:35:06 am » |
0
|
maybe we should also allow the chinese to liberate ALL of the territories included for the burma road bonus.
So you want china to be able to liberate India? Shouldn't every country have the chance to win its own NO? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gamerman01
|
|
« Reply #824 on: January 02, 2011, 11:11:04 am » |
0
|
Shouldn't every country have the chance to win its own NO?
No. If India's under Axis control, I don't think China should have the opportunity to buy artillery (or get the bonus) - the idea of the Burma road NO is the relationship with the more advanced UK, no? No India, no bonus. Also, China is a special case - throughout all of history they've never been too interested in affairs outside their borders (or not far beyond their borders - Korea, Burma may be exceptions). Seems awfully unbelievable to me that Chinese forces could enter India in WWII. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
[Amazon]
[Amazon]
[Amazon]
[Amazon]
