A few questions/issues relating to first Global game

[BadSpeller]

The attack has privileges open to him that the defender does not have. But the attack may not retreat to all different territories. He must retreat to the same space.

Things have changed over the years.  It used to be in an amphibious assault, there was no retreat option for any units (including aircraft).  That led to longer boring stack fest games.
Rules were changed, thankfully.

[Holden]

Tip in regards to Russia, you can declare your self at war w/Japan R1 in the global game if you want to (w/o actually making an attack). This will allow you to gobble up pro axis or pro allied neutrals. Declaring war against Japan (or vise verse) has no negative effects, because they can go to war at any time anyway, and it doesn't cause a domino effect with other powers.

I can't find anything in the rules that actually allows Russia to declare war on Japan. What am I missing?

[Tralis]

Can, for example, the US spend money to build an airbase on a British space?
What about the two British incomes? Can one build a facility and place it on the other board?

[Noll]

Question:

if Japan is under attack from sea zone 6 and I don't have a fleet, can I scramble a single fighter to prevent bombardment?

[13thguardsriflediv]

Is it legal to use units from Southern Germany and one from Romania to 'fake attack' Yugoslavia for one round, disengage and move the stack to Romania?

Yes.  This is known as a "strafing attack".

I'm surprised this is a rule.  It boils down to Infantry get to move more than 1 space a turn on land.  Not for me.

If Yugoslavia's neutrals got 3-4 hits it would have been very expensive.

There is always a risk involved.

[Krieghund]

I can't find anything in the rules that actually allows Russia to declare war on Japan. What am I missing?

It's implied by the fact that they are on opposite sides and that the terms of their relations are defined by the players.

Can, for example, the US spend money to build an airbase on a British space?
What about the two British incomes? Can one build a facility and place it on the other board?

No.

if Japan is under attack from sea zone 6 and I don't have a fleet, can I scramble a single fighter to prevent bombardment?

Yes.

[WILD BILL]

I can't find anything in the rules that actually allows Russia to declare war on Japan. What am I missing?

It's implied by the fact that they are on opposite sides and that the terms of their relations are defined by the players.

It seems to me that Russia holds all the cards here.
a) They can move their 18 inf out of harms way R1 (before Japs turn).
b) Russia wants to be at war w/someone early (maybe w/o conflict) to take some of the pro neutrals (gets boring waiting for Germany).
c) Being at war w/someone is also part of their 5ipc NO.
d) Japan has many other problems on the table that are more pressing to be a real threat to the Siberian front early on.
e) If ��� backs off on Manchuria, Russia could be a problem (especially if US is anywhere near).

Russia has a lot of advantages to being at war early (at least a phony war).

Its really in Japans best interest to not be at war w/Russia, so it can make other attacks, and not have to worry about the Soviets (kinda like Pac40).

So why would the Russia player agree to anything w/��� player. As I said the Russia player holds all the cards IMO, as long as you don't do something stupid and loose those 18 Siberia inf. I would keep the ��� player guessing. The only way I would agree on cutting a deal is to give the Japs a false sense of security, then when their not paying attention pound them, but by that time you will have lost a chance at the 5ipc at war bonus, and not be getting to those neutrals.  


  

[hewhoisnickel]

It seems to me that Russia holds all the cards here.
a) They can move their 18 inf out of harms way R1 (before Japs turn).
b) Russia wants to be at war w/someone early (maybe w/o conflict) to take some of the pro neutrals (gets boring waiting for Germany).
c) Being at war w/someone is also part of their 5ipc NO.
d) Japan has many other problems on the table that are more pressing to be a real threat to the Siberian front early on.
e) If ��� backs off on Manchuria, Russia could be a problem (especially if US is anywhere near).

Russia has a lot of advantages to being at war early (at least a phony war).

Its really in Japans best interest to not be at war w/Russia, so it can make other attacks, and not have to worry about the Soviets (kinda like Pac40).

So why would the Russia player agree to anything w/��� player. As I said the Russia player holds all the cards IMO, as long as you don't do something stupid and loose those 18 Siberia inf. I would keep the ��� player guessing. The only way I would agree on cutting a deal is to give the Japs a false sense of security, then when their not paying attention pound them, but by that time you will have lost a chance at the 5ipc at war bonus, and not be getting to those neutrals. 


 

If I was Russia I'd declare war on Japan, move all my infantry to Sakha and only move them out should Amur or Siberia be taken, or if Manchuria or Korea are left particularly weak. Since there are absolutely NO repercussions for being at war with Japan, I don't see why Russia wouldn't declare war. You don't have to actually attack Japan to be at war with them.

[sala33]

The difs between G40 and P40 with the relationship with how the US enters the war is that, there is no ( as I think i read it as ) rule that by the 4th round the US is in the war ( due to ��� attacking US on Pearl Harbour ). Reading the US political rules, it says that it may enter the war after the 3rd round. Would it be true that America could decide to enter the war whenever it likes, round 8/9 for example..( if of course no forced conflicted from any Axis player )...?

The E40 rules ( dif from G40 ) does mention Pearl Harbour to awaken US conflict.


Sala  

[Krieghund]

Sure, the US can wait if it wants to, but why would it?

[sala33]

Krieghund, thanks for the answer.... I have continued my questions on the US and been answered in this topic...

AAG40 FAQ

[SgtBlitz]

I agree, free moves will allow players to cover ground at a rate that otherwise would not be acceptable. I know it isnt free moving, but I still dislike the idea if i get as I believe it works. I say nay nay.

Bah!  I'm sure Manstein's counterattack to rescue Von Paulus's army trapped at Stalingrad was something to this effect.  (Except for the fact that Hitler was crazy and wouldn't let Von Paulus's army attack in a retreating fashion, which was suicidal.)

Plus it only really works in a few situations, and at Turn 1 for Germany, you're only saving like 1-2 spaces where they'll move the inf over that way later on anyway.

[Raeder]

Can, for example, the US spend money to build an airbase on a British space?
What about the two British incomes? Can one build a facility and place it on the other board?

Why doesn't people just read the rules? It's all in there. Maybe you don't have the game?

UK (Europe) collects IPC on the Europe board, and spends them only there. UK (Pacific) collects IPC on the Pacific board and spends them only there.

[Raeder]

Von Paulus's

Actually it's just Friedrich Paulus, not Von Paulus.

[13thguardsriflediv]

May adjacent 'pro allied neutrals' be blitzed and taken over in one go? In other words could the Soviets move a tank to Caucasus and from there take both 'Iran' territories in one move?