Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

[aequitas-et-veritas]

If neither of the above takes place, Mongolia continues on as a strict neutral, but

Will NOT go pro-Axis if the Allies break neutrality elsewhere
a) Mongolia ONLY goes pro-Axis if Russia directly attacks Mongolia. This would break neutrality around the world (all strict neutrals go pro-the other side).
i) Any OTHER Ally can attack Mongolia directly and this will break neutrality around the world, but the rest of Mongolia will stay neutral
b) Mongolia WILL go pro-Allied if the Axis break strict neutrality anywhere, including Mongolia

So triple a is treating it correctly since Mongolia turns into STRICT Neutral after Allies broke neutrality parties elswhere.

HTH

[Krieghund]

@Tizkit said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Concerning the Mongolian situation after an allied invasion of other strict neutrals, I find the rules a little unclear.

As Mongolia only becomes pro-Axis when attacked by the Soviet Union, in the case where another Strict Neutral is attacked by another Allied power, Mongolia remains a Strict Neutral. This means that an attack on a Strict Neutral other than Mongolia by an Allied power other than the Soviet Union has no effect whatsoever on the relationship between Mongolia, the Soviet Union, and Japan. As a result, the answers to your questions under those circumstances are the same as they would be if no Strict Neutrals had been attacked at all.

I noticed in TripleA that after the allied neutral crush, Japan can no longer declare war on the strict neutrals, hence it can’t attack Mongolia. I’m assuming this is just a TripleA bug and attacking Mongolia is allowed. It looks like you can get around it using edit mode to change the political relationship.

This sounds like a bug to me. By the way, you don’t actually declare war on neutrals - you simply attack them. Declarations of war apply to powers only.

[AndrewAAGamer]

Thanks to Panther pointing out to me in another thread that all combat movement is considered simultaneous I now wonder if a move I have done previously is legal.

A lone sub defends an area that the Attacker wishes to use to pick up ground troops from. A destroyer accompanies the transport to the sea zone and due to the destroyer the Attacker chooses to ignore the sub and picks up the ground troops and then moves the transport away to land the troops elsewhere. Now that the transport is gone the Attacker decides to no longer ignore the sub and attack it. Since combat movement is simultaneous is this first ignoring then attacking the sub allowed?

[Panther]

@AndrewAAGamer said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

A destroyer accompanies the transport to the sea zone and due to the destroyer the Attacker chooses to ignore the sub and picks up the ground troops and then moves the transport away to land the troops elsewhere.

This sounds like a misunderstanding: You don’t need the Destroyer to support the Transport when loading, here.
The requirement of the presence of a warship is only given in case of offloading for an amphibious assault, page 16, Europe 1940.2 rulebook:

“However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.”

Your scenario is addressed on page 13, Europe 1940.2 rulebook:

“Enemy submarines and/or transports do not block any of your units’ movement, nor do they prevent loading
or offloading in that sea zone (with one exception; see “Special Combat Movement: Transports,” page 16). As
the moving player, you have the option of attacking any enemy submarines and/or transports that share a sea zone
with you. However, if you choose to make such an attack with a unit, that unit must end its movement in that sea
zone, and it must attack all such units present. In other words, you must either attack all enemy submarines and
transports in the sea zone, or you must ignore all of them.
You may not attack some enemy units and ignore others in the same sea zone. It is possible that some of your units
may stop to attack while others continue moving through the sea zone.”

So resolving your scenario is not a question of a time sequence but of simultaneous Combat Moves.
Transport and Destroyer enter the seazone in question at the same time. The Transport loads and continues its move while the Destroyer stops. The fact that the Destroyer stops there during Combat Move Phase leads to an attack during Conduct Combat Phase (page 13, too):

"However, units can’t end their movement in friendly spaces during the Combat Move phase except in four instances.
…

• Units moving into a sea zone containing only enemy submarines and/or transports in order to attack those
  units. (Remember that such a sea zone is not considered hostile.)"

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Panther
Thank you for the GREAT answer Panther! I learned something. :)

[barnee]

Hi @Panther

This looks like where I need to be. : ) Do Defending Subs have to submerge when being attacked by air only ? That’s how triplea does it but I want to use them as hit soakers to keep the CA they’re with alive as long as possible. I just went through the rules again but didn’t see anything saying you had too, but wanted to check.

I saw a couple things on the known triplea issues, which took me to a couple at Git, but nothing quite what I was looking for.

Wanted to ask before I open a issue.

Thanks

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@barnee triple a handles it the correct way.
Air do not hit Subs if no DD of the attacking power is present.
You need a DD to make a Sub visible or surfaced in order to kill it/them with Air.

[barnee]

@aequitas-et-veritas

Thank You I was under the false impression they could sacrfice themselves for the greater good of the kriegsmarine lol

[Panther]

@barnee No, submarines do not have to submerge. It is one of the glitches of TripleA just in order to keep them out of the battle.
We have a Github issue addressing this:
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/6101

As air units (without friendly destroyer) cannnot hit subs and subs cannot hit air units there is no need to submerge.

In your case the CA is the only unit that can be hit by the enemy air units. So your subs may only watch the scenery.

[simon33]

The only time the Triple-A bug manifests is where the subs are attacking and the attacker chooses to retreat. In this instance, the subs should move out of the battle SZ but Triple-A will leave them there. That is possible to be a legal attack in the instance where subs attack a loaded CV and sink the CV but live and the planes keep fighting some other ships/air.

I can’t see a scenario where there is a problem with defending subs auto submerging.

[Snigg]

I had a question about Soviet neutrality on the split boards, where the Soviet Union is not at war with Japan. If Germany and/or Italy captures part of the Pacific board, can Allies enter to capture/liberate said territories?

“Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.”

[simon33]

I would think they can enter because the territories aren’t owned by USSR but then assuming they take the territory they become “illegal occupiers”. Interesting point. I think the main purpose of that rule is USSR has to DOW to enter UK_Pacific or Chinese territory.

[Krieghund]

It seems you may have an older printing of the game. The newer print runs of the Rulebook (which can be found on the Avalon Hill Rules Page) have been enhanced with some clarifications. This same paragraph from the latest version should answer your question:

Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map, and Axis powers on the other map are also still under those restrictions regarding the Soviet Union on both maps. For example, a state of war with only Japan lifts the neutrality restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and allows Japanese units to attack or fly over Soviet-controlled territories on either map. However, the Soviet Union is still restricted on the Europe map, and Germany and Italy must still treat the entire Soviet Union as a neutral power, and may not move units into or through any original Soviet territories or Soviet-controlled territories. At the same time, Allied powers may move units into or through Pacific original Soviet territories and Soviet-controlled territories, but not European ones.

[Snigg]

@Krieghund Thank you, yes. I was using the 2012 rules PDF posted on this site. It implied, what this spells out. I appreciate the response.

[simon33]

@Krieghund I don’t understand.

If Germany is at war with USSR but Japan isn’t, then Germany runs a tank through Siberia but then USA/UK liberates a pacific USSR territory. doesn’t it become illegal for said USA/UK unit to touch any other USSR territory on the pacific side?

[LennardF]

What may not be clear is that Germany holds Moscow and the Russian territory the US are fighting for. The US and Germany are at war, I don’t see why the US can’t capture the territory for the US (until/if Moscow is ever liberated).

[Krieghund]

Per the final sentence of the paragraph I quoted, other Allied Powers may not enter either original Soviet or Soviet-controlled territories on the map in which the USSR is not at war, so they cannot liberate such territories, regardless of whether or not the Soviet capital is Axis-held. Of course, the was around this is for the USSR to declare war on Japan.

[LennardF]

I can live with that and will proceed with this (in fact, it was the conclusion I had originally come to) but this still seems odd to me. It’s now a German territory and the US is at war with Germany.

[Krieghund]

Yes, it is German now, but it was originally Soviet, and that fact keeps the other Allies out due to the treaty with Japan. Any incursion by another Allied Power into Soviet territory (original or current) would be considered by Japan to be an act of war.

[CaptainNapalm]

Can a neutral Japan move to the Hawaii sea zone?
It seems like the Hawaii sea zone is two sea zones from Western US, but an argument could be made that it is 3, if you count the sea zone off the coast of Western for one. Triple A allowed it, so hoping to get clarification.