UK-India falls,….????Automatic Capture of other UK-Pacific countries????

[gliven]

I’d also like to ask Krieghund. In this scenario Japan has already captured India. Say japan walks into an empty Burma capturing the territory with no combat then leaves thier next turn. ANZAC’S next turn they walk into Burma and claims it as there own. There is no combat but ANZAC gains the territory.

Different scenario. India is taken but Burma is still British controlled, only ANZAC troops remain in Burma. Japan attacks Burma, loses and Anzac still remains. Territory stays British or is ANZAC because there is combat.

first Scenario question. do you classify taking an empty enemy territory as combat?
I classify enemy controlled friendly territory as enemy territory because they have gained control of it. plus its shorter to say :P

Second scenario
My understanding, and hopefully everyone’s understanding, is that Burma remains British, unless Japan won and took the territory itself, and that ANZAC would NEVER take an allies territory unless an opponent such as japan took it first and then ANZAC took it back with combat or simply walking into an empty territory. AND only if the capital was taken. Otherwise they would be liberating it.

Also in the rule book about capturing friendly territories is it referring to capturing enemy controlled friendly territory? Because I think this is where Tall Paul’s confusion is coming from. taking the same quote from pages 20-21 it states that when you are attacking an ENEMY CONTROLED friendly territory if the capital is taken you take it instead of liberating it.

[Krieghund]

@Gliven:

I’d also like to ask Krieghund. In this scenario Japan has already captured India. Say japan walks into an empty Burma capturing the territory with no combat then leaves thier next turn. ANZAC’S next turn they walk into Burma and claims it as there own. There is no combat but ANZAC gains the territory.

Yes.  Moving into enemy-controlled territory counts as combat, whether or not it is occupied.

@Gliven:

Different scenario. India is taken but Burma is still British controlled, only ANZAC troops remain in Burma. Japan attacks Burma, loses and Anzac still remains. Territory stays British or is ANZAC because there is combat.

It remains UK-controlled.  ANZAC defended the territory - it did not attack and capture it.

@Gliven:

Also in the rule book about capturing friendly territories is it referring to capturing enemy controlled friendly territory?

Yes.  You can only capture a territory through attacking it, and you can only attack a territory that’s controlled by the enemy.

[ghr2]

Yea TP, the rule u quoted only helps gliven’s point

[Tall Paul]

Guys,

––The “Official” answer is just as I thought. Thanks again, Krieghund. In the game mentioned I was playing America,…and simply wanted/needed to give a definite answer to the Anzac player.

----Axis & Allies is not only the greatest game in the world,….but this forum, A&A.Org, that supports it is a very valuable asset!

“Tall Paul”

[Kreuzfeld]

this is not an unusual situation at all. in basicly every game paris is taken. Then you can only gain controll over the french terretories with UK if the axis have taken it first. I hope there are not many people out there allowing uk to take all the french terrs south of sahara, bumping their income.

[knp7765]

@Kreuzfeld:

this is not an unusual situation at all. in basicly every game paris is taken. Then you can only gain controll over the french terretories with UK if the axis have taken it first. I hope there are not many people out there allowing uk to take all the french terrs south of sahara, bumping their income.

In oztea’s 1942 or 1943 setup, all those French territories are sort of split up between Italy, Germany and England. I think England gets French Equatorial Africa, French Central Africa and Syria, Germany gets Algeria, Morocco, French West Africa and Madagascar and Italy gets Tunisia.
Oh, and of course Germany also gets France, Normandy and Southern France while Japan gets French Indo-China.
Kind of an easy way to settle who gets what.

[Tall Paul]

Guys,

@Kreuzfeld:

this is not an unusual situation at all. in basicly every game paris is taken. Then you can only gain controll over the french terretories with UK if the axis have taken it first. I hope there are not many people out there allowing uk to take all the french terrs south of sahara, bumping their income.

––We have never allowed territories of subjugated countries to be controlled unless through combat with an enemy. I merely wanted a definite, official answer to back up my opinion to the Anzac player,…who was somewhat new to the game.

“Tall Paul”

[gliven]

Tall Paul

It was not my intention to sound sarcastic. I genuinely wanted to know how long you have been playing this game for. The reason for that was because I assuming you have been playing for a long time. Which you confirmed since 1984. If you have been playing since 1984 you would know that allies cannot attack each other. You also asked that when Japan took and subjugated India if Anzac could then automatically capture the territories it was currently in. Based on this question and assuming you knew the rule that you could not attack allies. I thought you played as if when you lose your capital all the lands went to the conqueror. As in UK Pacific is now subjugated and loses control of its territories as you put it. After my misunderstanding was corrected. I then based my answer around your question as if japan didn’t take the rest of your lands. And still basically gave you the same answer because it still answers your question if not directly to your exact scenario. That territories only change hands when an enemy captures it. ANZAC is an enemy of Japan. so them taking Japanese held British lands is an enemy taking a land. How is this statement false?

You then began to basically bash me and claim all my statements were just opinions. Opinions that were false and sarcastic….Which they weren’t. Or at least not intended to be sarcastic.

Krieghund confirmed my understanding of the rules were Correct. Yet you claimed them false. And then later claiming you knew all along after they were confirmed, saying it was just for a newbie. Which is it?
1. You didnt know, or
2. you knew and were annoyed with me because i gave you an “un-official” answer, misunderstood you and thought i was a prick. So you then began to bash me.

If you knew the answer you would not claim my statements false and would have said " Sorry Gliven i will wait on an Official answer from Krieghund. "

So if its number 2 and you just wanted to bash me…common…how old are you? And no. this time i don’t really care how old you are…

I used to enjoy reading your posts Tall Paul…but after this…ehhh not so much.

[Tall Paul]

Gliven,

––I don’t wish to argue with anyone. That was the reason that I wanted an “Official” answer as I knew things could easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted. I truly hold no grudges against you or anyone else, and hope you don’t against me. I can understand how statements made via computer can be misunderstood, like when I misunderstood your responses for “sarcasm”. I’m sorry I did so, but let’s not worry about things like that and simply enjoy this wonderful game.
----I wasn’t “bashing” you,…just refuting your statements that weren’t correct for the example I was involved in.
It seems we both misunderstood each other’s sentiments. I’m sorry,…and you’ve already said the same. So I hope we can leave it there,….OK. I’m a friendly guy, certainly not perfect, but not a jerk, either.
----The somewhat “new” player that was playing Anzac has a forceful type of personality that sometimes interprets rules incorrectly and then is very VOCAL in his viewpoint. Sometimes he’s only interested in “interpretations” that help his armies. I simply thought it best if I gave him some “Official” proof that his interpretation was incorrect so that’s what I did.

Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”

[gliven]

Tall Paul,

I would like to apologize once again, this time for also misunderstanding you. I guess i got a little “emotional” for lack of a better term. I’m not perfect myself.

I do not hold a grudge against you.

I wish you good luck and good fun in your match against your opponent.

So yes lets leave it at this.

[Tall Paul]

Gliven,

––There’s no need for any apology. We simply misunderstood each other. Have a good day.

Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”