BIZARRE question… re Canal's.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Just bear with me here…

    • Japan has NEVER declared war on France.

    • France Controls Egypt and Trans-Jordan.

    Can Japanese ships pass through the Suez Canal?  Or do they have to request -permission- like the Russians do in the Baltic (This is what I assume)?

    DO NOT ASK why, how, or when this happend. It’ll take about a week of explaining…


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    For that matter…

    Can Japan go through the canal if England controls it? And Japan is still not at war with them?


  • TripleA

    No.



  • They’d need permission at best, but I believe they’re completely blocked.  I’m reasonably certain that the permission caveat is dependent on complete neutrality. Japan is NEVER neutral - It begins at war with China.  Similarly, the UK is NEVER neutral, it begins at war with Germany/Italy.

    Personally, I’ve never seen the necessity to include the caveat for permission, but I suppose it’s cute.  In almost every condition reasonable, there’s no reason that Germany should let Russia to consolidate with the UK.  Besides, in the condition where Russia can ask, it must be neutral and it’s the ONLY power that is neutral and capable of testing permission - the US cannot reach a canal or strait controlled by another power while neutral, and Japan, Germany, Italy, the UK, Anzac, & France are decidedly NOT neutral powers.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Russia could declare war on Japan, R1, and request exit of the baltic for R2.

    I think the neutrality has nothing to do with it?

    The French could reach the Panama Canal, if they don’t get nuked off of Southern France, THEN Gibraltar.  What’s the rules for allowing them through there on France 3?  I guess the USA Declares war on the US3 collect income…


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Sorry if these questions seem lude. But I play with a group that just likes to “mess things up”.

    Like not declaring war as the U.S unless attacked… Ever.



  • @Gargantua:

    Russia could declare war on Japan, R1, and request exit of the baltic for R2.

    I think the neutrality has nothing to do with it?

    Russia has split neutrality - it’s the only neutral that does.  at war with Japan on one side doesn’t affect neutrality on the other.

    @Gargantua:

    The French could reach the Panama Canal, if they don’t get nuked off of Southern France, THEN Gibraltar.  What’s the rules for allowing them through there on France 3?  I guess the USA Declares war on the US3 collect income…

    yeah, pretty much.  It won’t happen.  But if the USA is being bizarro world and they’re still neutral by then, they make the call.  This is basically so unlikely for a normal game that you house-rule it.  You should just make asking permission ALWAYS required.  In my opinion though, if a Neutral controls it, or a Neutral is trying to pass, you ask permission.  But if the powers aren’t neutral, then it’s allowed or not based on the simple Axis/Allies side.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    What about Canals in situations where your ally controls them?

    Do they HAVE to let you through?

    I’ve seen incidents, where british planes for example, have snubbed an American player and their aircraft carrier, leading to it’s doom.

    Said American would then not be interested in allowing british or anzac units through the Panama Canal.

    Say the French Want to send their destroyer into the med.  But you want them coupled with your fleet off of Egypt.  The french are being silly and not listening… can you tell him he’s NOT allowed to go through the Canal because you control it?

    These are IMPORTANT aspects of the game to understand… 😛



  • @Gargantua:

    What about Canals in situations where your ally controls them?

    Do they HAVE to let you through?

    I’ve seen incidents, where british planes for example, have snubbed an American player and their aircraft carrier, leading to it’s doom.

    Said American would then not be interested in allowing british or anzac units through the Panama Canal.

    Say the French Want to send their destroyer into the med.  But you want them coupled with your fleet off of Egypt.  The french are being silly and not listening… can you tell him he’s NOT allowed to go through the Canal because you control it?

    These are IMPORTANT aspects of the game to understand… 😛

    Per the letter of the rules, they are allowed through if they’re an ally of the controller.  You can yell, scream and plead, but even if you try to convince him that he’s doesn’t have permission, per the letter of the rules, he’s allowed.  There’s no rule that prevents them from being foolish or ignoring your requests to consolidate, etc.  If they’re allowed through because it’s a friendly power that controls it, they’re allowed through, end of story.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    You’re no fun KCD!



  • @Gargantua:

    You’re no fun KCD!

    house rule your game partners into submission…  You seem to be looking for a way to hamstring or punish one of your allies.  Nothing is preventing you from doing that in your own home.  But this isn’t Munchkin - there is no “cheat with both hands” card.



  • Why would you have a rule where you can ask permission of a player you may officially be neutral to, but who is still your opponent in the game? If it’s something you want it is by definition something they don’t want, and permission should not be granted EVER.



  • @Gekkepop:

    Why would you have a rule where you can ask permission of a player you may officially be neutral to, but who is still your opponent in the game? If it’s something you want it is by definition something they don’t want, and permission should not be granted EVER.

    duh.  that’s why it’s silly.  Unless your opponent is a complete buffoon and is setting himself up for utter devastation, which is rare.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    The rules are written the way they are.  That was the designers intent.

    It’s not every case that the allies are going to agree on everything.  In Face to Face games, this can sometimes be the Axis edge.

    Do you remember the Middle East money? in the Original Europe circa 2001?  If the allies can’t decide who pays… Germany decides. 😛

    Power brokering, and politics is a -part- albeit small, of the game.

    A move I’ve seen allowed on a few occassions, is to let the Russian cruiser out through the straight of denmark, but ONLY in the case, that the Russian Sub goes with it.

    The rules stipulate the condition… and that’s why it must be explored.

    Belligerent allies, are also incredibly common ONLINE.  As an Axis player, another angle of your game, is getting your enemies to blame each other. 😛


  • Customizer

    One only has to read how Cow treats
    His partner to understand that this is possible.



  • Like not declaring war as the U.S unless attacked… Ever.

    Excuse my French, but you play with assholes.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    with a community as large as A&A it was bound to happen.

    That’s why official ruling’s are required.



  • Keep the scenarios coming Gargantua; I’m enjoying this  :evil:


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Warwinner, did you ever see my post about the “secret retreat” at Gibraltar?

    Basically, using a sub to pull all your units through an enemy controlled Canal? 😄

    Krieghund deflated it :S



  • @Most:

    One only has to read how Cow treats
    His partner to understand that this is possible.

    Amen, I know I’m never playing with Cow as a teammate. I lost a lot of respect for Cow after witnessing firsthand how he treated his partner on his first ever time playing Japan.



  • @Gargantua:

    Warwinner, did you ever see my post about the “secret retreat” at Gibraltar?

    Basically, using a sub to pull all your units through an enemy controlled Canal? 😄

    Krieghund deflated it :S

    Yeah, that and your ridiculous planned carrier retreat to boost carrier range and setup a landing spot…  deflated that too.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Well actually… that was approved overall, just the caveat of the canal portion was rejected.

    It’s still entirely possible to abuse the combat phase, by planning a retreat, that will move a carrier 3 spaces to the combat, then forward another space (4 total) to create the -possibility- of a valid landing zone.

    Even if all battles involved are absolutely hopeless.



  • @Gargantua:

    Well actually… that was approved overall, just the caveat of the canal portion was rejected.

    It’s still entirely possible to abuse the combat phase, by planning a retreat, that will move a carrier 3 spaces to the combat, then forward another space (4 total) to create the -possibility- of a valid landing zone.

    Even if all battles involved are absolutely hopeless.

    Really, we’re doing this again?  No, it’s not.  You CANNOT plan to use a retreat to extend carrier range to create a landing zone.  I’ll find the thread if you like - it was soundly rejected.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Well you can land on a carrier that has retreated…

    and it’s legal to retreat to ANY zone you sent attacking forces in from.

    And retreating is a CHOICE you can make at any stage of a battle, so the power is in your hands.

    It’s no less absurd then sending 1 sub to a sea zone of 1000 battleships, so that the zone could be ‘possibly cleared’ allowing planes to land on a carrier that moves there.

    Atleast my example is functional. 🙂



  • @Gargantua:

    Well you can land on a carrier that has retreated…

    and it’s legal to retreat to ANY zone you sent attacking forces in from.

    And retreating is a CHOICE you can make at any stage of a battle, so the power is in your hands.

    It’s no less absurd then sending 1 sub to a sea zone of 1000 battleships, so that the zone could be ‘possibly cleared’ allowing planes to land on a carrier that moves there.

    Atleast my example is functional. 🙂

    I’m not disputing that you can land on a retreated carrier.  You simply cannot set up the fight from the beginning REQUIRING the carrier to be in a seazone that it can ONLY reach if you retreat.

    @Krieghund:

    @kcdzim:

    The letter of the rule implies you plan to win the engagement to get access, not plan to lose the engagement to leapfrog.

    The rules also clearly state that you cannot use a planned retreat to secure a landing space.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 31
  • 1
  • 7
  • 1
  • 8
  • 16
  • 7
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

61
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts