Taking control of allied territories who's capital has fallen


  • It seems odd to me that once an ally has fallen, you have to wait until the axis takes the territory before you can take it back and control it.

    So imagine the US lands on Morocco that is occupied by Italy, it takes it and controlls it. But the next French territory was not taken by Italy, and the US cannot control it. Side by side but one can be controlled and the other not.

    The rules simply state that you can control and allied territory when there captial has fallen and you liberate it from the enemy.
    That does not mean you cannot take control of a territory that was never lost to the enemy once the capital has fallen.

    But it is not clear it means you can.

    It seems like a real flaw in the rules if you can’t take control of allied territories once they have been conquered just because the enemy has not first taken it.

    For example the Dutch East Indies. They do not require that the Japanese first conquier the territories for the allies to control them. That could indicate that it is allowed throughout the game.

    Can an expert in the rules please clarify.

  • Customizer

    Eddiem4145,

    ––As recently explained to me by the rules official “Krieghund”, a “Combat” must occur in order for a nation to “capture” a country belonging to a friendly nation.

    ----In your example above concerning a French territory that has NOT been captured by an axis power, any friendly Allied power that moved into it would “liberate” or garrison that country for the French,…not capture it for itself. It might help to think of it in the terms that “you can’t conduct war against a friendly country,….only after it has become controlled by an enemy country can you attack and control it”.

    ––The Dutch East Indies are a special situation that are well documented in the rules.

    ----While I’m NOT an official rules guy, I express these answers only because less than a week ago I had “Kriegehund” explain them to me. I hope this helps.

    “Tall Paul”

  • Official Q&A

    @eddiem4145:

    The rules simply state that you can control and allied territory when there captial has fallen and you liberate it from the enemy.
    That does not mean you cannot take control of a territory that was never lost to the enemy once the capital has fallen.

    Yes, it does.  The rules allow for tranfer of control of a territory under two circumstances.  One is the capture of a territory from an enemy power, and the other is the return of a territory to its original controller by an ally when its capital is liberated.  There is no other way for control of a territory to transfer from one power to another.

    The argument that you can do anything that the rules don’t prohibit simply doesn’t hold water.  The rules don’t say that I can’t remove all of my opponents pieces from the board whenever I feel like it or add any pieces of my own to the board that I desire, but I think most people would agree that I can’t do those things.

    @eddiem4145:

    It seems like a real flaw in the rules if you can’t take control of allied territories once they have been conquered just because the enemy has not first taken it.

    Taking control of an ally’s territory directly from that ally would be considered to be an attack - something that is not allowed.  Also, from a practical point of view, allowing this would encourage allowing a power’s capital to fall so that an allied power could grab all of its territories and become a superpower.

    @eddiem4145:

    For example the Dutch East Indies. They do not require that the Japanese first conquier the territories for the allies to control them. That could indicate that it is allowed throughout the game.

    As Tall Paul pointed out, this is a special situation, the limits of which are clearly outlined in the rules.  The fact that these limits are spelled out implies that it is normally not allowed.  In other words, why have a special rule for UK/ANZAC claiming of Dutch territories if any Allied power could do it at any time?

    @Tall:

    In your example above concerning a French territory that has NOT been captured by an axis power, any friendly Allied power that moved into it would “liberate” or garrison that country for the French,….not capture it for itself.

    To avoid potential confusion, I need to correct your terminology here.  Moving into a territory controlled by your ally is properly called “occupying” it.  “Liberating” a territory occurs when you recapture from the enemy a territory originally controlled by an ally and return it to that ally (as occurs when the original controller’s capital is free).


  • My buddy and I misunderstood this rule that same as you quite awhile back so here is an example of why it needs to be this way.

    My buddy did a successful sea lion against me and since we thought that we could step in and take ally territories.  The US took all of Canada and slowly moved its way through Africa becoming even more of a super power tha before.  So Germany takes London and within a few turns US was making 90+ ipcs.  The allies obviously won.  There was no point in liberating London since US had almost all their money anyways.  I believe it was one of the last games we played prior to finding this site.

    Thanks to all the rules guys!!!

  • Customizer

    @Krieghund:

    The argument that you can do anything that the rules don’t prohibit simply doesn’t hold water.  The rules don’t say that I can’t remove all of my opponents pieces from the board whenever I feel like it or add any pieces of my own to the board that I desire, but I think most people would agree that I can’t do those things.

    Hey Thanks Krieghund. I didn’t think of that. The rules DON’T say you can’t remove your opponent’s pieces. Boy, my next Sealion is going to be a breeze.


  • No offense Kriegmund, but in each of your examples, you can point to a rule that prohibits those acts.

    The rules tell you what troops you can start off with, so placing extra troops is a violation. The rules state how to get extra troops and how to place them. Anything outside of that is a violation. The rules state how to eliminate your opponents pieces. Doing so outside of that, is a violation.

    Phrases like only, without exception, or the only exception, or a label like “exception” all provide for clarification. If something is not prohibited, that by default it is allowed. To not allow it, one must provide a reasonable interpretation of the rules as to why it is not allowed. The burden of proof then becomes the side that wants to prohibit it.

    The fact that the Dutch Indies is listed as an exception, most likely provides that missing piece. Even without it though, you could argue that the proper interpretation is, the “only” way to take control of an allies territory is to recapture it ect… The term “only” would have been useful, but I understand to ensure no misinterpretations, the rule book would have to be thick enough to be  impractible.


  • Lastly,

    Without the word only, it seemed to open up the possibility that it would be allowed. I understand that due to the label, “exception”, the Dutch East Indies could not be used as evidence to support allowing it.

    But as to whether it makes sense? The example of London falling, well, what if that really happened. Would the entire british empire just roll over and die, surrender, become nuetral? Would they continue fighting? If they couldn’t, why wouldn’t the US then take control of the territories in North America immediately and use those resources for the war effort? In fact, why wouldn’t the governments of Canada, South Africa, ect…decide to join America.

    I am not saying the would, but it is perfectly reasonable to think they would. That might make things to complicated, but a simple rule that allows an ally to take control of any territory they move troops into when that allies capital has fallen I think is perfectly reasonable.

    Anyways, I got the clarification I needed regarding the rules as stated and I am thankful.

    And I will make sure that on the verge of defeat, I don’t literally murder my opponent to keep from losing just because the rules don’t state that I can’t murder him. Although I don’t think that was an oversight since that rule is written in the California Penal Code. 😉

    Oh and FYI, if that rule was not written in the California Penal Code, I in fact could murder my opponent.

  • Official Q&A

    @eddiem4145:

    No offense Kriegmund, but in each of your examples, you can point to a rule that prohibits those acts.

    The rules tell you what troops you can start off with, so placing extra troops is a violation. The rules state how to get extra troops and how to place them. Anything outside of that is a violation. The rules state how to eliminate your opponents pieces. Doing so outside of that, is a violation.

    I’m sorry, but this argument just doesn’t make sense.  The rules regarding taking control of a territory are just as clear and specific as those regarding the introduction and removal of units.  How can it be that anything outside of one of those sets of rules is a clear violation but anything outside of the other is not?


  • As humans, when we want to do something that to us makes perfect sense, and due to the fact we are inherently biased towards desires, it affects how we read things.

    In the rules, it states how you can take control of an allies territory. That fact that I read it as “a way” you can take it, and not “the only way you can take it” is either a logical misread, a legitimate interpretation, or according to you it seems, an assinine take on the rules. Before I put up this post, I looked for clarifications within the rules, and misread the Dutch East Indies. As I pointed out earlier, which I hoped I did clearly, the “exception” label in that rule clearly shows it is in fact an exception, making my take that it could be possibly allowed wrong. And that clarification is what I was thankful for.

    Lastly, to a degree, in these kind of forums, playful banter, reasonable put downs regarding others use of thier logic can be enteraining to a degree. But I expect that those who are official moderaters refrain from structuring thier sentences in a manner that could make those asking a question or promoting a point of view from feeling unintelligent. Kriegmund, even though I kind of shoot back in the same manner, considering you are someone I am acutally going to rely on to help clarify rules, I guess I don’t feel comfortable with that kind of back and forth banter with you.

    I have seen some other posts by official moderators who have that kind of back and forth banter with those pushing ideas or arguing a point of view regarding the rules, and it turns into extreme statements that restate the other persons ideas into ludicrous thoughts.

    I hope I am not being overly sensitive, but I just realized that if I have an idea that is wrong, or have seriously misread something, you are someone I would rely on to take the time to explain the rules, its proper widely excepted interpretation, and maybe even the pages where the interpretation comes from.


  • But as to whether it makes sense? The example of London falling, well, what if that really happened. Would the entire british empire just roll over and die, surrender, become nuetral? Would they continue fighting? If they couldn’t, why wouldn’t the US then take control of the territories in North America immediately and use those resources for the war effort? In fact, why wouldn’t the governments of Canada, South Africa, ect…decide to join America.

    This is just a game.  The reason it makes sense is that it keeps the game equal!!!  I am sure in real life they may join up with America, but in the GAME it makes no sense at all as far as the ipc production.  Why take out London if all the money goes to America?

    I personally believe that Krieghund should not even respond to you anymore.  He has made it clear the rules.

    I have seen some other posts by official moderators who have that kind of back and forth banter with those pushing ideas or arguing a point of view regarding the rules, and it turns into extreme statements that restate the other persons ideas into ludicrous thoughts.

    I have not seen this at all.  I believe they are straight forward with the answers based on what the rules state.  I have not seen them push any ideas or point of views.  Just my opinion but you seem way out of line on this argument!!!


  • elevenjerk,

    As to what makes sense or not, anyone can point out why one rule makes sense for good play and why it doesn’t. Where one rule may create better play in one aspect, in may hurt it in another. Some rules like allowing allies to take control of their fallen comrades territories would make sense but would pile on other rules and specifics that would complicate things making them better not to do. Of which I had acknowledged so I don’t understand the necessity of your feel of your post.

    As to Krieghund not responding anymore. If you mean to this post, I would agree. So why you needed to clarify that puzzles me. I think I made it clear he answered my question and I clarified how I misread some things. The purpose of my last post was to address the manner in which responses are made. Kind of like yours, but then you are not a moderator, and by your username, don’t expect much from your posts.

    And just because you haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. I have seen much of it. A lot of it. From one particular moderator whose name I won’t mention, avoiding any negative feelings. To be fair, it was some time ago, but then again I hadn’t been on this forum for quite some time until recently.


  • Lastly,

    I have been reading a lot of post lately, and to my surprise, though not from moderators, there had been some negative back and forth post going on that seemed to get personal between other participants.

    In one post, I read an apology from a participant and a response acknowledging that posts, like emails, are comely misread and attitude and sarcasm is easily read into posts when none were intentioned. If that is the case here, and I did as such with Kriegmund, then I am in error. And if I am doing the same with you, then again I am in error. Though using capital letters and exclamation marks in you post lends to that impression.

    But my point in the last post, again where I acknowledge the fact that I misread the rules and the responses I received helped me realize that, my main point was that I thought moderators should be more careful in how they respond. You can reread my post if you like.

    If my point is pointless, OK. But so was responding with your last post.

  • Official Q&A

    At the risk of re-opening this conversation:

    I am not now, and never have been, a Moderator on this or any other site.

    I was attempting to engage in healthy debate and illustrate in a logical fashion why your perception of the rules was in error.  I am deeply sorry that you found my approach offensive in any way.


  • Some rules like allowing allies to take control of their fallen comrades territories would make sense but would pile on other rules and specifics that would complicate things making them better not to do. Of which I had acknowledged so I don’t understand the necessity of your feel of your post.

    I gave an example with London being taken.  You responded with an answer stating what would really happen.  Your acknowledgement, in my opinion, was covered by an attack towards Krieghund with your next post.

    I am sorry for the punctuation I used.  I use it to try to help portray statements the best I can.  Clearly this time, and the situation it was used in, did seem a little harsh.  Certainly more harsh than was intended.  Forgive me.

    The purpose of my last post was to address the manner in which responses are made. Kind of like yours, but then you are not a moderator, and by your username, don’t expect much from your posts.

    I am not a moderator or a rules official, merely a guy who loves this game.  Sorry if you feel I am a Jerk.

    And just because you haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean it isn’t so

    This is 100% correct.  I don’t know your experience with these guys and should not have assumed that my experience reflects everybody elses.


  • Thank you for your last post.

    The jerk part was a little pot shot at your username. My apologies.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

15.3k
Users

36.4k
Topics

1.5m
Posts