Some China clarifications please

@nishav

That’s fun.

@akreider2 said in China: attacking with infantry 3 vs 1:

For me, I’m interested in the scenario where Japan has relatively unlimited resources to crush you (in terms of planes) and a handful of infantry. So you are balancing your goal of maximizing the probability that you will kill that one infantry, versus preserving your infantry for the 2-4 turns that China can expect to live by retreating.

This is typically in the first 4 rounds of the game when China is retreating/generally getting crushed.

Would hit with 2 then, but again it depends on what else Japan has to hit. Their resources are not always unlimited (e.g., Russians, British, Americans in play)

@Ichabod:

@PainState:

A lot of posters seemed stunned at this scenario, never scene it ever happen or even could happen. Now that I mulled it over last night and looked at the rules and so forth it is very obvious to me why no one has ever scene this scenario. Because the scenario makes no logical sense.

Italy DOW on Russia and moves in 2 tanks into Eastern Poland.
Russia is now at war with Italy and can DOW on Germany at the start of their next turn, turn 3.
Germany on Turn 3 does not DOW on Russia and just non combats into Eastern Poland.
Russia at the start of Turn 3 DOW on Germany and off we go.

There is no logical reason why Russia would not DOW on Germany at the start of Turn 3, none.

Heck you could argue that it makes no logical sense that Germany did not DOW on Russia at the start of G3 since Italy brought Russia into the war and Russia WILL DOW on Germany on R3.

Hi PainState,

From my perspective, if I was planning on doing a G3 Barbarossa AND I wanted to drive towards the south, then yes, it makes sense to not DOW. My stack will be together except for the minimum required mobile units and maybe 1 AAA in Poland so Russia doesn’t attack Poland to get their NO for occupying an Axis territory. But E. Poland will be real strong because the German air will be there and maybe bombers will also be in range of a raid on the Moscow factory. Also, 5 IPCs is more income than I’d probably get as Germany on the 1st turn.

There are a few disadvantages of course. 1, Russian blockers can’t be attacked. 2, the Scandinavian units are behind. But for me that’s ok, I just use them to lay siege anyways. I never expect to get Moscow on turn 6 anymore. I assume that the UK/Anzac and that lone French fighter are going to get to Moscow.Â

No. If Germany already owns Scotland and you offload units there, that would be done during non-combat. Whether it’s an amphib assault or non-combat, once you offload units, they can’t move until the following turn.

@Cow:

I believe if japan takes the last VC, once france ends / germany is about to begin… that counts as a full round… you don’t have to go again so to speak.

It has to be a full round from the time the last VC is taken. So in this example, it would have to come back around to Japan in order for the Axis to achieve victory.

No.

Any of them will do (including France).

It modifies the rule on page 30 of the Europe Rulebook that allows subs to shoot at enemy transports as they move by.  It changes nothing about how subs behave in combat.

They have not changed from Alpha+.1.

@marechallannes:

Q1: A battleship enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. The sub submerges.

Following the rules, the sub emerges after the combat (that doesn’t take place)

Who controlls the seazone after the battleship owners turn?

Is the sub able to raid the convoy zone in that seazone, or is it impossible, cause the battleship owner “won” the battle and controls the sea zone?

Q2: Does the sub emerges before the collect income phase of the battleship owner and is it able to raid the sea-zone of the battleship-owner?

Q3: A submarine enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. Both sub submerges before any round of combat.

Are both submarines are able to make convoy raids? (For example a UK-sub and a Jap-sub in SZ 37)

1:  No power can “control” a seazone.  That’s why you don’t mark it.  The sub is able to raid, because it remains in the seazone during the collect income phase.  Powers occupy a seazone, and a seazone can be hostile, but it’s never really “controlled”.  A power can still place units in a seazone adjacent to its factory, regardless of how many enemy units might remain in that seazone (that may even be disrupting a convoy).
2:  Yes.
3: Yes,  assuming each is present during their respective enemy’s collect income phase (when the disruption occurs).

“Submerging” is simply a term for the option to retreat but remain in the same seazone.  It serves no other function, and it does not have any impact on any other phases of a turn.  After combat, all subs are effectively no longer submerged.