There must be a certain amount of historical accuracy in order for the game to “feel like” the subject matter. Axis & Allies has always dealt with this accuracy at a macro level, striving for “feel” rather than simulation, and thus not dwelling on minutiae. It’s a fine line to walk, but some historical realities must be observed in order to maintain the ambiance. In this case, the restriction presents the feeling of threat without overly burdening the Japan player, as forcing avoidance of all USA territories would.
I won’t pretend that there aren’t game play reasons why this restriction is in place. If there weren’t, why burden the game with it? However, any such rule must be grounded in historical events and realities in order to not come off as “gamey” and ruin the feel of the experience.
All of that being said, the USA did rather famously (infamously?) allow the IJN to get within striking distance of Hawaii, as well as several other of its Pacific possessions, without raising much of a fuss until it was too late. I doubt the same would have been true if the mainland had been so threatened (my original post did make this distinction). In game terms, the “threat zone” of the mainland extends two sea zones out. Since the Hawaiian sea zone is outside of that radius, and since Hawaii could just as easily be attacked from Japanese-held territory (Marshall Islands), there was little point in game terms of excluding Japan from that sea zone.
I think this consideration cuts both ways–we can argue both sides of what is “historical” and what isn’t.
I think a more compelling reason for the rule is that it leaves a fantasy scenario open to the Axis, and there are many of those–a balance that demonstrates that the opening setup (as revised) is about as goldilocks as this particular game/map can get between what is Fantasy and what is Historical Reality (the Axis get slapped down).
Having attempted my own setups and game design, I fully appreciate the work and thought that went into the placement of literally every single unit and each rule, in each iteration. It still cannot strike an absolute “balance”, but that is nearly impossible in games where the opponents start with different units/territories/advanages (unlike chess where the only difference between the two sides is who goes first, that is a “model” game)
I think your point would be better made if the Japanese fleet was parked in the SZ to the left of SZ 26…not in it. Not scale wise but diplomacy/surprise wise. Appreciate the discussion.
Hello, may I add here a hint for my question:
May US (not yet at war) move to a seazone adjacent to an ORIGINALLY Japanese controlled territory that e.g. ANZAC has already taken control of? I.e. sz33 off Caroline Islands, round 2 or 3.
Thanks in advance
Yes. The movement restriction applies only to territories currently controlled by Japan.
Does a Japanese destroyer in that seazone change anything?
No, as
“Movement: A power’s ships don’t block
the naval movements of other powers
with which it’s not at war, and vice versa.
They can occupy the same sea zones.”
(Rulebook, Pacific 1940.2, page 14)
I am trying desperately to understand the circumstances where ANZAC would control the Caroline Islands but the US is not at war with Japan…
The answer is correct under those circumstances though!
Marsh
@Marshmallow-of-War Japan and the UK…or in your shoes ANZAC ( as UK and ANZAC are two together ) can go to War against Japan. This may be a vurble announcement at the start of ANZAC’s turn, or your combat move to attack Caroline Islands is enough to lay the point of direction…‘ANZAC and UK at war with Japan as well as Germany/Italy’…this of course before Turn 4.
The State’s however may still be sleeping and doesn’t want a part of the War yet till beginning of Turn 4. The US can still b4 turn four do a declaration of war against Japan to bring them into the game, enhancing there extra 30 IPC’s.
Did this help your wondering Marsh?
BH
I apparently neglected to consider the utterly stupid option of ANZAC initiating war and then completely depleting its defenses and putting it’s valuable transports in harms way by taking the Carolines.
Of course I considered it. I just would hate to play with anyone dumb enough to do it!
Marsh
@Marshmallow-of-War ANZAC DOW is not always dumb. Sometimes it allows a key ship block or prevents transports in disputed zones from picking up soldiers. I have seen it happen a handful of times.
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in When USA not at War:
@Marshmallow-of-War ANZAC DOW is not always dumb. Sometimes it allows a key ship block or prevents transports in disputed zones from picking up soldiers. I have seen it happen a handful of times.
Completely true! The ANZAC declaration following a UK Pacific ship move is a classic! I can’t imagine anyone taking issue with that.
However, you’re ignoring the second half of that…
It’s taking the Carolines after initiating a war that leaves the US out of the fight that is the issue, leaving the transports vulnerable and stripping defenses from ANZAC itself. I can’t imagine a scenario where that would be wise.
