Where to place US IC ?

When playing pacific board only,I think you can assume Paris is axis controlled,so if you capture FIC from Japan you can build an minor IC there as well as Alaska,Mexico or Korea.

@cojoh

You’re welcome:+1:

@cojoh said in Where to place US IC ?:

France capital is in hands of Germany, so if US takes control of FIC after Japan took control of it, you liberate it while its capital is in hands of the enemy and then you can build a minor US IC.

You confuse liberating with capturing here. Actually in your case USA does not liberate but capture FIC, taking over control over this territory from the enemy.
USA cannot liberate FIC, as France is in Germany’s hands.

Liberating a territory means taking it from the enemy but give control over it back to your ally (whose capital is NOT in enemy’s hand). You capture for yourself - you liberate for your ally.

@cojoh said in Where to place US IC ?:

But what if Japan didn’t take control of FIC ? Can US take control of FIC and build a minor US IC ???

US can only take control over an originally controlled allied territory by capturing it from the enemy, while the ally’s capital is in enemy’s hands. In your case FIC is still French.

@cojoh said in Where to place US IC ?:

@panther : I understand your remark and it is certainly correct but the text on top of page 21 is confusing since it state : “If the original controller’s (the power whose territory you just liberated) capital is in enemy hands at the end of the…etc.”

It is the “etc.” that is important here:

The full quote …
“If the original controller’s (the power whose territory you just
liberated) capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which
you would otherwise have liberated the territory, you capture
the territory instead.”
… describes exactly the difference between “liberate” and “capture”,
but I agree that the term in brackets might irritate a bit in that context and without the rest of that sentence.

@cojoh said in Where to place US IC ?:

For the second part of your answer… does this means that UK, ANZAC and US (the latter if at war) can move troops in non occupied FIC but they don’t get the territory’s income of it ? But if Japan captures FIC and an Allies captures it back from Japan, then they do get the territory’s income. Isn’t that strange ?

It is just the same effect than with any other allied territory still ‘controlled’ by your ally whose capital is in enemy’s hand. Because of this I think it is consistent.

Thank you COJOH for pointing out pg 9 of rule book that states French capital is German controlled.While we are discussing FIC,I’ve always assumed that UK and Anzac units,when NOT at war with Japan ,can go to FIC while it still is owned by France.In this case Japan would have to DOW on UK/Anzac to take FIC.