Questions about DEI political situation.



  • I was just wondering where the DEI stood if UK/ANZAC were to attack Japan before turn 3.

    If UK/ANZAC attacked Japan on turn 1, could Japan land troops in unoccupied DEI without bringing the US to war?

    Also, If the UK attacked Japan, does this also bring ANZAC to war? (I think yes)



  • @Lord:

    I was just wondering where the DEI stood if UK/ANZAC were to attack Japan before turn 3.

    If UK/ANZAC attacked Japan on turn 1, could Japan land troops in unoccupied DEI without bringing the US to war?

    The moment J moves attacks either UK, ANZAC, Dutch or US will result in bringing war between all the powers and J.

    Also, If the UK attacked Japan, does this also bring ANZAC to war? (I think yes)

    Yes



  • The moment J moves attacks either UK, ANZAC, Dutch or US will result in bringing war between all the powers and J.

    But what if UK/ANZAC attacks first? I understand that Japan will then be able to attack back without getting the US involved.
    So can, in this case, Japan also attack the Dutch without bringing the US to war?



  • But what if UK/ANZAC attacks first? I understand that Japan will then be able to attack back without getting the US involved.

    You understand correctly.  And you’re right, as it’s unclear whether taking DEI will cause the US to declare war if Britain already started the fight.  I suspect it will if it is still Dutch, as the Dutch aren’t who declared war on Japan (Britain & Anzac did)

    I still think it’s kinda bogus that the UK can capture and “control” the DEI despite them not being hostile territories to begin with.  Why not just make it a national objective to “occupy” similar to Anzac without confusing the defintion of “control” and make it worth enough to offset not actually collecting economy from them.  Silly amount of exceptions in these rules that just muddle the clearly defined rules of controlling, occupying and liberating.

    Further, the act of taking control of a territory should be made during a combat phase.  So does UK/Anzac need to amphib assault on a combat phase, and could Japan blockade them, instigating the UK into declaring war?  Seems like it should.  But that’s just me, cause I’m tired of the exceptions.  But that’s the DEI.


  • Official Answers

    @kcdzim:

    I still think it’s kinda bogus that the UK can capture and “control” the DEI despite them not being hostile territories to begin with.  Why not just make it a national objective to “occupy” similar to Anzac without confusing the defintion of “control” and make it worth enough to offset not actually collecting economy from them.  Silly amount of exceptions in these rules that just muddle the clearly defined rules of controlling, occupying and liberating.

    The only exception is that the UK or ANZAC can take control of these territories peacefully.  Beyond that, they are treated as any territory whose capital is held by the enemy.

    @kcdzim:

    Further, the act of taking control of a territory should be made during a combat phase.

    Not when it’s friendly.

    @kcdzim:

    So does UK/Anzac need to amphib assault on a combat phase, and could Japan blockade them, instigating the UK into declaring war?  Seems like it should.  But that’s just me, cause I’m tired of the exceptions.  But that’s the DEI.

    Even if the UK/ANZAC needed to attack, Japan could not block it.  Since Japanese territories or ships weren’t being attacked, a state of war with Japan would not result.



  • If Japan has captured New South Wales, but hasn’t taken Western Australia, Northern Territory, and South Australia. Can the UK take control of those three and collect their income?

    There are two different ways to move into the territories of an ally whose capitol is controlled by the enemy:

    1-If the territory is currently controlled by the enemy, you fight, liberate, and then take control of the territory, until the capital is liberated.

    2-If the territory is not controlled by the enemy, you noncombat move into it.

    Do both situations result in you taking control of the territory, if done with land units?


  • Official Answers

    @moompix:

    If Japan has captured New South Wales, but hasn’t taken Western Australia, Northern Territory, and South Australia. Can the UK take control of those three and collect their income?

    No.

    @moompix:

    There are two different ways to move into the territories of an ally whose capitol is controlled by the enemy:

    1-If the territory is currently controlled by the enemy, you fight, liberate, and then take control of the territory, until the capital is liberated.

    2-If the territory is not controlled by the enemy, you noncombat move into it.

    Do both situations result in you taking control of the territory, if done with land units?

    1, yes.  2, no.



  • @kcdzim:

    I still think it’s kinda bogus that the UK can capture and “control” the DEI despite them not being hostile territories to begin with.  Why not just make it a national objective to “occupy” similar to Anzac without confusing the defintion of “control” and make it worth enough to offset not actually collecting economy from them.  Silly amount of exceptions in these rules that just muddle the clearly defined rules of controlling, occupying and liberating.

    The UK/ANZAC cannot ‘capture’ the DEI territories, only take ‘control’ of them. On the manual ‘capture’ refers to at least 1 attacking land unit occupying the territory after all combat is resolved. “Occupy” is the result of a hostile territory being captured, where control of it has switched. ‘Control’ refers to the ownership of the territory. The manual so far is clear, I haven’t found any misusage of the terms until now.



  • Thanks Krieghund.

    I take it the following would be correct then:

    While not at war, the US can’t move into French and Dutch territories at all.

    After it does join the war, the US can’t take control of the French and Dutch territories with a noncombat move. That is something only the UK and ANZAC can do.

    The US can take control of the French and Dutch territories, if it liberates them from Japan.


  • Official Answers

    @Hobbes:

    “Occupy” is the result of a hostile territory being captured, where control of it has switched.

    Actually, “occupy” simply means to have one or more units in the territory, regardless of who owns it.

    @moompix:

    I take it the following would be correct then:

    While not at war, the US can’t move into French and Dutch territories at all.

    After it does join the war, the US can’t take control of the French and Dutch territories with a noncombat move. That is something only the UK and ANZAC can do.

    The US can take control of the French and Dutch territories, if it liberates them from Japan.

    Correct.



  • @Hobbes:

    The UK/ANZAC cannot ‘capture’ the DEI territories, only take ‘control’ of them. On the manual ‘capture’ refers to at least 1 attacking land unit occupying the territory after all combat is resolved. “Occupy” is the result of a hostile territory being captured, where control of it has switched. ‘Control’ refers to the ownership of the territory. The manual so far is clear, I haven’t found any misusage of the terms until now.

    I was using capture as a verb (perhaps I shouldn’t have), not a specified game condition similar to “control” and “occupy”, hence the quotes.  However, as Krieghund pointed out, your definition of occupy is incorrect.  Previous to AA40, the only way to “control” a territory originally belonging friendly player (at setup) is by attacking it when it was under enemy control and occupying after that players capital was captured.  AAP40 is the first game to make an exception, in this case for the Dutch as their capital has apparently already fallen(the German’s were big meany heads).  If the game complied with AA50 rules the only way the Brits could “control” the DEI is if Japan had taken them first and THEN the UK swept in, won the day, and took “control” (cause the Germans are still big meany heads).  In a game with so many rules and clarifications I would have hoped certain terms that required certain conditions to meet (combat moves against an enemy to capture) wouldn’t be muddied by exceptions.  The modifier rule now is “control… peacefully”.

    It’s ok, I get it now.  I just wish it hadn’t been an exception.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    The first question is still not answered.

    If Uk/ANZAC attacks Japan first, can the Japanese then occupy/capture the DEI, without bringing the USA into the war? or not?

    Assumedly, if the UK has taken a dutch territory, because the UK controls it, it’s no problem.  But what if the dutch still control it?



  • @Krieghund:

    Actually, “occupy” simply means to have one or more units in the territory, regardless of who owns it.

    OK, I’m cleared on that. But in this case what about the NA for ANZAC where it gains 5 IPC for occupying any island/territory originally Japanese. ANZAC will only have to move 1 unit (it can even be a plane) to a J territory/island that is now controlled by US/UK/China to get the one time bonus. Is this correct?


  • Customizer

    @Gargantua:

    The first question is still not answered.

    If Uk/ANZAC attacks Japan first, can the Japanese then occupy/capture the DEI, without bringing the USA into the war? or not?

    Assumedly, if the UK has taken a dutch territory, because the UK controls it, it’s no problem.  But what if the dutch still control it?

    I would say no.  If the UK/ANZAC attack first, then Japan is only in a war with UK/ANZAC, not with the Dutch, and therefore a DEI attack would still bring the US into the war, unless the UK has already taken them.


  • Official Answers

    @Hobbes:

    @Krieghund:

    Actually, “occupy” simply means to have one or more units in the territory, regardless of who owns it.

    OK, I’m cleared on that. But in this case what about the NA for ANZAC where it gains 5 IPC for occupying any island/territory originally Japanese. ANZAC will only have to move 1 unit (it can even be a plane) to a J territory/island that is now controlled by US/UK/China to get the one time bonus. Is this correct?

    Yes.

    @bcguitars:

    @Gargantua:

    The first question is still not answered.

    If Uk/ANZAC attacks Japan first, can the Japanese then occupy/capture the DEI, without bringing the USA into the war? or not?

    Assumedly, if the UK has taken a dutch territory, because the UK controls it, it’s no problem.  But what if the dutch still control it?

    I would say no.  If the UK/ANZAC attack first, then Japan is only in a war with UK/ANZAC, not with the Dutch, and therefore a DEI attack would still bring the US into the war, unless the UK has already taken them.

    Correct.



  • krieg, I understand the whole Dutch exception rule. Many times you refer to it as the treat the Dutch as if their capital has fallen, just as you would any other power. Then there’s the UK/Anz have a special deal worked out w/Dutch to take ownership (noncombat). Ok I could see that too. What I don’t get is when say the Anz capital falls, and the same liberties are not given. I would expect that the UK & Anz would have a similar deal worked out. Their bond was much closer.

    My question is why did we stop there?
    I have never liked the fact that in AA games once a capital falls, you have to wait for the enemy to capture your allies tt so you can liberate them, giving the IPC’s back to your side. Japan & Russia were isolationist, but the rest would have allowed some kind of deal for their friends one would think.


  • Official Answers

    Interesting question, Bill.  I guess the answer is that the UK and ANZAC are powers in the game, capable of taking care of themselves (theoretically), but France and the Netherlands are not.  You have to draw the line somewhere.  It’s just one of many instances where “realism” loses out to game play.



  • Thanks Krieg, for a straight forward answer. I appreciate that you didn’t try to sugar coat it. Maybe at some point Larry will revisit some of the fallen capital rules. Seems like they are changing very slowly when you consider the Dutch, French and even China. For now house rules will have to do, but as you pointed out the income slides would be be a concern for game play, not to mention the effect on other IC’s.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Hell, you might even want to lose a capital, just so you can spend all your income in one place 😛



  • Maybe Larry is trying to change the game and by doing this is by mudderling up the old way to help the new way as Wild Bill said.

    I would hope that when Europe 40 is out, all the muddle-up-ness is clear and alot of the Dutch and political situation is understood.
    You have to think however, if a new person just getting into the game of AA just picked up this game and never knew of the internet and excpecialy sites like this, would those players be as muddled up as we all seem to be by reading the rule book?

    I have a question which could happen…( kinda going off topic with DEI…but still politics…! ). If Japan somehow manages to take San Fran on US Western State, the US doesn’t hand over the money to Japan ( unlike previous AA games ) correct…?
    so what would the IPC value be for Japan at the collect income stage…10 or 50?

    BH



  • @Bravehart:

    I have a question which could happen…( kinda going off topic with DEI…but still politics…! ). If Japan somehow manages to take San Fran on US Western State, the US doesn’t had over the money to Japan ( unlike previous AA games ) correct…?
    so what would the IPC value be for Japan at the collect income stage…10 or 50?

    Since the US income is raised to 50 immediately when the US is attacked then it would be 50.


  • Official Answers

    The additional 40 income is a US NO, so Japan would not get it.



  • @Krieghund:

    The additional 40 income is a US NO, so Japan would not get it.

    I understand the reasoning behind this, but I wish it wasn’t the case – At least for the Global game. It makes sense for Pacific, since you plunder all USA IPCs upon capture.

    But in the Global game, having the WUSA be worth 50 IPCs (or at least 25 or something) would give Japan a reason to actually push towards an American homeland invasion, rather than simply trying to keep the USA navy at bay while they focus on controlling the rest of the Pacific and most of Asia.

    Maybe in the combined game there could be some sort of Japanese NO for controlling the WUSA? Maybe 15 IPC’s or something?



  • @Krieghund:

    The additional 40 income is a US NO, so Japan would not get it.

    This of course would be clearer if the map made no mention of 50 on it and it was specified only in the National Objectives list.  Is there a reason it was printed on the map rather than simply an objective which read: 40 IPCs for controlling West USA and are at war with Japan?

    I can only assume that perhaps in the Global game the 50 is printed so that it’s clear what the value is to the US in case all other national objectives are optional (as is the case with AA50) but USA wartime economy is not?

    @Incline:

    @Krieghund:

    The additional 40 income is a US NO, so Japan would not get it.

    I understand the reasoning behind this, but I wish it wasn’t the case – At least for the Global game. It makes sense for Pacific, since you plunder all USA IPCs upon capture.

    But in the Global game, having the WUSA be worth 50 IPCs (or at least 25 or something) would give Japan a reason to actually push towards an American homeland invasion, rather than simply trying to keep the USA navy at bay while they focus on controlling the rest of the Pacific and most of Asia.

    Maybe in the combined game there could be some sort of Japanese NO for controlling the WUSA? Maybe 15 IPC’s or something?

    Think of it this way:  10 IPCs represents the raw material and economic infrastructure of West USA.  the 40 IPCs represent a willing populace working around the clock in a patriotic ferver.  Japan wouldn’t be able to just invade West US and expect even 1/5th of the productivity the WestUS enjoyed.  They’re lucky to get that 10 even with a boost in morale at home.  Plus it means the US is demoralized and lost 50, and that’s a reason to push for it.  However, if you actually capture it, face it, the game is probably over so does it matter how much you get?



  • @Bravehart:

    I have a question which could happen…( kinda going off topic with DEI…but still politics…! ). If Japan somehow manages to take San Fran on US Western State, the US doesn’t had over the money to Japan ( unlike previous AA games ) correct…?
    so what would the IPC value be for Japan at the collect income stage…10 or 50?
    BH

    @Krieghund:

    The additional 40 income is a US NO, so Japan would not get it.

    I think there were 2 questions here.

    1. Yes japan would only get the 10 IPC ,not the 50 (Krieg)
    2. Yes Japan would get any stored IPC that the US had as W. US is considered a capital in AA40P. So is India(UK), and N S Wales (Anz) for game purposes. Pg# 18 capturing/lib Capitals.

Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 9
  • 5
  • 13
  • 2
  • 6
  • 2
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

56
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts