@ABWorsham4 The more I read, the more I learn that American neutrality pre-Pearl Harbor was extremely nuanced, to say the least. Very interesting stuff.

@crockett36 said in Allied Playbook Draft v1.0:

Less the grab Solomons, Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas. More the 800 ships with a ton of sailors and 10000 marines. The strategic objective part is that you are putting so much pressure on the Japanese navy, fighting, losing, fighting, losing, fighting, winning that they cannot do what they usually do, infect the map like a virus. It’s the piece meal approach of Midway versus the “wait until I get a navy big enough to demolish the IJN.”

This is assuming a non Sealion game. This might look like an invasion of Iwo Jima. Collect a navy there. Get some bombers to harass the island and voila it’s the front line! Waves of metal coming at them every turn, with the advantage that you are able to land on the island and lose the carriers. Subs in reserve to take down the cap ships.

Russia can be assisted by the British because pressure is not as great as it normally is?! Could call it the Nimitz. He wanted to go directly to Japan.

Assuming the Japanese move in predictable ways (into China, SE Asia and the DEI), I like to do a limited island hopping campaign like this:

1. Take the Marshalls. This protects American transports off Hawaii from Japan-based bombers.
2. Take the Carolines. This forces the Japanese to take a more circuitous route to Australia and can be used by the Allies as a springboard to the Philippines, Borneo, FIC or Japan.
3. Take Iwo Jima. Build an air base on it, not for bombers (which don’t need it), but for fighters to protect the American fleet. Stack bombers on Iwo and hit the Japanese IC every turn.

While I’m doing the above, I also gradually build up a good-sized sub fleet to strangle Japan via convoy disruption…and you can usually accomplish steps 1-3 with about 3 fully loaded transports (plus the necessary surface warships, of course).

@ABWorsham4 I’m not familiar with False Flags, but I’ve read Mrs. Ferguson’s Tea Set, Japan and the Second World War: The Global Consequences Following Germany’s Sinking of the SS Automedon in 1940 by Eiji Seki. It’s an excellent account of the exploits of the German commerce raider Atlantis, and I found it fascinating as a Japanese perspective of WWII.

@Krieghund Understood. Great discussion, and thanks for the background information! I think it speaks to the greatness of the Global 1940 game that, ~10 years after publication, we can still have these types of philosophical debates about it.

Now, we can move on to addressing the flawed rules for AAA units…

@Krieghund I appreciate the explanation and I do understand your reasoning. Your decision is consistent with the rules for friendly neutrals and your desire to avoid “a needless difference in the two procedures” makes sense.

I believe my position to be equally valid, however. Language matters, and “assuming guardianship” remains distinctly different from “converting,” “claiming” or “annexing” friendly neutrals. The existing rules draw a bright line between Dutch territories and neutrals. Why, then, couldn’t the procedure for assuming guardianship of Dutch territories be slightly different? (This is rhetorical, as you’ve clearly stated the reasons why you do not wish the procedures to be different.)

A final consideration: My position has the advantage of remaining consistent with the Pacific 1940.2 rules for Dutch territories, while players must find this thread in order to be aware of your ruling which, while logical and understandable, is in fact an exception to the rule as written.

Again, I appreciate your explanation and reasoning.

@Krieghund said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:

Air units are defensive as well, but they don’t count either. As ksmckay said, this is consistent with the related rules.

Respectfully, I don’t think this is a good comparison. The rules clearly state that air units cannot assume guardianship of the Dutch territories. Likewise, the Pacific 1940.2 rules clearly state that the Dutch territories are not treated as friendly neutrals or hostile territories. While I see the logic in your ruling, @Krieghund, I also believe it to be flawed, as it conflates Dutch territories with friendly neutrals. This is, of course, just one man’s opinion…and, as I’ve already been overruled and lost on appeal, I’ll drop the matter here.

The rules are crystal clear for hostile territories and friendly neutrals. The Dutch territories are in no way friendly neutrals. Pacific 1940.2, p.9 makes it clear that guardianship is altogether different from “annexing” or “converting” friendly neutrals. I refer again to the definition of guardianship and the fact that AAA is a defensive unit. I disagree with Krieghund’s interpretation.

@ksmckay On what, exactly, is @Krieghund’s statement based? The vast majority of situations that arise can be easily resolved, if not by direct reference to a rule, then through inference based on interpretation of a rule. My interpretation is as follows:

1. Is AAA a land unit? Yes.
2. Can it engage in noncombat movement? Yes.
3. Does the latest edition of the rulebook (Pacific 1940.2) say UK or ANZAC cannot use an AAA unit to assume guardianship of Dutch territories? No.

The definition of guardianship is “the position of protecting or defending something.” AAA is a purely defensive unit. Krieghund’s ruling seems to me to be a contradiction, rather than a continuation, of the existing rule.

@Panther I still haven’t see any rule which states that UK or ANZAC may not use a AAA unit to assume guardianship of Dutch territories. It’s a land unit, it moves in during noncombat movement…If there’s a specific rule addressing this, I can’t find it.

@ksmckay I’d never considered using an anti-aircraft unit to take possession of DEI territories, but I don’t see why the rules wouldn’t allow it: AAA is a land unit and you have to move in during non-combat movement to take possession. It seems to me to be a legal move.