Help please.

[Oconner]

Hey, I'm new to the board, and I'm glad it exists because I have some questions.

1. If Russia loses Karelia to Germany then UK takes it from them, who can produce men out of it. I think it is UK who can build (3) men out of it next round if it is still held by them.(p11,p14) Correct? (We just had a big argument because the same player was also playing Russia and wanted to build men out of Karelia.)

2. If a transport picks up 2 infantry then travels 2 movement to drop them off into 2 different enemy held unoccupied lands (1 in each) in a combat move, this *can't* be done, Correct?

3. But it would be allowed to do this if it was Non-combat and into 2 friendly territorys? Correct?

I should be getting the "Enemy on the Horizon" Expansion and was wondering if anyone on the board has had any experience with it.

Thanks!

[Darksideknight]

1. The territory is still Russian. It is considered liberated by the Brits because it belongs to Russia. So Russia may build there if it is liberated by Britain or America.

2,3- No you can never under any circumstance drop infantry in two diff places on the same turn (from the same transport). However a infantry can stay on board and be dropped off the next round.

Hope this clears things up smile.gif

-Jason

[ButchOHare1]

Bridging: A transport can even load and unload units without moving from the sea zone it is in by "bridging".
For example, if a transport was in the sea zone surrounding Japan, it could carry land units from Japan to Manchuria without ever leaving that sea zone; or if a transport was in the sea zone surrounding the United Kingdom, it could carry 1 infantry to Finland/Norway and 1 infantry to Western Europe (if the U.K. controlled these territories) without ever leaving the sea zone. When bridging, just be sure that each transport only carries its capacity of cargo. A transport can unload into two territories if it is bridging. I think we have to conclude that if it has moved two before loading it is not bridging and cannot unload into two territories.

I answer question 3 "yes."

[Oconner]

But Karelia I thought can't be liberated, because it isn't the capital of Russia.
So you can see my dilemma...

[elbowmaster]

karelia is always owned by russia. it can be "occupied" by axis. if say for instance, germany takes karelia, on UK's turn, UK takes back karelia, it reverts back to a russian territory not a UK territory. On russia's next turn, they can then build russian units on karelia once again.

hope that helps.

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ButchOHare1]

If USSR capital (Russia SSR) is held by Axis, then USA or UK can control Karelia and collect the 3 IPCs. I'm not sure if they can produce there - can't remember.

[elbowmaster]

butchohare wrote:

"If USSR capital (Russia SSR) is held by Axis, then USA or UK can control Karelia and collect the 3 IPCs."

im not sure if that is true butch. my understanding is that if russia (capital) for example is occupied by japan, and karelia is still in allied hands, 0 money goes UK or USA for karelia. karelia is still considered russian, even if russia has been captured.

even if japan then takes karelia, and lets say, usa takes karelia back, its still considered a russian territory, 0 money collected by USA.

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ January 22, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: elbowmaster ]

[Yoper]

*Second Edition Rules, Page 21, Section 7, Other Considerations-
Using an ally's industrial complex: You cannot place your newly purchased units at an industrial complex owned by an ally. EXCEPTION: You can use an industrial complex in an ally's territory that you liberated if the capital of this ally is in enemy hands.

I always have been under the impression that the territory in question would be counted towards the original owners total (it is color-coded as such). Just because the owner can not collect for the territory (owners capital is in enemy hands) does not mean that the territory is not his or that it should not be listed on the National Production Chart (NPC) as his. Once/If his capital is retaken then the proper count is represented on the NPC. While the use of the factory by the ally may not exactly seem like a good rule, it does fall in line with the idea of using a captured enemy factory for the introduction of your units. Also, I do not see anywhere in the 2nd Ed. rules, the rules clarification, or in the A&A FAQ from the AH site where it says that you can not move a transport during non-combat and then drop an infantry unit into two separate friendly territories. While the "bridging" example talks about the situation where a transport does not move, there is no reference anywhere stating that you can not also move one or two sea zones and then unload into two different friendly territories. You can not drop an infantry unit off after zero or one moves and then keep moving to drop of another infantry unit, but if both infantry units are unloaded from the same sea zone then it can be done after any (or no) movement of the transport.

[AARommel]

Hi Oconner. Your questions 1 and 3 are easy. I don't have the rules handy to site the page, but I know the answers.
1. As long as the Russian capital hasn't fallen, any Russian territory that is taken from an Axis power by an ally liberates the territory, and it then belongs to Russia.
3. Non-combat discharging of infantry into 2 countries in the same sea zone is specifically allowed. It doesn't matter if the transport moved 1 or 2 spaces, or not at all, just that the transport no longer moves after discharging.
2. Splitting infantry to attack 2 territories from 1 transport is subject to interpretation. There is no rule prohibiting this. The combat rules just say to move to the sea zone and unload. The specific allowance of non-combat split unloading seems to me to set precedent that the same would be true for combat. But Larry Harris has told me that he feels that transport movement is too liberal generally, and should be restricted more in future changes. The bottom line in my experience is that some players allow it, some don't.

[Oconner]

Hey, thankyou everyone who is responding! So I think I've wrapped my mind around the concept. So most of the time, there shouldn't be any allied markers on allied territory, and thus allied people shouldn't be collecting IPCs for occupying allied territories, even if they were first taken over by an axis country. I hope I've got it right. This kinda makes sense to me.

ex: US loses Brazil to Germany, then UK retakes it for the US, so on the Production chart, Germany goes down (3) and US regains (3) even though it was Britan who took it back.