Some more questions

[Kawe]

1. Is it possible for a UK unit to BRIDGE via US transport in for example sea zone 15 from Trans-Jordan to Anglo-Egypt directly? Or is this a 2 turn process? The UK player load the transport and the US player do not move the transport and then the UK player offloads his units the next turn?

2. If for example, US capture an allied IC (ex. Soviets) in Caucasus can you produce units there? I understood it as YES but only if (Soviets capital - Moscow) is in enemy hands? But not if Moscow is in Soviets hands? Only liberate then?

3. Does a fighter on an aircraftcarrier that doesn´t take part in seabattle count as cargo or can I count the fighter as a unit-loss during seabattle!?
Is it allowed to move a "cargoloaded-fighter" away from a sunk carrier?

4. Is it allowed for a transport that should make an amphibious assault with other sea-units (battleships), to retreat, from a sea zone if the "first fought" sea-battle in the sea zone goes badly? Or is it only during the assault against land territory that you can´t retreat with transports?

Thank you all for comments!

[Krieghund]

1. Is it possible for a UK unit to BRIDGE via US transport in for example sea zone 15 from Trans-Jordan to Anglo-Egypt directly? Or is this a 2 turn process? The UK player load the transport and the US player do not move the transport and then the UK player offloads his units the next turn?

No, it is a two-turn process.

2. If for example, US capture an allied IC (ex. Soviets) in Caucasus can you produce units there? I understood it as YES but only if (Soviets capital - Moscow) is in enemy hands? But not if Moscow is in Soviets hands? Only liberate then?

This is correct.

3. Does a fighter on an aircraftcarrier that doesn´t take part in seabattle count as cargo or can I count the fighter as a unit-loss during seabattle!?
Is it allowed to move a "cargoloaded-fighter" away from a sunk carrier?

If the fighter is not participating in the battle (cargo), it may not be taken as a casualty. If the carrier is sunk, it may move away if there is a suitable landing area.

4. Is it allowed for a transport that should make an amphibious assault with other sea-units (battleships), to retreat, from a sea zone if the "first fought" sea-battle in the sea zone goes badly? Or is it only during the assault against land territory that you can´t retreat with transports?

Transports may retreat from naval battles. The land units in an amphibious assault may not retreat once they have landed.

[holywolfman]

1. It should be a "2" step process since the Uk does not own that transport. (you can load....then next turn the US transport can move/ or stay and the Uk unit can offload on it's next turn.)

2.-NO-The US player CAN NOT (USSR player can on thier next turn!): the ONLY time you can build units with an I.C. that you took over from an enemy nation is if it is in the enemy controlled region! (Then you can start building with it on your NEXT turn]....you can NEVER use an I.C. which is on your allies' region- you would liberate the land for your Ally in that case!)


3. Why wouldn't you use a fighter in a "sea battle"....it can launch from the carrier (per say) and fight with your other naval units if it is in the same region as those naval units under attack! And in that case....you can use that plane as casualty as need be.

-The only time a plane can "move from a carrier" and land (*1) space away is after the carrier is sunk is when a sub had sunk the carrier and after all combat units had battled and the sub retreats because subs CAN NOT attack planes...therefore would have to retreat if there are NO other units present besides the plane.

(Defending player units MAY NOT retreat-only Attacking units can retreat)-the only exception to the rule is that defending subs may retreat (submerge) ONLY after a round of combat and if there are NO attacking destroyers present!

4. You are allowed to retreat if the naval battle does not go as well as planned as the attacker and also if the transport is STILL alive after the defender rolls for each defending unit. (once you land with your units on an amphibious attack THEN you MAY NOT retreat and must fight to the end with your units!)


-Hope that helps!- ;)

[Krieghund]

2.-NO-The US player CAN NOT (USSR player can on thier next turn!): the ONLY time you can build units with an I.C. that you took over from an enemy nation is if it is in the enemy controlled region! (Then you can start building with it on your NEXT turn]....you can NEVER use an I.C. which is on your allies' region- you would liberate the land for your Ally in that case!)

Actually, Nick, Kawe's example is correct. When an ally's capital is in enemy hands, you take control of any enemy-held territory that originally belonged to him/her that you capture. This includes the use of ICs in those territories. When the ally's capital is liberated, control of the territories returns to him/her.

[holywolfman]

OK- forgive me for being confused....but are you guys saying:

If German takes over Caucasus (which is originally owned by USSR) ...the US player can attack it (and capture it ) and build US units on it on thier (USA) next turn?

If that is the case- I DISAGREE! You would (like an HQ region) can just liberize the region for your ALLY player (in this case- USSR)...then USSR player can build on his/her next turn ONLY!

This is clearly stated on the bottom of pg 18 in the Operations Manual:
__________________________________________________ _______________

"If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you "liberate" the territory. You DO NOT take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the territory and its income"

__________________________________________________ _______________

...ok- After further reading it over again...you are saying- if the Axis takes over Moscow....meaning then the USSR player will not collect income since he/she would have to have Moscow to be recaptured and be in Allies' control before the USSR player can produce any units or even collect income!

But- I still say (according to the rules)...the USA player CAN NOT produce any units there since it would resort back to the USSR player's control (even though he/she will not collect income for it until Moscow is recaptured!)

I still say that the USA player WILL NOT be able to produce there since it did not belong to the US originally... makes sense? :o

[Krieghund]

From the Operations Manual, on "Liberating Territories":

If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you "liberate" the territory. You do not take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the territory and its income. Antiaircraft guns or industrial complexes in that territory revert to the original controller of the territory.

If the original controller’s capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the territory, you capture the territory, collect income from the newly captured territory and can use any industrial complex there until the original controller’s capital is liberated. You also take ownership of any antiaircraft gun in that territory.

You just needed to read one more paragraph, Nick! :eek:

[holywolfman]

Touche Krieghund
....WOW! How did I miss that! (This was definately NOT in the Original MB version!)- I don't see how that helps the Allied player out- I mean sure you can get the newly aquired IC but: To me it is wierd using your ALLied player's IC!

What is not clearly stated (and I think we need Sir Mike's approach on it):

What happens to the regions/IC's once the Allied player's HQ gets liberized (Moscow in our case)....Do they automatically go back to the original player's control (therefore if USA took over Caucasus/ 4 pts and other USSR/ Axis controlled regions for 8 IPC value pts (per say)....then the USA player would LOSE 8 IPC's once the HQ is then liberized! I find this a bit strange!

..But now I read it for myself- That is what it says! (granted we never had that situation come up in our games before-at least not in Revised ed.!)-I do see the reason behind it: It would give a chance for a "falling team's" HQ to rebuild what they could since the player with the taken over HQ would not be allowed to build or collect income until the HQ is taken back! (makes sense)- prob for balancing purposes! ;)

I still would like Mike to renounce this ruling on this!

[TrimChris]

Although it would be fun wreaking havoc from a Japanese controlled Italy!

[holywolfman]

-That would be cool!- :D

[Krieghund]

This was definately NOT in the Original MB version!

Um, actually it was.

[holywolfman]

Um, actually it was.

Well....we never had that situation come up in our games and we have been playing over 20+ years...so I guess I just never had to implement that rule! (so there!) :rolleyes: