Tech Question

[tactical]

Wow, I am full of strange questions today, ahem. OK, USA goes for rockets and gets it. On their NCM, they move their AA guns to UK, UK now has 2 guns,1uk and 1usa. USA would roll for rockets on their turn, right? Nothing changes just because it's on another country? Correct?

I think this was asked a long time ago, but same scenario. Usa is hitting Germany with rockets from UK, Germany takes over UK, UK takes uk back on their turn. Now, UK has 2 AA guns, 1 from USA, 1 from themselves. But since the Germans took UK(hence, owning the AA gun for 1 round), and then when UK took back UK the AA gun is now the property of the victor(UK), which means the gun could no longer be fired for rockets(since USA had the tech). Or it is still considered 2 guns? 1usa and 1 uk, although I don't think that would make sense. Well, if there any night owls prowling, let me know.

I would actually like to see if MOD Sin would know the answer to this one also.

[pagan]

USA AA-gun still belongs to USA. You just have to use a flag marker to identify it as it moves around the board.

In the scenario where germany captures the AA-guns by taking london, then they both belong to germany.

---now this is my guess on this one....
_UK takes back london, then both AA-guns become the property of UK.
_USA takes back london, then both AA-uns become the property of USA, the liberated capital remains UK of course.

[RuHurt]

I agree with Pagan mostly here, but I differ in the second scenario; I think that, should the USA recapture London, then the AA guns would still be 1 USA, 1 UK. After all, the USA is merely liberating the territory, not actually taking it, unlike the UK when it recaptures London. Just my take on it, though.

[axis_roll]

It's my understanding that if USA takes back London with 2 aa guns on it, London would be liberated, and those aa guns become owned by the liberated country (UK in this case).

USA lost all claims to the AA gun when London fell.

[steben]

I go for Pagan too: Both guns become German, and both guns become those of the liberator (or UK or USA). The USA would merely give Uk back rule in their country, but in military terms they decide all since they are the only ones present with arms!

[Me 262 Schwalbe]

I agree with Pagan mostly here, but I differ in the second scenario; I think that, should the USA recapture London, then the AA guns would still be 1 USA, 1 UK. After all, the USA is merely liberating the territory, not actually taking it, unlike the UK when it recaptures London. Just my take on it, though.

I agree with Pagan and see no difference between capturing or liberating a territory with regards to captured AA's. At least I see nothing about it in the OM. IMO the power that wins a battle over a territory with an AA, gets to own the thing. And who built the AA or owned it at the start of the game doesn't matter either.

Take this example,
UK captures Norway. Next round UK moves an AA to Norway. The next round Germany retakes Norway (and the AA is now German). But Germany can't hold and loses Norway (and the AA gun) to the USA. Would the (UK built) AA be UK or USA? I think we all would agree that te gun is a US gun now.
But what if this happened in an originally UK territory? F.i. South Africa. UK moves AA there, SA it is captured by Germany and after that (including AA gun) by USA. IMO the AA gun is a US unit now, because the USA captured it from the Germans.

[tactical]

Damn,
both arguememnts make sense, I am unsure which way to go on this, What Pagan says makes sense, but Axisroll makes sense also, I may need an official ruling on this, where the heck is moderator Sin or Carico when you need them? Thanks for the help,though,guys.

[Moderator Sinister]

I'm on it. My gut tells me it's the USA. As liberated territories revert back to the owner so should liberated equipment. I'm very sure this was the case in old MB A&A . However, I will get and official ruling as occasionally in those very small cases (less than 1% of course) I'm wrong LOL...

[Me 262 Schwalbe]

I looked it up.
Page 25 OM: "If you liberate a territory containing a captured AA gun, control reverts to the original owner".

I think they mean: "original owner of the AA gun". But it could also mean "original owner of the liberated territory".......

I hate to say this.....but.....I......was.....wro......not exactly correct in my first reply. :D It does matter if the originally friendly AA gun is in a liberated or a captured territory.

[Moderator Sinister]

There you go, I'm at work and without a rulebook...

It orginal owner of the AA btw

Thanks!

[BlackWatch222]

It's a whole lot easier to remember guys if you just use the rule:

All residual hardware goes to the owner of the land once the territory changes hands.

So - the IC (it is London after all), and BOTH AA guns revert to UK control when the US liberates London from the Germans.

BW

[Me 262 Schwalbe]

It's a whole lot easier to remember guys if you just use the rule:

All residual hardware goes to the owner of the land once the territory changes hands.

So - the IC (it is London after all), and BOTH AA guns revert to UK control when the US liberates London from the Germans.

BW

No, in this situation 1 of the AA's was UK and 1 was US before Germany took the UK and captured the AA's.

When liberating the UK the Allies retake their captured AA's and they return to the original owner of the AA (page 25 OM, last sentence under Usable by invading forces).
Owners in this case. Because 1 was UK and 1 was US owned, after liberating it is 1 UK AA and 1 US AA again. This would even be the case if the UK was liberated by the Russians.

[axis_roll]

If I liberate a friendly power’s territory, what happens to the antiaircraft guns and industrial complexes there?
They are returned to the control of the original controller.

Clarification. This is absolutely true if the liberated territory is the friendly power's capital. It is only true for other territories if the friendly power's capital is held by that friendly power.

bottom line, I agree with Panther on this one. A gun never retains original owner status... whomever captures it owns it, EXCEPT if you are liberating an allies territory.

If there was a German AA gun in ukraine and UK takes Ukraine on their turn, the gun now belongs to UK. Japans turn comes and they liberate Ukraine back to german control. The gun would NOT become Japanese, it becomes German, because the original territory IS German.

[RuHurt]

Hurray, I was right! :D

[axis_roll]

I agree with Pagan mostly here, but I differ in the second scenario; I think that, should the USA recapture London, then the AA guns would still be 1 USA, 1 UK. After all, the USA is merely liberating the territory, not actually taking it, unlike the UK when it recaptures London. Just my take on it, though.
How can you be wrong? you say it both ways....

When the US takes back UK, both guns are UK.

Control of the generic AA gun unit reverts to the whomever controls the territory. In this case, UK controls London... USA just happened to liberate London for UK in this case, but nonetheless, UK controls the territory and gets the income for the territory.

[tactical]

After reading some answers, and pondering this for a day, I have come to the conclusion, whether right or wrong, that this statement by Mod SIN;

"There you go, I'm at work and without a rulebook...

It orginal owner of the AA btw

Thanks!"

is completely incorrect. Again, I may be wrong but how can this be possible? When Germany took the AA gun over on the UK, it became German property. Regardless whether UK or USA recovers Britian, it is irrelevent at this point who ORIGINALY had control of the AA gun. The gun is on UK soil, UK is LIBERATED, the IC and both AA GUNS are now British. This is my line of resoning, if someone can explain that this is incorrect then I'll take a look at it. But after throwing it around over and over again, this seems like the most logical and realistic conclusion. thoughts?

[RuHurt]

Seems like the rules say that the AA returns to the ORIGINAL owner; in this case, one of the AA guns was ORIGINALLY the USA's, so one of the AA guns after liberation (by any country) would belong to the USA.

[Me 262 Schwalbe]

As I keep saying: see OM page 25.

[tactical]

Well,
I just found the manual and read page 25, and it is indeed, reverts back to original owner. Although to me, this doesn't make much sense, and I find this very asinine. So if the German's take out a US AA gun in Anglo Egypt, first thing everyone should do is rush and put an American chip under it followed by a German chip. The next turn, the Uk takes it over but because it was originally USA's gun, NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE NO OTHER USA FORCES IN AFRICA, THE GUN WILL JUST RUN BY ITSELF. At this point you may take away the German chip.

Japan moves and takes over Anglo by ampibious assault, so you will now put a Japanese chip under the USA chip. Now America has no forces to take it back this round but thats ok, why?, because there's actually a secret usa chip under the gun so no one will know it's really USA's gun, when the Japanese go to use it, it will malfunction.

Obviously I am being a bit of a smart ass, and this will only happen once in a blue moon, but to me, it's just a bull**** rule. Now if you countered to me, hey it's in the rulebook so thats it, there's nothing you can say. I'd normally say fine. But we know what a thought out, well planned, well executed game this turned out to be, off the top of my head
a)if the rulebook is so easy to understand,with no contrasts, why are there 2 faqs for this game
b)if the game is so balanced why is there LHTR and Cousin Joe's Enhanced
c)should I even mention techs? Nuff said
d)and lastly, thanks for those russian aircraft carriers to land all my fighters on, and there's nothing I buy on R1 except for 2 destroyers, gotta stop the german navy any way I can. I guess what i'm saying is, Thanks for the Japanese tanks.

This is definitely a gripe, I do love to play this game, but that rule makes no sense to me. Ok, I'm going to shut up now. :(
Still gotta buck the system and say that rule is incorrect.(realistically wise)

[Moderator Sinister]

Official Answer...From Mike

p. 25: "If you liberate a territory containing a captured antiaircraft gun,
control reverts to the original owner." The problem with that sentence is
that "owner" doesn't say whether it refers to "gun" or "territory." The LHTR
guys and I agreed that the right answer should be "territory" (it's vastly
easier to track).

So in the example, the UK now has two AA guns. (The Americans lost theirs.)
Since the UK doesn't have the Rockets tech, the gun can't fire Rockets
anymore. This is similar to what happens to a Lend-Leased lone-range bomber;
just because the US can make them fly farther doesn't mean the Russians can
figure it out. The game is built on the principle that countries don't trust
their allies with their innovations. (Would you give Stalin your best
tanks?)

Mike

[tactical]

Mike, your joking right? Your logic makes no sense to me. can you even see what your saying?

"If an AA gun is capable of firing rockets then and it suddenly is captured and then recaptured wow! Look! it's lost its ability to fire rockets! Must be wizard magic from the land of dwarves and honey...how fricken absurd. "

Thats right, if you go by that token, the aa gun is capable of firing rockets, then the Germans capture it. the germans can't fire the rockets, why???? By your logic they should be able to right?(this is not even my case, but I'll run with it). Your logic is saying if USA has the tech, then LOSES that unit, the captor should get to use that unit with the tech, and in addition, if the opponent gets that unit back it goes to the original owner of the tech, still able to use the tech. Or the only other statement(that I think your saying) is you have the tech, opponent gets the aa gun, but can't figure out how to fire rockets? Ok, let's run this scenario also, but their going to ALLOW???? it to be recaptured with rocket capabilities? No way, that would never happen. When UK takes over the AA gun, thats what THEY have, a working AA gun, not rockets, why? Because USA has the tech, not them.

My whole point was if you allow an aa gun to get captured(if you have rockets), then you or your ally recapture it, it would belong to the owner of the country your on. or, I could even see a rule saying the invading force specifically gets the aa gun they capture regardless of what territory their on, just as if it was originally an opponents. The rule that says you would revert it back to the original owner is so completly unrealistic, it's insane. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect this game to be historically correct or this should be here or that should be there. but what you are saying just does not coincide with my flow of resonable thought.

I will not sit here and say I'm such and such intelligent,etc. But I do understand basic logic, and this seems to defy it. I am not trying to **** you off, but this rule is a flaw.

[Moderator Sinister]

Tactical,

The first part is mike's answer the moderator commentary is my opinion...I've seperated it to be less confusing. Your comments should be my way.

My Opinion...

The us has an AA gun that's a rocket launcher. The german aquire but don't have the tech, thus they don't understand it. Then is liberaated by the UK. The gun should be returned to the Americans because:

1. The bought it.
2. Because in their hands it is a rocket launcher because they understand the technology.

But it should not be considered magically a british AA gun IMO.

I wholeheartley argue against the logic behind the rule.

[Moderator Sinister]

(moderator commentary)

This is dumb. honestly I'm against this rule, making a rule because "it's easier to track". The country that paid for the equipment SHOULD get it back. To me this could set up situation in play where you are hoping to get a territory captured to own more AA guns. Also I disagree with the other statement about unit reverting to territories because "you wouldn't trust them with your tech" This is dumb logic. If I have a long range fighter it doesn't magically become a non long range fighter because "I don't trust the russian" . Hell we sure examined the heck out of the zero that crashed into alaska. If an AA gun is capable of firing rockets then and it suddenly is captured and then recaptured wow! Look! it's lost its ability to fire rockets! Must be wizard magic from the land of dwarves and honey...how fricken absurd.

Furthermore the wizard magic works the other way...if the UK had rockets and the US didn't. Then your best bet is to let the jerries own the AA guns for a turn and then they magically become rocket launchers.

[tactical]

Mod Sin,
I never said, make it a rule because it's easier to track. I said the rule is a flaw because it makes no sense and is unrealistic. If you see a problem in my logic from the above statement then point it out. Otherwise I feel I am correct on this matter. I am not trying to feel superier here, the way your defending the rule also makes me feel that the rule is incorrect. (If that makes any sense)

[Moderator Sinister]

Mod Sin,
I never said, make it a rule because it's easier to track. I said the rule is a flaw because it makes no sense and is unrealistic. If you see a problem in my logic from the above statement then point it out. Otherwise I feel I am correct on this matter. I am not trying to feel superier here, the way your defending the rule also makes me feel that the rule is incorrect. (If that makes any sense)

Tactical,

You are confused. Slow down hear me out. I made a post with mike's ruling sent to me via e-mail.

Mike rules that in your example the AA gun becomes british.

I am arguing mike's logic not yours. HE SAYS they made the rule "because it's easier to track" this is what I'm arguing. My bad if it got confusing. LOL it must have looked like was arguing tactical or myself...

[Moderator Sinister]

Official Answer...From Mike

p. 25: "If you liberate a territory containing a captured antiaircraft gun,
control reverts to the original owner." The problem with that sentence is
that "owner" doesn't say whether it refers to "gun" or "territory." The LHTR
guys and I agreed that the right answer should be "territory" (it's vastly
easier to track).

So in the example, the UK now has two AA guns. (The Americans lost theirs.)
Since the UK doesn't have the Rockets tech, the gun can't fire Rockets
anymore. This is similar to what happens to a Lend-Leased lone-range bomber;
just because the US can make them fly farther doesn't mean the Russians can
figure it out. The game is built on the principle that countries don't trust
their allies with their innovations. (Would you give Stalin your best
tanks?)

Mike


Once again this is mike speaking in the above post not ModSin. It is the official ruling, though I personally think it misguided.

[tactical]

(So the UK gets a free AA gun without paying for it? I don't agree with that. Furthermore if the UK had rockets and the US didn't they automatically get a free rocket launcher how is this fair?)

thats correct, the UK gets a free AA gun. USA knew the risk when they put it there, life is not fair.

(If the only american unit in the UK is an AA Gun we would agree that it's being crewed by americans so why the argument that the US wouldn't send people in to man the AA gun right away on liberation? Why does an infantry or tank or fighter or bomber have to be there? The US can use the AA gun without other units being present so why would they need to be there to reclaim the gun?)

Again, I said that an American unit has to be present to reclaim the gun, after they "land" on the territory with the gun, they are then free to move on. Theoretically you can say that when the UK reclaims the gun with USA's joint help(without USA being present), but without any type of unit indicater, you can't gurantee USA was present when UK took the gun back, therefore, you need a US piece(any unit) to land on the territory that has the gun, to get the gun and tech back. I think this is, as you would say, fair.

(you have to look at it from a gaming angle and reverse the idea what if the UK had rockets but not the US. The US could stockpile AA guns, let the germans take the territory, let the UK take it back, and instantly the UK has all sorts of rocket launchers without paying for them. This is really not fair. In fact if you wanted to you could deter the germans from attacking territories by using this "free upgrade" tactic).

Again,incorrect. First of all, uk doesn't have the tech, so they have a bunch of aa guns. Second of all, you forgot about putting the chip(usa) under the aa guns, so when USA goes through that territory they would reclaim ALL AA guns. There is no evidence of any free upgrade, your forgetting, the tech goes to the country. NOT THE UNIT. If you follow my reasoning, you will see your errors, thank you. :)

[tactical]

on my last paragrapgh, switch around USA with UK, on my statements.

[pagan]

Let it go Tactical.

there is REASON, and there are RULES.

they do not always correlate.

All that's needed here is the RULE.

[Moderator Sinister]

I'm not in this for the fight. the rule is just that. Mike's ruling is official BUT I have every right to disagree not unlike everyone on this forum has done before me and will continue to do after me. I get to make posts and comments like everyone else. I'm not asking people to agree but I get my say all the same as you would get yours.

My basic argument...

If the UK had rockets as a tech and the US didn't and the us player placed 10 AA guns in UK and germans invaded and the brits got the UK back I'm against the idea of free upgrades to rockets, which this ruling would do. The UK would get 10 free rocket launching AA guns.

Tactical,

I hope you don't think I was picking on you or trying to start trouble with you. You are a good member of the forum and I appreciate your comments even if I hold an opposite view clearly of which I am the minority.

[tactical]

I probably overreacted, shows you how boring my life is, No offense is taken, we'll agree to disagree. :), sounds fine to me.

[Moderator Sinister]

Well Larry and Mike agree with you so I am a minority. LOL

[Mike Selinker]

I'm not in this for the fight. the rule is just that. Mike's ruling is official BUT I have every right to disagree not unlike everyone on this forum has done before me and will continue to do after me.

Sinister is wrong, but not about the part he thinks he's wrong about. :^)

"Mike's ruling" is NOT official. Never has been. I just developed the game. I can give you my intent when it was clear in the design process. For example, we had the clear intent to make rockets only fire three spaces. But there's an example that says it's four. I say that example was not we intended. Case closed.

This case is something else. When we developed the game, we put "original owner" in the rules, but we never made a clear ruling about what that meant. Later, after we were called on it, Larry and I agreed that what we would do is make it the territory's owner, and that tech didn't transfer. This was consistent with other aspects of the game, like the fact that the capturer didn't get rockets so why should the liberator? But it was a judgment call. It's one the designer and developer agree on, but it's a judgment call nonetheless.

So Sinister can disagree with me and be on equal footing with me in this case. He can't do that on the four-spaces example, because the clarification has been put into an FAQ.

Anyway, have at it.

Mike

[Moderator Sinister]

Thanks for posting mike.

Both you and larry have agreed upon it which makes it very official in my mind. Even if its not in the FAQ it's still your project and your baby so I accept your rulings as golden but but hey I'm the wacko that thinks battleships bombarding on 4s is too much and I'm a loud mouth complainer.

So official that it is the way I'll play.... but I still don't like it (Grumble Grumble)

[BlackWatch222]

"If you liberate a territory containing a captured antiaircraft gun,
control reverts to the original owner."

OK - so far this discussion has dealt with a US gun moved into London, captured by Germany, then liberated by the US. The issue becomes whether the "original owner" refers to the territory or the gun.

Let's carry the example one step further.

The US captures a Japanese gun. The US moves it to London, and the rest of the scenario plays out as before.

So now, following a strict interpretation that the "original owner" refers to the gun, not the land - the gun becomes Japanese!

BW

[RuHurt]

But according to Mike and Larry, the "original owner" clause refers to the original owner of the territory, not the gun. Therefore, the gun in your example would be British.

[BlackWatch222]

But according to Mike and Larry, the "original owner" clause refers to the original owner of the territory, not the gun. Therefore, the gun in your example would be British.

Exactly.

However, Mike had stated in his explanation earlier in this thread though that there was some room for argument, and that it was only his opinion that it meant the territory. Others (especially Moderator Sinister) who have been participating have also read the rule, but think that on its own merit it means the original owner of the gun.

What I was trying to point out was that ANYONE should be able to reach the conclusion that it would have to mean the territory, not the gun, using only the language of the rule itself, without having to ask the game authors what they meant.

Yes - the rule does not explicitly say it is the territory, but if you consider the full set of possible scenarios, the only option that will actually make sense under ALL circumstances is that "reverts to the original owner" means "reverts to the original owner of the territory".

BW

[Yoper]

Can I get an AMEN!

Thanks BW222!

Craig

[tactical]

I concur, your watchfulness :)

[Doctor Strategy]

My basic argument...

If the UK had rockets as a tech and the US didn't and the us player placed 10 AA guns in UK and germans invaded and the brits got the UK back I'm against the idea of free upgrades to rockets, which this ruling would do. The UK would get 10 free rocket launching AA guns.


I guess the US would just supply the rockets to the UK for free too.

Seriously though, I don't like the idea of AA guns being "indestructible". I'm quite sure that different guns by different nations use different ammo. So unless you're on friendly terms with the former owner of the gun, ammo for the gun will probably be in short supply. Unless you're lucky enough to capture a large cache of ammo. Maybe the AA guns shouldn't be destroyed by the capturing side but they shouldn't be useable by the capturing side either (for more than a turn or two anyway).

[steben]

The rule is indeed a big flaw.
Sorry, you guys, but I still see a good thinking in giving both AA guns to USA. The only alternative would be 1AA USA and 1 AA UK.
USA lost all claims on the AA when london fell said RuHurt -> completely correct, yet UK lost all claims on military free speach when london fell. There was no UK, only a UK people. It's like all american weaponry should have become belgian in 1945 in the ardennes :confused:

Rules can be changed, surely after a democratic debate. Finally everyone plays the way wants to. In consensus, rules make playing possible on large scale, but no rules are to be religiously charished by every individual.