Should we make better rules for invadable neutrals? (1940)

[WILD BILL]

@Charles:

How much is enough punishment? Maybe we should ask Germany. My new setup for Spain is 10 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 tank, and 1 fighter.
I revised the setup above after a playtest.

So you dropped an 1 art and 1 mech from the orig Spanish army that you posted.

In your test I’m assuming the US attacked Spain

What did the US take in if so? (was I close on the US attack force)

How’d it go for the Americans afterwords (did UK reinforce)

Were the allies able to hold and advance, or did the axis push them back into the see?

[WILD BILL]

@iwugrad:

My 2 cents after only playing one game (which is why it’s only worth 2 cents) is that it works fine if you can attack any true neutral nation and you’re only at war with that nation, even with only as many soldiers as that nation starts with according to the official rules.

I think it depends on what appetite your group has for rules.  I played with a group of young gamers (video gamers that is) who had less appetite for complexity and rules and preferred speed over accuracy.  The attack any neutral without consequences rule made it much more fun for this group: it’s fun to take over countries, plain and simple.

If you were playing with a bunch of guys like me (which you probably never will since I’m a little uncommon), then the best would be to have each country’s neutrality rules follow the treaties and obligations that country had during world war 2.  Additionally, their military would be the relative size that it was as compared to the playable countries in this game as/of the starting setup (I’m afraid I wouldn’t have an appetite to adjust each countries military as the game went on according to the size it was at each time period, so a starting 1940 setup would remain throughout the game).  You’d follow a chart showing the alliances.  For instance, you want to invade Spain, you look on the chart and it mimics their treaties during the war:  it says if you invade, you’re also at war with Portugal and their colonies in Africa (maybe there were more treaty obligations I’m unaware of).  Additionally, if the invasion of the neutral country failed or if that country was liberated, a factory would be placed on it (major or minor depending on that country’s relative industrial capacity. The relative industrial capacities would also be listed on the earlier mentioned treaties chart, which may indicate that country may produce more than it’s territory value in units each round) and the aligned/liberating nation could place units on that country each turn.  That country would have it’s own income though and would not go to the aligned/liberating nation’s pool of cash.

With the rules for a bunch of guys like me, yes, the allies may invade Spain with regularity, but they’d be taking on a large military.  They’d also need to make sure their invasion stuck, otherwise, if the Axis liberates Spain, they will have an operational factory pumping out a pretty good amount of units each round.  This inverse is true with potential Axis invasions such as Turkey, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.

You have a good point about not over complicating things. It would be fun to just steam roll Turkey or Spain with no strings attached like you do Yugo or Greece, or even France for the matter. Both sides would have opportunity to make attacks that benefit them. The axis could make some good early gains,  but would eventually end up on the short end of the stick.

The Germans could blast into Turkey on on G3 (utilizing the strength of the Luftwaffe), and set-up a pretty nice secondary force opening up the oil NO’s of Caucasus and the Mid East (then march north). The Italians would also get access to the Black Sea to join in the action behind the protection of the Turkish straight. The UK would get pretty stretched out, and Russia still has its hands full with the main German front.

The US counters by invading Spain to establish a foot hold in Europe once at war, and the UK grabs Portugal and maybe the African colonies, Saudi etc….

Like you said you could also go the opposite direction and make up some treaties and alliances, plus a way to sway them. Could have it that only the axis can attack true neutrals, but if certain events or situations come up the allies are allowed to violate neutrality of some countries. Certain events trigger the activation of neutral minors to go pro axis/allies etc… Just depends on what you want out of your entertainment.

[CWO Marc]

@WILD:

Could have it that only the axis can attack true neutrals, but if certain events or situations come up the allies are allowed to violate neutrality of some countries.

Which they did in real life.  The British occupied Iceland (the Americans later joined them in doing so) and the Americans seized Greenland, in both cases to keep them out of enemy hands in case the Germans had any designs on them.  The Icelanders and the Danes were seriously torqued off by these actions, but were hardly in a position to do much about it (especially the Danes, who were under Nazi occupation).  The British and the Soviets jointly invaded Iran when they started getting nervous about where the Shah’s loyalties were.  The British also staged a mini-coup (using troops and tanks) against King Farouk of Egypt in 1942; Egypt was technically an independent country at the time, though in practice it was a British protectorate.

[seancb]

We have house rule that activates Spain pro-Axis as such: Germany collects income.
Franco joins the Axis powers. Spain can no longer remain neutral due to increasing pressure from Hitler.
Place German units consisting of 4 INF, 1 armor, 1 mobile infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 naval base, 1 airbase, 1 Minor Industrial complex in Spain. Place 1 Italian transport and 1 Italian destroyer in SZ 92. Morocco place 1 Italian INF (This event is negated if Spain is ever seized by the Allies. Morocco and naval units unaffected.)

[Charles de Gaulle]

@WILD:

@Charles:

How much is enough punishment? Maybe we should ask Germany. My new setup for Spain is 10 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 tank, and 1 fighter.
I revised the setup above after a playtest.

So you dropped an 1 art and 1 mech from the orig Spanish army that you posted.

In your test I’m assuming the US attacked Spain

What did the US take in if so? (was I close on the US attack force)

How’d it go for the Americans afterwords (did UK reinforce)

Were the allies able to hold and advance, or did the axis push them back into the see?

Very few countries were invaded at all so I lowered most of their forces.

My goal here is a good balance of historical accuracy, limited special rules, and playabillity. 
Leaving the armies the size they are is unhistorical and unfair and can be easily fixed without special rules.  Leaving Spain a walk in for the U.S. will upset balance. 
But it all comes down to the fact that we dislike the OOB neutral rules.  If we each make good house rules that we share for certain people that’s great!  :-D.

[Caesar-Seriona]

I thought about giving neutrals units and factories on crack. I wanted to change the neutrals to be more power thus making Switzerland, Turkey, and Sweden the most powerful neutrals to invaded. I mean everything. Infantry, tanks, aircraft, naval, and factories and try to match how close they are to real life. I always found it stupid that Argentina getting invaded would drag Afghanistan into war. Doesn’t make sense. My idea of neutrals is to remove them from being single territory. I thought about building each continent the same size as a regular AnA board. As far as what happens to neutrals if they don’t get conquered is difficult to work with. G40 rules states that their military just sits as is. I thought about the nation that they were closes to will join that nation automatically or even go as far as making them their own faction.

[piscolar]

Here’s what I did. While it’s pretty much inconceivable all neutral countries would go to war if one of them was invaded, it’s NOT inconceivable some would have alliances, regional in nature and among countries with shared interests. Excluding Mongolia (whose rules I left the same), I created 4 alliances among the remaining neutrals. No, not everything in these alliances make sense (Switzerland and Afghanistan would never go to war unless they were invaded), but it adds a new dimension to the game. Also, invaded neutral countries have an impact on geopolitics, so countries need to think carefully before attacking. It is risky and costly, however, in some cases there is value in doing it - unlike in the actual game.

Here’s the way it works: each alliance has one country that is the center of it all. This is the real gem - it either has the most IPC value or strategic value. The four countries are Sweden, Turkey, Argentina, and Spain. These countries each have a minor IPC and a proper military. This was easy to pick out, as these countries all had at least 2IPCs in value and 4+ call-ups. So I took their initial call-ups, and added 40IPCs worth of soldiers/bases for Argentina (4), 50 to Sweden and Spain (6), and 60 to Turkey (8). I based the units on what such a country would reasonably have. Sweden had advanced industry and an effective navy but hardly any air force in 1940; Spain was along the lines of Italy in land power, Turkey was mostly struggling to modernize but had fortifications and a small but professional british-trained air force (insignificant navy), Argentina had a small army and navy (though far better than its neighbors) and a great port.

Here are the official rules and set up:

If you attack a single neutral country, not all of them will become hostile - only ones they have a mutual defense pact with. There are four alliances on the map; an attack against one of these members is an attack on all.

Mongolia is unaffected by these changes.

If a territory/alliance is attacked, it will immediately join a specified member of the opposite side.

Note: Each South American neutral “country” for our purposes has been combined. For example, Venezuela is now a part of Ecuador and Colombia. “Greater Venezuela” does not receive an IPC bonus for this, however it does receive an additional infantry unit per added territory. So instead of spawning +2 infantry when attacked, it will create +4. Same rules apply for Greater Argentina (Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay) and Greater Chile (Chile, Bolivia, Peru).

Finally, note that Sierra Leone is UK territory and Liberia becomes a US territory once it enters the war. They are not neutral territories.

Starting Neutral Territory Units:

South American Alliance:
Greater Venezuela: 4 Infantry
Greater Chile: 4 Infantry
Greater Argentina: 6 Infantry + 3 Artillery +  1 AAA + Naval Base + Destroyer (Sea Zone 85) + Minor IPC

If attacked by the Allies, the South American Alliance joins Germany. If attacked by the Axis, the South American Alliance joins the US. All of the South American Alliance’s units and factories immediately become controlled by that player. An Axis attack on the South American Alliance is considered a declaration of war against the US. The US may not attack the South American Alliance until war against Axis has been declared.

Total Alliance IPC Value: 6

Iberian Alliance:
Spain: 8 Infantry + 3 Artillery + 2 Tanks + 2 AAA + 1 Fighter + Minor IPC
Portugal: 2 Infantry
Mozambique: 2 Infantry
Angola: 2 Infantry
Rio de Oro
Portuguese Guinea

If attacked by the Allies, the Iberian Alliance joins Germany or Italy. If attacked by the Axis, the Iberian Alliance joins the UK (European Economy) or France. All of its units and factories immediately become controlled by that player. An Axis attack against Spain is considered a declaration of war against the US.

Total Alliance IPC Value: 5

Swedish-Swiss Alliance:
Sweden: 6 Infantry + 4 Artillery + 2 Tanks + 1 Mech Infantry + 2 AAA + Destroyer (Sea Zone 113) + Minor IPC
Switzerland: 2 Infantry

If attacked by the Allies, Sweden joins Germany and Switzerland joins Germany or Italy. If attacked by the Axis, Sweden joins the UK (European Economy) and Switzerland joins France. All of their units and factories immediately become controlled by those players. An Axis attack against Sweden or Switzerland is considered a declaration of War against Russia and the US.

Total IPC Value: 3

Islamic Alliance:
Turkey: 9 Infantry + 4 Artillery + 1 Tank + 1 Fighter + 2 AAA + Fortification + Minor IPC
Saudi Arabia: 2 Infantry
Afghanistan: 4 Infantry

If attacked by the Allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia join Germany or Italy, and Afghanistan joins Germany. If attacked by the Axis, Turkey and Afghanistan join Russia or UK (European Economy), and Saudi Arabia joins the UK (European Economy). All of the Islamic Alliance’s units and factories immediately become controlled by that player. An Axis attack on the Islamic Alliance is the equivalent of a declaration of war on Russia, the UK, ANZAC, and France. Russia may not attack the Islamic Alliance until war against Germany has been declared.

Additionally, the Bosporus Straight is considered a universal national objective worth an additional +1 IPC to the player controlling it.

Note: Italian and German national objectives include Saudi Arabia in their quest for Strategic Oil Reserves. If controlled, they gain an additional +2 IPCs such as in Northwest Persia, Iraq, and Persia.

Total Alliance IPC Value: 5

[taamvan]

If you break the tripwire rule, invading Turkey and Spain are no brainers, anyone who can do it should do it, its not just the income but the new paths opened to the money zones.

What people are essentially saying is that they want to add 10 new minor powers to the game.  I suppose that’s fine, but they are just like defended territories that cannot fight back, they take time to design balance set up, and may just sit there for the whole game.  Someone got ahold of some taupe colored HBG infantry at the tourney, these make good neutrals.

These ideas seem more appropriate for GW36 or a game that starts with more choice and complexity.  This “minor powers” concept was tried in the 1914 AxA and its complex and confusing.

If it just adds more territories to be attacked and killed by Germany, Germany will do that early and often, they have abundant power to attack all the (worthy) neutrals at once already.  America has its own neutral zone, but at 6 IPCs and in the wrong direction, its not comparable.

There also aren’t any on the Pac board, so again it seems to address Germany most clearly (as the power to kill/take any neutrals in range and the forces to do so lie with Germany at game start)

[Caesar-Seriona]

Which is insane to see Germany do that is the fact of the matter is that Germany from 37 to 43, did not give two $hits about your neutrality and only choose not to invade Switzerland or Sweden because those two nations had an actually good size military. I like the idea of small neutral alliances but I believe Switzerland should have ten infantry, not two. As Switzerland went into war economy once France was invaded. I would go as far as giving Switzerland two fighters and two AA guns.

[General 6 Stars]

@WILD:

@Charles:

How much is enough punishment? Maybe we should ask Germany. My new setup for Spain is 10 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 tank, and 1 fighter.
I revised the setup above after a playtest.

So you dropped an 1 art and 1 mech from the orig Spanish army that you posted.

In your test I’m assuming the US attacked Spain

What did the US take in if so? (was I close on the US attack force)

How’d it go for the Americans afterwords (did UK reinforce)

Were the allies able to hold and advance, or did the axis push them back into the see?

De Gaulle where you at ? The Vichy catch up to you ?

You never did answer this question. Im still looking at ideas before game Saturday. How did the US do if they attacked Spain ? My plan is to attack Spain to SBR Rome and Paris and take one or thee other. Other option is From Africa but

[Charles de Gaulle]

In a Europe game, US has Spain by round 4 or 5 if it wants it. In a Global game, the US can get there sooner granted that Pacific forces are brought over to cover the transports (instead of having to build an Atlantic fleet).

I feel that my setup on the first page is well balanced and also respectful to history.

[General 6 Stars]

@Charles:

In a Europe game, US has Spain by round 4 or 5 if it wants it. In a Global game, the US can get there sooner granted that Pacific forces are brought over to cover the transports (instead of having to build an Atlantic fleet).

I feel that my setup on the first page is well balanced and also respectful to history.

Thanks. Im going with these stats for now. Axis needs to go through Turkey to get bonus point in game for Mideast oil. US does the same thing every game so now Spain is an option which it should be.

Spain : 6 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fig, 1 aa gun (leftover from Spanish War) 1 dest ea sz

Turkey : 5 inf, 1 art, 1 fig, 1 aa gun.  1 dest sz  Weaker in supplies.

If I need to increase will see. Depends on setup and what comes from Pacific and how fast allies can move in Atlantic in my game due to German Subs and if Germany gets there Sub Interdiction NA, then it will cost US UK ea 1 icp per German sub every turn
in which now allies will be delayed due to destroyer buys at start of game. Too many subs in Atlantic could very well make US go another route the longer there delayed in taking Spain. By then Italy will have done what they need to do and later turns can defend better. Or do Operation Torch. Goal is to SBR the crap out of Rome early.

[Charles de Gaulle]

While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

[General 6 Stars]

@Charles:

While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

Ya but historically there were plans for both territories to be attacked. The game becomes to generic after so many games. Thats why you see guys now adding stuff to the G40oob game ( Still a great game ). I got 5  39 games that I play and most stuff thats been coming out that HBG and others have put in games now was in these games since 1997.

[General 6 Stars]

@Charles:

While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

After playing game Saturday , Allies never went to Spain. But realized now that I’ll probably put in your suggestion for Spain troops because the allies could build a IC in Spain. I know you dont like but got to change game up so it aint always the same routes. If Germany sees it coming, Italy and Germany can counter it and probably take back. Will see.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@SS:

@Charles:

While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

After playing game Saturday , Allies never went to Spain. But realized now that I’ll probably put in your suggestion for Spain troops because the allies could build a IC in Spain. I know you dont like but got to change game up so it aint always the same routes. If Germany sees it coming, Italy and Germany can counter it and probably take back. Will see.

If you take the basic numbers, France has a total factory strength of 9 (usually in German hands) with Italy having 13 right in direct naval and air distance to Spain. Hence why I don’t like the idea of US landing in Spain because you need a good size force to take Spain and hold on to it and then factory it and now worry about defending a factory worth of 3 against a total of 22 from the Axis and on top of that, you just turned the neutrals pro-Axis and thus US and UK have to reinforce it (which normally would be easy for US as they usually have naval dominance right from the get go). However, you can argue it is worth it even if Germany or Italy takes Spain because it just drained Axis resources away from USSR.

[A Former User]

1. Get rid of the “attack one, fight all” rule on strict neutrals. 
2. Allied powers (except Russia) cannot attack strict neutrals.
3. Strict neutrals must always be occupied, otherwise they become friendly neutrals for other side.
4. Strict neutrals always get 1 infantry beginning each turn that must be attacked (represents partisans).

[Caesar-Seriona]

@Carolina:

1. Get rid of the “attack one, fight all” rule on strict neutrals. 
2. Allied powers (except Russia) cannot attack strict neutrals.
3. Strict neutrals must always be occupied, otherwise they become friendly neutrals for other side.
4. Strict neutrals always get 1 infantry beginning each turn that must be attacked (represents partisans).

In the scale of G40, there isn’t any nations that USSR invaded that were neutral.

[AxisAndAllies1940]

I think every neutral needs a more varied army- the neutral nations of WWII were not all a handful of infantry divisions. Turkey, for example, should have the 8 infantry, plus a fighter, an artillery, and maybe even a tank. They should also have a destroyer or two. Much more intimidating than just 8 infantry. And who’s to say that game events can’t influence neutrals? For example: if Moscow falls, roll one die. On a roll of 6, Sweden joins Germany (just as an example). I also like the Global War idea of ‘aligning’ neutrals a lot more than just moving units in. For example, if Axis powers control both Yugoslavia and Greece, Bulgaria aligns to Germany (just as an example).

[Caesar-Seriona]

@AxisAndAllies1940:

I think every neutral needs a more varied army- the neutral nations of WWII were not all a handful of infantry divisions. Turkey, for example, should have the 8 infantry, plus a fighter, an artillery, and maybe even a tank. They should also have a destroyer or two. Much more intimidating than just 8 infantry. And who’s to say that game events can’t influence neutrals? For example: if Moscow falls, roll one die. On a roll of 6, Sweden joins Germany (just as an example). I also like the Global War idea of ‘aligning’ neutrals a lot more than just moving units in. For example, if Axis powers control both Yugoslavia and Greece, Bulgaria aligns to Germany (just as an example).

As I said time and time again, in terms of real firepower and numbers, Swizerland and Turkey should have the largest military for neutrals.