@SgtBlitz:
Neutrality that lasts as long as you don’t attack neutral powers. (Otherwise, what’s point of neutrality, unless you like jumping the gun?) In 1940, the USA wasn’t at war with either Japan or Germany, and didn’t really want to go to war either.
Yeah.
Well maybe it’s because I’m Canadian, eh, but not really feelin’ that automatic “US enters after 3 turns” concept.
Like really? It should be THAT locked-in to a timer?
So if Japan just bashed around China for 3 turns, the US would say “isolation, schmisolation, let’s go!”
I dunno if I can see that.
I can see if Japan attacked the UK / Dutch / ANZAC and not the reverse. As it’s written that makes sense to me… Alliances have to have some purpose.
And I agree that beyond that there should be some trigger. I could see the US going to war to protect Australia from falling into Japanese hands. Maybe if Japan reached a certain IPC level reflecting a containment perspective?
Now having said that, things get really sketchy when you ponder the “what if” triggers for US involvement in Europe? Or a Russian DoW without Barbarossa?
I’m thinking if Germany pursued a UK first strategy, the British in India would have more to fear from Stalin than Hitler.
So what I’d want to see: a less time-based rule for the great neutrals entering the fray.