Proaxis: Bulgaria Finland and Iraq
Proallies? Brasil?
How do you see if it is a pro axis or pro allies territory? Is the color, the borders or what?
By reading the words on the territory on the high res map.
Copy/paste/zoom in.
Pro-Allied Neutrals are:
Persia
Greece
Yugoslavia
Brasil
Crete
Eire
Eire seems not having armies or income
seems interesting.i am misssing something: ok its a noncombat move moving axis units to proaxis neutrals, but you take control ’ of the armies of this proaxis neutral and the income also, don´t you? so why not making non combat moves to all your side proneutrals?
There are certainly alot of benefits too moving into pro-axis neutrals. Particulraly finland, as it is my understanding that the soviets can attack finland on their first turn if the germans dont move in. bulgaria and finland are easy to get too, so they are no brainers. Iraq is the third and final pro-axis neutral and as you can imagine it takes a little planing if you want too get the three inf in iraq.
The Soviets (or any other nation not at war such as the US) while not at war cannot attack or enter any territories besides their own whether friendly, hostile, or neutral (including friendly and unfriendly neutrals). I wonder whether how this will work in the global game however, if the Soviets an declare war on Japan to attack neutrals? Though I don’t see Germany ever not entering Finland on G1 before the Soviets have a chance to attack it regardless. :| However, they could take over Persia to gain a foothold in the Middle East.
Now we see why this game doesn’t start in 1939:
POLAND
The double invasion of Poland by Germany and USSR in 1939 seems to break ALL the neutrals rules discussed above.
Since both invaded Poland MUST have been a strict neutral, but somehow the attacks went unnoticed in Buenos Aires.
Maybe Poland should be considered an ABSOLUTE neutral; that is one that is so independent minded that no other neutral cares about it. After all Polish partisans fought both sides and continued to fight Soviet occupation well into the 1950s, as did groups in Ukraine. Yugoslavia could be considered in the same light.
Indeed, if we look at the list of “pro-Allied neutrals” there are problems with most of them.
The examples of Iraq and Persia I’ve mentioned before, and consider that they should each be aligned the other way around.
Yugoslavia, in 1940, is hardly pro Allied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia#1934-1941
It was only a popular coup in 1941 that placed a pro-Allied regime in power, and this indeed prompted a German invasion.
The Republic of Ireland was pro-allied only in so far as many Irish citizens volunteered to join the British army. It’s government even turned down the seeding of Ulster in exchange for the Allies leasing bases on the Irish coast, and Prime Minister de Valera famously signed the book of condolence for Hitler at the German embassy.
Again, there is such ambiguity in regard to taking the attitude of governments, or that of the majority of citizens, as the basis for awarding “pro” status, that some form of “diplomatic approach” option may have been more authentic and actually less complicated.
It seems to me that the strict neutrals declare war rule should only be invoked in the following circumstances:
1. Latin American Unity.
An attack on one Strict neutral in Latin America results in a declaration of war by all the others.
2. Colonial Loyalty
As discussed elsewhere, an attack on Spain brings Spanish colonies into the war, same for Portugal and it’s colonies, and for Greece & Crete.
And shouldn’t Mexico, Cuba and Central America start pro-Allied rather than be treated as American colonies?
EDIT: Looking again at the Yugoslavia example, I’m reminded that there were 2 factions of “anti-fascist” partisans in the country, which spent as much time fighting each other as attacking the Germans and Italians.
I think there is a case for some neutrals to be Pro-British, Pro-American, Pro-German etc; rather than being loyal to an entire Alliance, thus avoiding the Mongolia example cited above.
Or maybe Anti-German etc…
The strict neutral rule is stupid. So if invade mongolia as Japan spain and sweden feel compelled to join the allies. I am going to delete this rule.
Well, the game should have a non-agression pact between USSR and Japan that also should include commie Mongolia. Since you don’t have that rule, I guess that true neutrals rule must do the work :-P
Proaxis: Bulgaria Finland and Iraq
Proallies? Brasil?
How do you see if it is a pro axis or pro allies territory? Is the color, the borders or what?By reading the words on the territory on the high res map.
Copy/paste/zoom in.
Besides the words a quick reference is that there are hash marks the depict as well.
/// for pro axis, \\ for pro allies, # (straight matting) for strict.
Say I’m the axis and I was thinking about invading Turkey (a strict neutral). I believe Germany could invade Turkey from Greece (bridge across straight & Turkey looks like one tt split like Panama). This would allow Germany to come up through Caucasus, and Italy via the Black sea. I would also set in motion an axis attack on Sweden, and Spain (all the big boys) counting for 20 inf. I would also take out any other strict neut I could reach at that time (Jap-Mongolia comes to mind), so the enemy gets as little free inf as possible. Obviously the axis would have to be in a good position to take on such a sweeping attack, because they will loose units in the process. If your going to make an attack on a strict neut, I say try to limit the free units to your enemies. Plus the fact that later those free inf will be accompanied w/ftrs & tanks. Another thing is that your enemy may not be able to get to certain strict neutrals that have become pro to their side for a while. If you can get there first you can still kill them before they join forces.
And Wild Bill we cannot forget following your exposure that the Axis may lose some units killing the ex strict neutral units, but recieves income from these ex strict neutrals after invading them, compensating somehow some units lost.
And Wild Bill we cannot forget following your exposure that the Axis may lose some units killing the ex strict neutral units, but recieves income from these ex strict neutrals after invading them, compensating somehow some units lost.
IPC values on neutral territories, it is something that most A&A players have doing in house rules since the original game came out so long ago.
And neutrals can also include some aspects of pure deep political relationship:
This means A Territory belonging to a strict neutral but used by USA.
And neutrals can also include some aspects of pure deep political relationship:
- for example USA used Azores in the middle of Atlantic Ocean as an important/very important militar base, Azores are portuguese and Portygal was neutral for both sides during wwii.
This means A Territory belonging to a strict neutral but used by USA.
Well, the allied use of the Azore was gained by Britain using the Anglo-Portuguese alliance that was established in the 1300’s
Neutral naval units may (Russian) through narrow controlled by axis (Denmark)?
With Germany’s permission they may.
@SAS:
With Germany’s permission they may.
Can they do so while at war if the Germans give permission?
Krieg didn’t say anything about that, though I suppose it might be in Germany’s favor to get the Russians out of the Baltic and not let them back in… Though I imagine the reason the Russians want out in the first place might be an issue…
I’m somewhat disappointed by this oversimplified grand unified solidarity of true neutrals. Having them all act in unison is unrealistic and ahistoric.
I’d suggest modifying this by breaking the TNs down into 8 regional or colonial factions, which are only provoked to war by an attack on another member of their own group:
1. South America (10 countries)
2. Spain & Rio de Oro
3. Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola & Mozambique
4. Switzerland
5. Sweden
6. Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan
7. Mongolian tts
8. Liberia & Sierra Leone (SL should of course be a UK tt, and Liberia was virtually an unofficial US colony, but it’s convenient to group them together)
We might put Sweden and the Swiss together, but these 2 were so independent I doubt anyone else would put out for them.
To balance this some of these countries can have their defence forces beefed up, for example some armour in Sweden or a small Spanish fleet.
I’d suggest modifying this by breaking the TNs down into 8 regional or colonial factions, which are only provoked to war by an attack on another member of their own group:
1. South America (10 countries)
2. Spain & Rio de Oro
3. Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola & Mozambique
4. Switzerland
5. Sweden
6. Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan
7. Mongolian tts
8. Liberia & Sierra Leone (SL should of course be a UK tt, and Liberia was virtually an unofficial US colony, but it’s convenient to group them together)
We might put Sweden and the Swiss together, but these 2 were so independent I doubt anyone else would put out for them.
To balance this some of these countries can have their defence forces beefed up, for example some armour in Sweden or a small Spanish fleet.
Then the axis will invade spain without having to worry about the allies getting the 8 Turk inf.
I’d suggest modifying this by breaking the TNs down into 8 regional or colonial factions, which are only provoked to war by an attack on another member of their own group:
1. South America (10 countries)
2. Spain & Rio de Oro
3. Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola & Mozambique
4. Switzerland
5. Sweden
6. Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan
7. Mongolian tts
8. Liberia & Sierra Leone (SL should of course be a UK tt, and Liberia was virtually an unofficial US colony, but it’s convenient to group them together)
We might put Sweden and the Swiss together, but these 2 were so independent I doubt anyone else would put out for them.
To balance this some of these countries can have their defence forces beefed up, for example some armour in Sweden or a small Spanish fleet.
Then the axis will invade spain without having to worry about the allies getting the 8 Turk inf.
I quite like the rule as is. It keeps the game as a better reflection of the war. There were very good reasons that the “true neutrals” were not invaded by one side or the other. This mechanic is the easiest way to reflect that.
With Hitler and Stalin around, could anyone expect to be a neutral forever?
These countries are just those lucky enough not to be attacked; it shouldn’t mean that they are effectively immune from invasion. Why didn’t they all join the war when Poland was carved up? Or Norway? Or the Low Countries?
Yes, Spain could be attacked without activating Turkey; that’s why I suggest that Spain should have more defences to make the players think twice about going in.
