The justification of this rule is simple. It is quite unfathomable to assume that if Italy attacks Switzerland for example, that Ecuador is now at war with Japan. These rules are bogus.
Suspend all OOB rules for neutrals and replace with these:
The game features three types of neutrals:
1) Strict Neutrals
These may include areas that have IPC value or not. No player may fly over or move into these unless you want war. These consist of all nations with not listed in items #2 or #3
2) Pro-Allied Neutrals
You may fly over and may enter only in NCM.
Consisting of:
Venezuela
Brazil
Greece
Crete
Persia
Yugoslavia
3) Pro-Axis Neutral
You may fly over and may enter only in NCM.
Consisting of:
Spain
Bulgaria
Sweden
Iraq
Argentina
Finland
Conversion:
Players may attempt to convert a pro neutral by paying 5 IPC for each IPC value of the neutral and rolling one D6 at the start of each turn. Like Technology you get one roll per turn per regional block, but you can only buy one roll. For example: Germany can buy a conversion for Argentina, Bulgaria, and Iraq paying 25 IPC ( they total 5 IPC in value) and getting one roll for each. It cannot on the other hand buy two dice for say both Spain and Sweden because that would be more than one per region.
Success takes place on a roll of 6. Players may never convert either strict neutrals or neutrals that are pro the other side ( either pro axis or allies).
Successful conversion allows the player to collect income and use their military forces as they see fit. They may move their own forces into or fly over. However they may not build a factory.
Attacking strict Neutrals:
Either player attacking a strict neutral nation does not activate all the other neutrals. However, strict neutrals are grouped into political blocks representing various regions on the map as follows:
South American Block
( examples: Chile, Venezuela )
African/ Middle East Block
( examples: Angola, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia)
European Block
(examples: Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey)
If any strict neutral in any of these blocks in attacked by either side, they immediately become pro neutrals to the opposition. In other words, you may then make attempts to convert them just as you would your pro neutrals.
Also, the listed forces may or may change pending outcome of more research on their armed forces.
note: made some changes
let me know if you have questions…
@Imperious:
It is quite unfathomable to assume that if Italy attacks Switzerland for example, that Ecuador is now at war with Japan. These rules are bogus.
:-P Once again we’re expected to sacrifice any semblance of realism on the altar of “simplicity”. :x
I definitely like these neutral rules at least ten times more. Thank you very much, I may just have to incorporate it into my games.
Which political block does Mongolia fit into?
Neutral rules much more realistic and balanced. I will definitley use these.
The way this is going you will have the whole rulebook rewritten before the game hits the streets. Keep going!
The way this is going you will have the whole rulebook rewritten before the game hits the streets.
Yeah, and I think that’s cool and hilarious at the same time…. :-D
Unfortunately, I’ll have to play with the OOB rules because that’s what everyone else plays… We gotta get some of those OOB rules/setup changed like we are right now with P40!
Attack one true neutral and every true neutral in the world turns against your side? Whaaaaaat???
Which political block does Mongolia fit into?
Neutrals that can be converted are only ones that feature an IPC value. All others and the impassible areas of Himalayan and Afghanistan don’t follow any rules. You just invade them if you like and cannot enter the impassible areas as per OOB.
My goal is to make a new global setup, new techs, new Victory cities, new victory conditions, new rules on ports and air bases,oil centers, and rules on neutrals.
All before AAE40 comes out.
Ok made some changes after playtesting.
Some thoughts I had on this topic.
A) I don’t think you should be able to move land units through a neutral country of any kind. This isn’t realistic, I’m not aware of any time when combatant troops were allowed to move through any neutral nation in WWII. I believe sweden allowed supplies to be moved through their territory to the finns during the winter war, but that’s all I’m aware of. Also it just plain messes up the game. Should germany be able to move troops through spain to attack gibraltar? I don’t think so. Hitler tried to get Franco to bite off on that, but he wouldn’t.
B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.
C) I think that a KISS answer to invading strict neutrals would be that any other neutrals on the same continent (as taught in every elementary geography class), become hostile. There are few places where this matters anyway.
D) I think a better and still KISS answer to swaying friendly neutrals to join the war is to simply spend an IC bribe equal to double their IC value, +1 (or 2) for each unit they bring to the fight, and then move a unit in to activate them. This is the way it really worked too, most nations had to have receive some sort of “contribution to the cause” in addition to protection, before they would officially join up.
Thanks for listening. :)
B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.
I don’t understand what your point is, because Sweden and Venezuela are true neutrals in the game.
B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.
I don’t understand what your point is, because Sweden and Venezuela are true neutrals in the game.
Imperious Leader had suggested making them pro axis and pro allies respectively.
B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.
I don’t understand what your point is, because Sweden and Venezuela are true neutrals in the game.
Imperious Leader had suggested making them pro axis and pro allies respectively.
Oh, I see. Thanks for the reply.
A) I don’t think you should be able to move land units through a neutral country of any kind. This isn’t realistic, I’m not aware of any time when combatant troops were allowed to move through any neutral nation in WWII. I believe sweden allowed supplies to be moved through their territory to the finns during the winter war, but that’s all I’m aware of. Also it just plain messes up the game. Should germany be able to move troops through spain to attack gibraltar? I don’t think so. Hitler tried to get Franco to bite off on that, but he wouldn’t.
Quite right!
Consisting of:
Spain
Bulgaria ( allied to Germany turn 3)
Sweden
Iraq
Argentina
Finland ( allied to Germany turn 3)
The revised idea is you can fly over them only. This can be a modification of sorts. Bulgaria should automatically be allied to Germany on Turn 3, as well as Sweden. Hitler was granted passage to Finland from Norway, which means he had to cross Sweden.
B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.
Right Franco demanded both aid and control of some of the former French areas around Spanish Morocco. Venezuela would allow US troops to cross
C) I think that a KISS answer to invading strict neutrals would be that any other neutrals on the same continent (as taught in every elementary geography class), become hostile. There are few places where this matters anyway.
D) I think a better and still KISS answer to swaying friendly neutrals to join the war is to simply spend an IC bribe equal to double their IC value, +1 (or 2) for each unit they bring to the fight, and then move a unit in to activate them. This is the way it really worked too, most nations had to have receive some sort of “contribution to the cause” in addition to protection, before they would officially join up.
This seems like an old idea, regarding strict neutrals id keep my system as it is stated. The reason for this is the listed forces are not accurate at all. They didn’t just have “infantry” and no other units. It should go by the value of the nation and an adjusted cost based on this. Under what i propose its random which people seem to prefer. Sometimes you pay alot for this aid and other times you get off cheap.
Conversion:
Players may attempt to convert a pro neutral by paying 5 IPC for each IPC value of the neutral and rolling one D6 at the start of each turn. Like Technology you get one roll per turn per regional block, but you can only buy one roll. For example: Germany can buy a conversion for Argentina, Bulgaria, and Iraq paying 25 IPC ( they total 5 IPC in value) and getting one roll for each. It cannot on the other hand buy two dice for say both Spain and Sweden because that would be more than one per region.
Success takes place on a roll of 6. Players may never convert either strict neutrals or neutrals that are pro the other side ( either pro axis or allies).
Successful conversion allows the player to collect income and use their military forces as they see fit. They may move their own forces into or fly over. However they may not build a factory.
Attacking strict Neutrals:
Either player attacking a strict neutral nation does not activate all the other neutrals. However, strict neutrals are grouped into political blocks representing various regions on the map as follows:
South American Block
( examples: Chile, Venezuela )
African/ Middle East Block
( examples: Angola, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia)
European Block
(examples: Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey)
If any strict neutral in any of these blocks in attacked by either side, they immediately become pro neutrals to the opposition. In other words, you may then make attempts to convert them just as you would your pro neutrals.
Also, the listed forces may or may change pending outcome of more research on their armed forces.
This would probably end the allies use for spain so i think it shoul be strict neutral otherwise it will just be anothe rpart of the Atlantic Wall.
This also simplifies the G3 Strict neutral crush see: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20028.0
Well the OOB rules say if you attack a strict neutral your at war with every strict neutral.
My system at least makes it into political blocks, they don’t effect the entire world.
Spain is still viable except now it has real forces, so perhaps your right.
my group does a neutral auction on turn three where each major power has to put a bid on each neutral nation the winner of the bid gets to spend the ipcs that they and other players bid along with the value of the territory and one (or two) ipcs per infantry the territory is supposed to get, if everyone bids zero on a territory it becomes a super neutral and can no longer enter the war at any point in the game.
@Imperious:
Well the OOB rules say if you attack a strict neutral your at war with every strict neutral.
Not true. A playable power is NEVER “at war” with any neutral. What happens, is as soon as you attack a true neutral, that true neutral and all others on the map become pro-Allies (if attacked by Axis) or pro-Axis (if attacked by Allies). This just means that your enemies can walk into true neutrals, gaining the income (if any) and standing army (if any) on their turn. But they have to get there, first.
This is not the same as being “at war” with all the neutrals, and at times during the game, is probably worth the invasion.
Well semantics.
At war to me means i got to deal with their infantry at some point. To me thats “at war”
You attack one and all the others can get plucked for infantry to can harm me. To me thats being at war.
@Imperious:
Attacking strict Neutrals:
Either player attacking a strict neutral nation does not activate all the other neutrals. However, strict neutrals are grouped into political blocks representing various regions on the map as follows:South American Block
( examples: Chile, Venezuela )African/ Middle East Block
( examples: Angola, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia)European Block
(examples: Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey)
Some of those make sense, like the South America block (an outside power intervening on Latin America’s affairs) but regarding Portugal/Angola/Mozambique/Portuguese Guinea and Spain/Rio de Oro the regional division makes no sense because all of those territories were still under colonial empires. To attack any of those territories would be to trigger a reaction across the whole empire.
Well the OOB rules say if you attack a strict neutral your at war with every strict neutral.
wait…I try to understand…in your game…if I attack a neutral country, other neutral country
in the same block will be at war againt me?
Well they first need the opposition to land in NCM in these nations. He can eventually bring the infantry and use them as if they were his own. SO yes eventually you will be fighting them in battle, even if it takes some work on the part of the enemy to get this done.
