True Neutrals in the 1914 game

[general jason]

Has there been any talk regarding restoring the True Neutrals to their status enjoyed in the 1940 Global game? Meaning, your side attacks a true neutral then all true neutrals are now allied against your alliance? Stops Germany from taking Denmark, Holland and possibly Switzerland, but stops France from taking Spain, Spanish Morocco, and it means neither the Ottomans nor the UK can pass through Persia (and the UK could only do it via transports). I’m just finding that in the 1914 game attacking True Neutrals in a no-brainer and there should be some consequence imho. Thoughts?

[GoSanchez6]

I think Switzerland is the only country anyone should attack. When you use your units to kill neutrals you are taking them away from where you need them. Taking Holland makes no sense to me for Germany. You lose your units which you need to attack France and later in the game it is just another spot you have to defend again.

[Aristokles]

Probably a good rule change, and strange it hasn’t been discussed before, given that it’s an established rule in another A&A property.

Given the high value of some of the neutrals (Spain, Norway, etc.), it probably means neither side ever attacks a true neutral.  That probably hurts the CP in Europe (Switzerland), hurts the British in the Mideast (Afghan, Persia), and maybe France.

[Tavenier]

Well, the only real strange thing i find is that Spain isnt bothered by France taking its Morocco at the very start of the war. It should have consequences, like Spain becoming a pro Centrals power. Very hard to activate for Centrals, but still.

[Flashman]

Keep it historical; does anyone seriously think Switzerland or Sweden would have declared war if Turkey invaded Persia?

You might as well just make them all impassable.

[Richter von Manthofen]

And historically the Brits and Russkies DID attack Persia… - no one cared…

[Tavenier]

@Flashman:

Keep it historical; does anyone seriously think Switzerland or Sweden would have declared war if Turkey invaded Persia?

You might as well just make them all impassable.

They dont declare war. They get more alligned with the opponent of the aggressor.
Having said that, i dont like the idea in global, so neither in this game.

[general jason]

@Flashman:

Keep it historical; does anyone seriously think Switzerland or Sweden would have declared war if Turkey invaded Persia?

You’re right they wouldn’t. Same with 1940 as well, but I accept it as a game mechanic.

@Flashman:

You might as well just make them all impassable.

Sure, I don’t care what the mechanic is so long as there is one. No mechanic as it is right now seems odd to me that’s all.

[Derek]

Well France usually benefits the most (spain and morroco, Persia and Afghanistan and the one in northwest Africa)
Maybe G40 style neutrals would help balance out the game

However I dislike G40 style true nuetrals
Maybe nuetral blocks
And make the minor capital mobilize if it’s colonies are invaded

[Flashman]

Restriction on the Allies invading neutrals.

The historical example of Persia and Greece are questionable; in the first case the British and Russians had already divided Persia into “spheres of influence”, which included a military presence to protect economic interests; they could argue that they were not invading as such.

In the case of Greece, the Allies were invited in by the Greek government, albeit without the agreement of the pro-German King.

Its hard to see the Allies invading Holland, Switzerland etc.

Perhaps:

Every time the Allies invade a neutral country, they delay the entry of the USA by one turn. When America is in the war, they may not invade any neutral.

[Derek]

I’d rather leave them as is

I have a feeling this thread is going to turn into another spaghetti throwing contest  :-P

[knp7765]

We have only played a couple of games, but we all decided from the start to simply leave the Strict Neutrals alone. I agree with GoSanchez. It seems silly to me to waste your men and equipment on attacking a Neutral country when they could be better used against your actual enemies and it gives you another territory to defend.
We play G40 the same way. Even though we use Neutral Blocks so not all neutrals turn Pro-other side if you attack one, we still just leave them alone.

[Derek]

France would be pretty dumb to not take morroco and Spain. These combined with Portugal are 7 ipcs per turn by turn 2-3 for the rest of the game and they will not need defended. It would be similarly simple for the axis to not take at least Greece.
Same for uk with Persia/Afghanistan

[general jason]

Exactly, especially if you’re trying out Strategic Movement rules in the game. France can take Spain, and then immediately bring it’s troops to the front the next turn. Keep 4 IPCS that will never be contested for the remainder of the war? Why wouldn’t you do that?

I’d rather see further clarifications on certain territories that historically were aligned or owned by one of the alliances, like Greece, like Persia, just like Belgium, Albania, Bulgaria and Romania currently are, but still have stricter rules for invading the remaining True Neutrals. France takes Spain = Germany building a single transport and moving infantry over to claim Norway and Sweden for a free 8 IPCS and 16 additional units. It would keep the countries that were traditional out of the war to remaining there like it does in G40.