Ok, noob question. Can neutral powers do any of the following (US and USSR):
1.) Occupy friendly neutrals
2.) Attack unfriendly neutrals
3.) Attack strict neutrals
Please site a place in the rules where this is covered as I am not finding it, thanks!
They cant do anything on their own. They must be occupied to use the pro-forces as long as they are on your side. Once that happens you can use them to attack anything
Sorry, let me clarify. In the second edition global rules, can the US and USSR move into a neutral country that is pro allied when they are at peace? Can they attack a pro axis or strict neutral country when they are not at war?
No, the US and USSR can not do anything regarding the neutral territories while they are still neutral.
They can NOT occupy Pro-Allied neutrals. They can NOT attack Pro-Axis or Strict neutrals.
The US and USSR must be at war to engage any neutral territory.
I do not know exactly where in the rulebook it says that, perhaps in the Political Situation described for each nation.
Thanks for the response, I know I saw that rule somewhere as well but alas I cannot find it, if anyone knows where to look let me know. Thanks!
The USSR should be allowed to occupy pro-Allied territories and to attack pro-Axis ones (specifically referring to Persia & Iraq, respectively) to at least get a head start on Germany. Granted Germany could make it moot by going to war R1 or R2, but if for some reason they don’t Russia should have the right to be aggressive down there (at their own risk of course).
@rjpeters70:
I’ve always thought an interesting house rule would be for the true Neutrals to be independent players. That is, one player could control all the true Neutrals, able to build units autocthonically (a la China), and get an income of the total of IPCs of all true Neutrals. Same rules would apply if either side got attacked by the Axis or Allies, in that they’d switch to the other side, but they could purchase units as they saw fit, wherever they felt like it, and even conduct offensive operations. They’d be weak as hell, but would make for an interesting variation.
Yes, it’s an intriguing concept. It would make the Global game even more global – since you wouldn’t have a significant number of countries sitting on the sidelines – and it would offer possibilities to large player groups when they’re deciding who gets to play which country.
Spain & Portugal could be combined to form an interesting power since they’d start with 5 IPC and could maybe be given a 5 IPC NO for all original territories. They’d also be given free reign to pick a bloc, and could help impact North & South Africa.
It’s fascinating how many threads that are posted here turn into a house rules discussion (Larry needs to fix global once and for all).
@Young:
It’s fascinating how many threads that are posted here turn into a house rules discussion (Larry needs to fix global once and for all).
I agree that official fixes from LH are helpful – but even if he were to create a perfect set of rules for Global (something which may not even be achievable) there will still always be scope for house rules, experimental variations and so forth, to bring variety and added fun to the game.
The USSR should be allowed to occupy pro-Allied territories and to attack pro-Axis ones (specifically referring to Persia & Iraq, respectively) to at least get a head start on Germany. Granted Germany could make it moot by going to war R1 or R2, but if for some reason they don’t Russia should have the right to be aggressive down there (at their own risk of course).
Actually you bring up a good point. Part of the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact was that if either side went to war, the other would not interfere. I think it had more to do with Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria, etc.) but I don’t see why it couldn’t be extended to include neutral countries.
Spain & Portugal could be combined to form an interesting power since they’d start with 5 IPC and could maybe be given a 5 IPC NO for all original territories. They’d also be given free reign to pick a bloc, and could help impact North & South Africa.
Yep, I bought the light yellow neutrals and light yellow Axis minors sets while thinking about a Fascist Spain as a playable nation.
@rjpeters70:
I’ve always thought an interesting house rule would be for the true Neutrals to be independent players. That is, one player could control all the true Neutrals, able to build units autocthonically (a la China), and get an income of the total of IPCs of all true Neutrals. Same rules would apply if either side got attacked by the Axis or Allies, in that they’d switch to the other side, but they could purchase units as they saw fit, wherever they felt like it, and even conduct offensive operations. They’d be weak as hell, but would make for an interesting variation.
My only real problem with this is the same problem I have with the OOB rules: there’s no historical reason why all these true neutrals would “gang up” in the fashion that the rules outline. There was no UN. There was no “Coalition of the Willing” ( :wink:).
And keep in mind that there were plenty of “true neutrals” in Europe…before Hitler took them over.
I’ve always thought that neutrals should just join the opposite alliance if they are invaded, similar to the way that aligned neutrals do in Global. I know the “all for one and one for all” rule in Global is meant to discourage players from rolling over neutrals, but it leaves a very unhistorical taste in my mouth.
Actually, this is one of the rules that really made sense in A&A1914, that true neutrals could be attacked and they would activate against the attacker. Of course, the only thing that didn’t make sense was that Switzerland was 1 IPC… :roll:
Spain & Portugal could be combined to form an interesting power since they’d start with 5 IPC
Does this figure include the IPCs for the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique? It would make sense for a combined Spain/Portugal to get to use those IPCs, and perhaps also to get use of the standing armies in those two colonies. (Portuguese Guinea and Rio de Oro, which belonged to Portugal and Spain respectively, unfortunately have no IPCs or standing armies.)
That’s correct, it includes their colonies. I included the NO so the 0 IPC colonies have some value. By being able to use the armies in Mozambique and Angola the player could distract the UK by threatening South Africa. While neutral the player could reinforce the empty colonies in anticipation of war (could attack the French colonies or the German/Italian occupation forces) with a transport, if they buy one. In most cases I imagine the player would just beef up Spain for an invasion by either bloc.
Out of curiosity about this interesting concept of making the Iberian Peninsula and its associated colonies a small player power, I had a quick look at the actual situation of Portugal and Spain during WWII. The priority of both countries (both ostensibly neutral) appeared to be to avoid involvement in the war owing at least in part to their poor economic situation.
Salazar had come to power after the previous governments (45 of them over 16 years) had wrecked the economy; he managed to restore economic stability, but Portugal still doesn’t seem to have been very prosperous by the time of WWII. Portugal’s worry was apparently that if it sided with the Axis, it would be too weak to defend its overseas colonies (which would be snapped up by Britain), whereas if it sided with the Allies this might result in a German invasion of Portugal through Spain (though it should be noted that Germany never made a similar move against Gibraltar, despite contemplating doing so). So from an A&A gaming point of view, it sounds like Britain would (at least historically) be more of a threat to Angola and Mozambique that the other way around.
As for Spain, it had been financially devastated by the Spanish Civil War, so it wasn’t in much of a position to get involved in WWII. An added complication for Franco was that he had a government that was equally split between pro-British and pro-German elements. The upshot was that Spain didn’t go further than giving the Axis some under-the-table help. Portugal (which had a centuries-old treaty with Britain) engaged in commercial trade with both sides, but eventually allowed the Allies to use the Azores as airbases beginning in late 1943.
We should think about splitting Europe into a 5-way Axis power.
Every Axis power in Europe would represent a part of the total war effort the Axis had in Europe.
I was thinking:
Vichy France:
-Get France, Southern France, Normandy, and the three north African territory’s.
-12 IPCs - 2 subs a turn.
-Vichy would be the convoy raiding effort of Germany in WWII
The Balkans puppets:
-Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania (Greater southern Germany/Austria?)
-12 IPCs, a Romanian minor, And a Greek Naval base.
-Their NO would be about reuniting Romania, +3 IPCs for controlling Romania & Bessarabia.
-These guys would represent the individuality of the German puppets in WWII, and their support role.
-They would also represent the constant build up on the Russian boarder.
Scandinavian war effort:
-Norway, Finland, (Sweden?)
-5 (8?) IPCs. Norway gets a minor.
-NOs for liberating Finland. +5 IPCs when Karelia and Vyborg are under Axis control.
This power would represent the Finnish war effort. As well as Norways complete lack of ability to counter allied offences.
Vichy France:
-Get France, Southern France, Normandy, and the three north African territory’s.
-Vichy would be the convoy raiding effort of Germany in WWIIThe Balkans puppets:
-Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania (Greater southern Germany/Austria?)Scandinavian war effort:
-Norway, Finland, (Sweden?)
This power would represent the Finnish war effort. As well as Norways complete lack of ability to counter allied offences.
Europe in WWII wasn’t a five-way Axis power. It was a mixture of German-occupied Allied countries, major Axis partners, minor Axis partners, Russian-occupied states/territories, and neutral nations (some pro-Allied, some pro-Axis, some more or less truly neutral), with one collaborationist state and one co-belligerent thrown in for good measure.
On the game map, the “France” territory and Normandy don’t actually form part of Vichy France; those were areas under German occupation. Southern France and most of the French colonial empire were governed by the Vichy regime. Vichy was a collaborationist state, but technically it wasn’t a belligerent after the French surrender of 1940. Vichy came close to going to war against Britain after the Mers-el-Kebir and Oran raids, but it didn’t actually do so. Vichy scuttled the French fleet in 1943 to keep it out of German hands when Germany occupied Southern France; the French fleet never fought on the Axis side.
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia were definitely on the Axis side (they were involved in the invasion of the USSR and/or of Yugoslavia and Greece), but Yugoslavia and Greece were not Axis puppets: they were countries invaded and occupied by the Axis, hence Allied nations. Yugoslavia was even (as I recall) invaded by Germany because a popular uprising deposed its pro-Axis king. Greece fought off (for a while anyway, until Germany got involved) an attempted Italian invasion, and drove the Italians into Albania (which had been annexed by Italy a few years previously).
The map’s “Greater Southern Germany” roughly corresponds to the territories which Germany annexed before the war: Austria and most of Czechoslovakia (a few crumbs having been given to the newly-created puppet state of Slovakia). I don’t think “Greater Southern Germany” is a term that was used in real life; the former Austria, for example, was renamed Ostmark.
Finland was a co-belligerent in WWII: it participated in the German invasion of the USSR, but as a separate power rather than an Axis one. Norway was an Allied country under German occupation, not an Axis country which lacked the ability to counter Allied offensives. (Free Norwegian forces actually operated out of Great Britain, being engaged in such anti-German operations as the Gunnerside raid.) Sweden wasn’t at war during WWII; it was a nominal neutral, though it allowed Germany to transport iron ore shipments from Norway throught its territory. Sweden’s neutrality was useful to both the Alllies and the Axis: it was a hotbed of espionnage, and the country to which Norwegian resistance groups and Free Norwegian foces would escape after conducting operations in Norway.
Yes, the British attacks against the French fleet (the Mers-el-Kebir and Oran raids I’d mentioned) did cause a lot of ill feeling in France, which lasted long after the war. Your idea of having the French colonial territories outside of North Africa individually dice to see if they will go with Vichy or the Free French is indeed an interesting one, and it does have some historical basis since a few French colonial territories did go over to the FF fairly soon after the capitulation. One of the intriguing features about the OOB rules (which ignore the Vichy situation for the purposes of game simplification) is that they essentially present an alternate-history scenario in which France ended up doing what Churchill had been urging it to do as the Third Republic was collapsing: to form a government-in-exile (like most of the other countries overrun by the Nazis) rather than surrendering and to continue the fight from London and/or from the French colonial empire. So your proposed model essentially combines elements of both scenarios: Vichy does get established (the historical scenario) but Free France takes on a much larger dimension than it did in reality (which is basically what the OOB scenario depicts).
By the way, depending on which way French Indochina goes in a June 1940 Vichy/FF dice roll, this could have interesting effects on the Pacific side of the game (potentiallly reflected in some sort of house rule). The Japanese occupation of Vichy-controlled French Indochina sharply increased tensions between Japan and the US over the war in China and – if memory serves – caused the US to impose the oil embargo on Japan which ultimately forced Japan to choose between ending its war in China or starting an additional war to secure the oil of the DEI. If French Indochina were to go over to the FF side in 1940, Japan would have to invade and conquer it rather than just walk in unopposed, and this would essentially constitute an attack (and hence a declaration of war) against an Allied power.
I think it’s too difficult to create a power that is not established at the start of the game: Germany should get to roll for control of colonial units & territories to simulate the fracturing of Vichy and Free French forces. The French player should keep control of all existing naval units.
For FIC, I would leave a French infantry (representing the complexity of the German-Vichy-Japanese relations) there that Japan would have to attack in order to take the territory. Always found it silly Japan could just walk in unopposed to FIC.
Southeast Europe would be an interesting minor power that could reinforce Barbarossa, but my only concern is they will have a hard time can opening and will simply add defense for Germany, when they need as much offense as possible.
Also I would consider letting the Iberian player start out as neutral and give him a deadline (R4?) to pick a side unless attacked by a bloc. That way he could build a defense of Spain to make it a little harder to take. There should be a possibility of joining the Allies since they were on the fence.
