Neutral crush playbook

[knp7765]

We have only done the Neutral Crush as the Axis. For one thing, no matter whom of us is playing the Allies, we get stuck in the mindset that the Allies are the “good guys” so they don’t violate the neutrality of other nations. I know it’s silly, especially considering this game, but that’s how it is.
Also, even when the US wanted to try out taking Spain, that makes too many problems. Usually, the Allies are not in a position to take Turkey and those 8 extra guys plus great access to the Middle East and Southern Russia is just too great an advantage for the Axis.
One time our US player did attack Spain, they didn’t have a strong enough force and Germany took it back. Also, with Turkey in their pocket, Germany really got strong fast.

As for an Axis Neutral Crush, it usually happens turn 3. Germany builds up forces in Normandy (Spain), Norway (Sweden) and Greece (Turkey) for the first 2 rounds. The Attack on Turkey may have assistance from Italy.
After we first read about the idea here on the forum, we tried it 3 different times.
One time it really seemed to help the Axis a lot, but that may be due some part to the Allied players being surprised by the action.
The next time it had the opposite effect. This time the Allies were expecting it and Germany got diced in the battles. It took too many resources to get all three neutrals which left Germany too weak in too many places and just got pounded on multiple fronts.
The last time we tried it, it really didn’t seem to  matter one way or the other. The US and Germany traded Spain for several rounds and Sweden was simply one more German territory. Germany might have had a slight advantage against Russia by having Turkey.

[WILD BILL]

Have only done Allies crush, going back a couple posts:

Even if UK doesn’t want to take Turkey (might put units in a bad position) they should strafe it with a few ground w/air power so the axis don’t get 8 free inf. Because of the turn order you could also have the Russians strafe Turkey to start the neutral crush. Only takes a couple Russian inf in Caucasus, some mech purchased for Stalingrad and the Russian air. Only Japan goes for the axis before the US/UK finish the crush. I also like to have the Anz ready to make landings in S America, it is very accessible for them and a good source of income w/o risk to transports (like when they try to get their island NO).

[SJS063]

@knp7765:

We have only done the Neutral Crush as the Axis. For one thing, no matter whom of us is playing the Allies, we get stuck in the mindset that the Allies are the “good guys” so they don’t violate the neutrality of other nations. I know it’s silly, especially considering this game, but that’s how it is.
Also, even when the US wanted to try out taking Spain, that makes too many problems. Usually, the Allies are not in a position to take Turkey and those 8 extra guys plus great access to the Middle East and Southern Russia is just too great an advantage for the Axis.
One time our US player did attack Spain, they didn’t have a strong enough force and Germany took it back. Also, with Turkey in their pocket, Germany really got strong fast.

As for an Axis Neutral Crush, it usually happens turn 3. Germany builds up forces in Normandy (Spain), Norway (Sweden) and Greece (Turkey) for the first 2 rounds. The Attack on Turkey may have assistance from Italy.
After we first read about the idea here on the forum, we tried it 3 different times.
One time it really seemed to help the Axis a lot, but that may be due some part to the Allied players being surprised by the action.
The next time it had the opposite effect. This time the Allies were expecting it and Germany got diced in the battles. It took too many resources to get all three neutrals which left Germany too weak in too many places and just got pounded on multiple fronts.
The last time we tried it, it really didn’t seem to  matter one way or the other. The US and Germany traded Spain for several rounds and Sweden was simply one more German territory. Germany might have had a slight advantage against Russia by having Turkey.

As for your thoughts on Spain and the U.S. Being too much of good guys to take, it I also run into that problem. What if there were a house rule which said that Spain is NOT an axis minor, BUT an allied power may attack Spain without provoking true neutrals to become axis?

[The Hessian]

As for your thoughts on Spain and the U.S. Being too much of good guys to take, it I also run into that problem. What if there were a house rule which said that Spain is NOT an axis minor, BUT an allied power may attack Spain without provoking true neutrals to become axis?

I think such a house rule would be a huge disadvantage for the axis.
If you want to play with fire – attacking strictly neutrals – you should be prepared to burn your fingers!
And I can’t help myself, but a fascist Spain ruled by Franco is everything but a pro allied minor.

[SJS063]

@The:

And I can’t help myself, but a fascist Spain ruled by Franco is everything but a pro allied minor.

Hmmmm… You may have misunderstood me… What I meant to say was that Spain is a true neutral, except the allies may attack it without causing all true neutrals to become pro axis. This could help balance the game too…

[The Hessian]

I’ve misunderstood you indeed. But I still think this house rule might tip the chances too much in favour of the allies.
On the other hand it’s hard to imagine that Sweden or Switzerland would mobilize their armies to support Hitler after an US invasion of Spain.
But that’s the nice thing about house rules; everyone is free to experiment with them as he sees fit and it pleases his gaming group. :-)

[SJS063]

My thoughts exactly The Hessian. I think it would be a neat house rule if you could try a bribe to get a true neutral to join your side, sort of like the same format as technology, where you would pay 5 for a dice, then if a roll is 6 you look at a chart, roll again there to see what country you get. Thoughts?

[The Hessian]

A nice question/idea for the “House Rule Section”.
I the classic MB rules from 1985 it was in general forbidden to enter neutrals, except you paid 3 ICP’s.
I wouldn’t make the bribed country random. Just imagine you’ve tried this thing several times and finally activate Liberia or say Bolivia. :-D

[WILD BILL]

I know this is a bit off topic……

We all know that Spain had just come out of a devastating civil war, and really didn’t want to be dragged into the world war. Hitler wanted Spain to join the axis, or at the very least grant him passage though Spain to invade Gibraltar (much easier then attempting an amphib). This was a real threat, and the UK even had spy/contingency plans in place if German forces crossed into Spain (either as friend or foe to Spain).

Franco was in a tough position because Spain was still getting economic support from the Allies that would be cut off if he aided the axis in anyway (plus the obvious fear of retaliation and Spanish possessions). Franco made several promises to Hitler that didn’t materialize, he kept making up excuses and unreasonable demands to delay any real action.

I wonder if certain events went different for the axis if Franco would indeed have crossed that line. For starters maybe his buddy Mussolini doesn’t screw things up in the Balkans and Barbarossa starts on time. Moscow falls and the Germans end up with part of the Caucuses oil/resources (not saying Russia would have signed an armistice, but the Germans would have been in a better position going into winter).  If North Africa/Med was under axis control (including Malta, Egypt/Suez etc…). If Japan had delayed the inevitable attack on the Western Allies or Hitler didn’t jump the gun and declare war on the USA once Japan went ape ����.

Edited below to include a dice roll

Basically would Franco have joined the axis, or allowed troop movement through Spain if the axis had more milestone victories in 1941/1942? With that in mind you could probably rule in some type of linchpin type of scenario to where Spain does one of the following things things if the axis are doing well (say Italy gains its Med and North Africa NO, Egypt is axis, and Germany has 2 Russian VC’s).

The axis have the option to bring Spain into the fold (not forced to), by rolling a dice. If axis opt
Spain

1. Joins war as a mini power (has its own econ/units etc TBD)

2. Becomes pro axis (axis enter and claim it w/o links to other neutrals)

3. Axis leaning, doesn’t join war but allows the axis units to pass through it. Only mech/tanks can blitz through so axis units aren’t allowed to be in Spain at the end of their turn while in this political state). This would however allow the allies to make attacks into Spain w/o flipping all the other neutrals (6 Spanish inf would activate).

4. Axis are allowed to invade Spain, but must kill off 6 Spanish units.

5. Negotiations fail and Franco allows allies support (Spain is now pro-allied)

6. no change rule not implemented

[SJS063]

@WILD:

I know this is a bit off topic……

We all know that Spain had just come out of a devastating civil war, and really didn’t want to be dragged into the world war. Hitler wanted Spain to join the axis, or at the very least grant him passage though Spain to invade Gibraltar (much easier then attempting an amphib). This was a real threat, and the UK even had spy/contingency plans in place if German forces crossed into Spain (either as friend or foe to Spain).

Franco was in a tough position because Spain was still getting economic support from the Allies that would be cut off if he aided the axis in anyway (plus the obvious fear of retaliation and Spanish possessions). Franco made several promises to Hitler that didn’t materialize, he kept making up excuses and unreasonable demands to delay any real action.

I wonder if certain events went different for the axis if Franco would indeed have crossed that line. For starters maybe his buddy Mussolini doesn’t screw things up in the Balkans and Barbarossa starts on time. Moscow falls and the Germans end up with part of the Caucuses oil/resources (not saying Russia would have signed an armistice, but the Germans would have been in a better position going into winter).  If North Africa/Med was under axis control (including Malta, Egypt/Suez etc…). If Japan had delayed the inevitable attack on the Western Allies or Hitler didn’t jump the gun and declare war on the USA once Japan went ape ����.

Basically would Franco have joined the axis, or allowed troop movement through Spain if the axis had more milestone victories in 1941/1942? With that in mind you could probably rule in some type of linchpin type of scenario to where Spain does one of three things if the axis are doing well (say Italy gains its Med and North Africa NO, Egypt is axis, and Germany has 2 Russian VC’s).

Spain

1. Becomes pro axis (axis enter and claim it w/o links to other neutrals)
2. Joins war as a mini power (has its own econ/units etc
3. Axis leaning, doesn’t join war but allows the axis units to pass through it (maybe only mech/tanks can blitz through so axis units are never allowed to be in Spain at the end of their turn while in this political state). This would however allow the allies to make attacks into Spain w/o flipping all the other neutrals (6 Spanish inf would activate).

the war if

Hmmmm…I like where your heads at but…all of those seem to point to Spain being a pro axis minor…

@The:

A nice question/idea for the “House Rule Section”.
I the classic MB rules from 1985 it was in general forbidden to enter neutrals, except you paid 3 ICP’s.
I wouldn’t make the bribed country random. Just imagine you’ve tried this thing several times and finally activate Liberia or say Bolivia. :-D

I think a way to combine these ideas is if rolling to get a country is NOT random. However, dice for more important countries cost more than for say Liberia. In Spain’s case, the allied price for dice would be a lot more than the axis, demonstrating francos sympathy for the axis. How does that sound?

[Narvik]

@WILD:

I know this is a bit off topic……

I wonder if certain events went different for the axis if Franco would indeed have crossed that line.

1. Joins war as a mini power (has its own econ/units etc TBD)

You are correct, it is way off topic, but too intriguing not to discuss.

If we look at history of modern diplomacy from the Napoleon age and to today, covering two world wars, the neutral minors have a way of always supporting the strongest power in their neighborhood. If it is a tie, the neutral stay neutral. But never in recorded history did neutrals act anything remotely like the A&A OOB true neutral rulings. If Japan had attacked true neutral Afghanistan during the real war, why in the name of Holy Cow should true neutral Sweden declare war on Germany ? This doesn’t make sense. The common Swede don’t even know where in the world true neutral Afghanistan is located, and it is less likely they would start a war over it. The world just don’t work that way.

Spain as a mini power ? Yes. Spain used to be a Super Power that discovered America, and still today people from Mexico, down Central America and to the tip of South America still speak Spanish. Spain also used to own half of Africa, and parts of Asia. When WWII started, the Spanish population could match the ones of France, Italy and Poland, so yes, Spain should be a neutral mini power with nation specific units and a minor IC. Luckily we can lift units from the A&A 1914 game and use them as Spanish.

Still off topic, I think IMHO that an attack on any true neutral should not trigger other neutrals to join the other side. Not because of playability, in that case just give the neutrals more men and stronger defense, but because it is historical bedlam and derogatory. If true neutrals in the real world would go to war every time other neutrals got attacked, they would for sure declare war on Germany in 1939, maybe even 1938. Tell me why true neutral Sweden did nothing when neutral Poland got attacked, neutral Balticum, neutral Finland, neutral Norway and Denmark, all countries in Swedens own neighborhood, but try to attack neutral Afghanistan on the other side of the globe, and all the nice Swedes would go crazy and rampant down the streets, and start fighting Germany or Russia, wich they had trade agreements with. No more trading of Swedish iron ore and steel in exchange for food. Tell me the rationale.

[General Veers]

Liberia should be a pro-American neutral that can only be activated by the US. Not that the US player would ever need to do it,

I feel Mongolia needs to be drastically simplified into a pro-Soviet neutral wherein any territory activated by the USSR creates a declaration of war against Japan. Japan is free to attack any Mongolian territory as a declaration of war against the USSR with no automatic conversion of all the other TTs.

The South American neutrals should be a block that turns on the aggressor.

Turkey, Sweden, Afghansitan, Saudi Arabia and Switzerland should all act independently. Since Switzerland will never be activated in this case one could add two more infantry to make it tougher to take.

Spain, Portugal and their respective colonies should be tied together so that any attack on a Spanish TT turns Portugal against you and vice versa.

[The Hessian]

@General:

Spain, Portugal and their respective colonies should be tied together so that any attack on a Spanish TT turns Portugal against you and vice versa.

Indeed! That’s the way A&A1940 is played in our gaming group. And btw. an attack or the activation of any of the three Persian territories should affect all three of them.

[cyanight]

@General:

Spain, Portugal and their respective colonies should be tied together so that any attack on a Spanish TT turns Portugal against you and vice versa.

Angola and Mozambique were owned by Portugal so they should turn if Spain or Portugal is attacked.

also Although officially neutral, the Saudis provided the Allies with large supplies of oil. Diplomatic relations with the United States were established in 1943. King Abdul Aziz Al-Saud was a personal friend of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Americans were then allowed to build an air force base near Dhahran. On 28 February 1945, Saudi Arabia declared war on Germany and Japan, but no military actions resulted from the declaration.[

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@cyanight:

@General:

Spain, Portugal and their respective colonies should be tied together so that any attack on a Spanish TT turns Portugal against you and vice versa.

Angola and Mozambique were owned by Portugal so they should turn if Spain or Portugal is attacked.

also Although officially neutral, the Saudis provided the Allies with large supplies of oil. Diplomatic relations with the United States were established in 1943. King Abdul Aziz Al-Saud was a personal friend of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Americans were then allowed to build an air force base near Dhahran. On 28 February 1945, Saudi Arabia declared war on Germany and Japan, but no military actions resulted from the declaration.[
[/quote]

Nice input sir!

[General Veers]

Saudi Arabia could become a pro-American neutral that can only be activated by the US or attacked by an Axis player without neutral repercussions. Given it’s location it couldn’t be attacked until a very ambitious Italian player’s 2nd turn or activated by the US until it’s 3rd turn (in a vast majority of games it will probably be at war by then).

[teslas]

I’m going to… yeah… go back to the original question.

@SJS063:

In recent topics I have noticed that the neutral crush has appeared quite a few times, and I was wondering what your guys’a strategy is to performing it, from both sides of the game.

Allies:

This is viable as a way to shake the game up by creating two fresh entry points into europe through Iberia and the Balkans.

Spain:
Americans take it, British land troops or planes to reinforce it if they can, if it is required. Gibraltar is now the Allies’ forever, and you’re in a position to begin picking away at the two adjoining French mICs. Portugal doesn’t really matter, and the 1/turn income likely isn’t worth the chance of losing a unit. If you get kicked back out of Spain, what does Portugal matter. Hopefully if you ever get kicked out it’s a Pyrrhic victory for the axis.
Turkey:
The Russians or British must find a way to handle this. If there are Italians or Germans already there, adding 8 inf to whatever it is is damning.
Sweden:
Not much can be done here. It’s Germany’s. If Russia is in a position to take this, then you’re either doing well as Russia, and you the game is likely yours anyway, or you have fled Russia into Scandinavia in some kind of weird desperation, so the situation is too complex to address.
Saudi Arabia:
If you can take this as the allies at some point, cool. Letting it sit there is also fine. Just be aware that it’s a cache of extra units for Italy/Japan later on if the tide turns.
South America:
I can’t rationalize how this could be worth anyone’s time to come in and conquer.
African:
Potentially worth the investment of time to take, but probably not.

Axis:

I only ever neutral crush as the axis when I’ve already got strong momentum. I can’t think of a situation where you’d do it when you’re in a somewhat weak scenario.

Spain:
Your gateway to Gibraltar. You must take this before someone else does. Portugal matters a bit more for you than it does the allies, since you don’t want to give any allied landing party extra units.
Turkey:
You must either take this or strafe off most of the units immediately.
Sweden:
Be very careful to not let Russia have this. If you don’t have Novo, and you’ve got transports left over from the start of the game, best to just kill it for the income boost and to take that risk out of the game. If you do have Novo, you can let this hang out for a while so long as you keep it in mind. If the allies might land in Norway, then this further mucks up the Scandinavian situation for you. You must be aware you lose your 5 IPC NO from not holding this after it is pro-allies, however.
Saudi Arabia:
If you’re in a position to do something with this, then you’re likely already winning.
South America:
What. The. Hell is going on?
African:
Depends greatly.

Also, I almost never see the “bad guys” do a neutral crush. It’s usually the allies being the bastards.

edit-
important note about sweden added

[teslas]

Actually, and sorry to reply to my own post, but it’s been a few days and I was thinking:

Do any of you see an Axis Neutral Crush with any regularity? As I said, I only see it when the Axis already have great momentum on their way to the win. Crazy turn 19 situations aside, do you see it within the first ten turns? Less?

[cyanight]

I used to perform this strategy many times with the Axis.  I named it “Angry Bird” for some humor.  Basically you have 3 rounds to take Spain, Sweden and Turkey.  Keep USA and Russia out of the war for 3 turns. This can have a negative effect on the Japan player who doesn’t want to play the passive game though.

Romanian IC sometimes helps. Italy with a Navy and transports to attack Turkey on Turn 2 really helps. All depends what ships and position Italy is in.  Some games you can get tanks to blitz through Turkey into Iraq or Northern Persia on round 3.

[teslas]

I will have to play with this a bit, but it worries me for (more than) a few reasons:

Cons:

1: US can, with little effort, slowly pick up south America. 6 extra IPCs per turn is nothing to scoff at, especially since they start with three mechanized infantry already there to do all of the work for them. (ANZAC can also come over and grab south America for that matter, though it’s arguably more wise for America to do so since it can then transport the free troops elsewhere more easily and more quickly.)

2: Mozambique/Angola/Saudi Arabia for Britain means more units marching north to Egypt, not to mention more income. 4-6 IPCs/turn there, I forget what the African territories are worth. You may also not threat much of a sealion depending on your implementation, which could lead to early UK mICs in the middle east.

3: Afghanistan becomes something Russia or Britain can grab for a bit of extra meat in western china or even to take the long walk to somewhere more useful.

4: Sweden can be taken with your Norwegians/Fins and planes on Turn 2+ without issue, but any losses up there are kind of a small pain to replace.

5: Any units you send into Spain are necessarily not going to be headed east any time remotely soon. Once you do take Spain, you have given the allies a place to land that is not within easy reach of your major factories. You may also have given the allies some free units in Portugal when they do land, or you’ve spent a turn with some of your planes smearing Portual instead of somewhere else, like setting up to take Egypt.

Pros:

1: That being said, you do, ideally at least, keep Gibraltar for a long, long time, allowing Italy some leeway to work with the new avenue turkey provides. If you build an airbase (or two if you get crazy) on Spain or Gib, kicking you off the mouth of the med would be next to impossible any time soon.

2: I could even see a mIC in Turkey for Italy, depending. The loss of Italy’s navy is not anywhere near as detrimental, as the stranglehold on Gibraltar keeps them relatively safe, and they can drive, albeit with quite a bit of effort, through the Balkans to the middle east.

3: It’s something new to try, and would lead to a game with a strong Africa/Mediterranean/middle east brawl. I don’t know if Italy has the strength to pull off taking Egypt, though.

If America, as it does in 90%+ of games, goes nearly all-in on Japan, Germany is potentially okay with this strategy. If it doesn’t, say it takes the gamble and heads straight to Europe, hoping to hold out against a monster Japan later, I’d say this strategy might screw you.

Actually, I think this strategy would work better with an early Japan DoW than it would slowgame from Japan. Even if you do the slowgame, taking a few territories above Amur from Russia if they’re headed west does still hurt them in the long run and doesn’t affect the other map.