Neutral crush playbook

[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.

[Buckles75]

I agree with everything General Veers has said regarding historically accurate house rules for true neutrals, and I like the flavor too. But I have a few concerns over how this would affect game balance.

1. If South America were a block, then it’s just easy income all game for the US without any global repercussions.

2. If Mozambique, Angola, Rio do Oro, etc. were tied to the fate of Portugal/Spain, then this seems one-sided in favor of the Allies. If Axis invades Spain or Portugal, the Brits get fee inf and easy income in southern Africa from Ang and Moz. If Allies invade Spain and/or Portugal, the Brits still get easy income by invading Moz and Ang with little effort.

Here’s another suggestion that could work on its own or maybe even with Veers’ house rules. What if violating true neutrality didn’t cause the other true neutrals to become pro the other side? Instead, what if the other true neutrals simply became suspicious of the other side and worried about maintaining their own sovereignty and staying out of war if possible? We’ll call them “distressed neutrals.” This would play out by allowing limited access to the side that didn’t violate true neutrality according to the following rules:

1. Free passage by land units in non-combat movement only. Entry on non-combat movement does not change control of the territory; it remains neutral. No land units may remain in these neutrals UNLESS the number of land units from opposing forces (i.e. neutrality violators) in excess of one half the size of the neutral’s standing army are within theoretical striking distance (including by transport). For simplicity sake, planes in range are not factored in regarding this calculation and neither are battleships and cruisers that could support an amphibious assault. This means tanks and mechs could rumble through in non-com so long as they immediately exited the other side. Anything else (including tanks and mech that couldn’t get out or didn’t want to leave) could only remain if the neutrality violators posed a credible attack threat (i.e. the at least one-half rule).

2. Ability to land planes in non-combat movement if and only if a credible threat exists, as explained above. If landing is allowed, planes may land after conducting combat, if they are defending on a neighboring carrier that is damaged or destroyed or need a place to land, after scrambling into a neighboring sea zone from a territory that winds up being captured, or after intercepting a strategic or tactical bombing raid in an adjacent territory that was just captured.

3. Planes can fly over these neutrals in non-combat movement only whether or not they participated in combat movement earlier in the turn.

4. Combat movement of any kind by land units beginning their turn or passing through (if fast) these neutrals is strictly prohibited (this includes loading onto transports during combat movement). Combat movement by any planes beginning their turn in one of these neutrals is similarly prohibited.

5. Movement of naval units opposed to the neutrality violators are allowed through narrow waterways during either combat or non-combat movement. This would obviously only apply to the Turkish straits.

6. Any attack on a neutral territory with enemy units legally in it would face the combined force of those units and the neutral standing army. In the combat phase, any hits applied to this combined defensive force are applied to the neutral standing army first until it is depleted. If the attacker fails to capture the territory, this neutral (and only this neutral) will become pro the other side (and will still need to be activated or captured to be added to anyone’s control per normal rules).

7. For friendly neutrals, all of the land and air unit movement rules that apply to distressed true neutrals under a credible threat would also apply to friendly neutrals. For example, a British fighter could land in pro-Allied Greece on Britain’s first turn of the game if it were threatened by at least 3 Axis land units at the start of Britain’s turn, but that fighter could not participate in combat movement on its subsequent turn. Furthermore, if a friendly neutral has been attacked but not captured, it feels threatened for the rest of the game, so movement and landing privileges are in effect until the friendly neutral is either annexed by you or an ally or captured by an enemy.

Here’s an example.

1. USA is at war and captures Colombia. All true neutrals in the game are now suspicious of the Allies and will allow the Axis to help protect their sovereignty. China makes it’s move, which is inconsequential to this situation, and then it’s Britain’s turn.

2. At the end of Britain’s move, they have an inf in Syria, two tanks in Eastern Persia, a transport in the Red Sea, and several land units in Sudan. The French have one inf in Trans-Jordan. The Soviets (also at war) have an inf in Caucasus, a mech and 2 inf in Volgograd, and a tank and an inf in Kazakhstan. ANZAC has 2 inf and 2 art in India and two transports in SZ 39. The Axis controls Egypt with a combination of German and Italian land units, so the British transport cannot enter the Med. Iraq is British-controlled but contains no units. NW Persia has not been activated or attacked as of yet. Gibraltar is stacked with American and British land units.

3. At the start of Italy’s turn, the situation is as follows:

• Turkey is potentially threatened by a total of 4 Allied land units in range (Soviet inf in Caucasus, mech in Volgo, and tank in Kazakh along with Brit inf in Syria), but it’s not enough of a threat to allow Axis units any access. The threshold is 5 land units in range because it must be in excess of half the size of Turkey’s standing army. Italy would love to launch a surprise amphibious assault through the Turkish straits on an unsuspecting Ukraine, but access to the straits is denied for now.

• Saudi Arabia is potentially threatened by a total of 7 land units (the French inf in Jordan, two Brit units that could transport over from Sudan, and 4 ANZAC units that could transport over from India). The threat threshold is 2 (1/2 of Saudi’s standing army + 1), so Saudi Arabia allows access to the Axis for now.

• Afghanistan is similarly threatened by the Allies (3 Soviet units and 2 Brit units in range), thus breaking its threshold of 3 (1/2 of 4 + 1).

• Finally, Spain is threatened as well by all the Allied land units in Gibraltar.

4. Italy can now perform the following legal moves:

• A bomber takes off from the airbase in Southern Italy and moves 5 spaces to strategically bomb the Russian factory in Volgograd. This is possible because it can land in Afghanistan in non-combat movement. There are no other possible legal landing spots.

• A bomber takes off from the airbase in Axis-controlled France, flies over S. France, SZ 93, SZ 92, and then attempts to tactically bomb the naval base in Gibraltar. After avoiding the AA fire and bombing the naval base, the bomber may now fly over Spain and make it back to France (7 spaces total) because flying over threatened neutrals in non-com is allowed. The reverse route would have been illegal.

• An Italian inf and art, supported by a fighter taking off from Tobruk, attack the French inf in Trans-Jordan and succeed in capturing the territory with no casualties. Two Italian tanks then non-com through Jordan into Saudi Arabia, and the Italian fighter that attacked Jordan non-coms in as well. This is legal because Saudi Arabia was sufficiently threatened at the beginning of Italy’s turn, so Axis units are welcome to stay for now. Furthermore, if ANZAC, for instance, attacks Saudi Arabia after Italy’s turn ends, they would be facing the two Italian tanks and the Italian fighter in addition to the two Saudi standing infantry as a combined defensive force.

5. It’s now ANZAC’s turn. ANZAC follows through with an amphibious assault on Saudi Arabia, bringing 2 inf and 2 art from India, supported by a cruiser bombardment and two fighters taking off from the airbase in India. After two rounds of fighting, the attackers have scored three hits and the defenders have scored four hits. The defenders mandatorily lost both Saudi inf, and the Italian player took one of his tanks as the third casualty. The ANZAC player takes his four land units as casualties, thus ending the amphibious assault, and he retreats from the battle. His two surviving fighters, with one movement space remaining, may only legally land in British-controlled Iraq. Saudi Arabia is now officially a pro-Axis neutral, but it is not controlled by anyone yet.

6. Skipping to Germany’s turn, a German mech from Egypt non-coms into Saudi Arabia through Italian-controlled Jordan. In doing so, it activates Saudi Arabia and takes control of it. No Saudi infantry remain (they were killed by ANZAC), but Germany puts a control marker on Saudi Arabia and adds 2 to its IPC total. Mussolini files a vociferous complaint with Hitler, but it falls on deaf ears. Germany would also like to fly a tac bomber from Greece into Saudi Arabia during non-combat movement, and normally this would not be allowed because you cannot land in territories not controlled at the beginning of your turn. However, landing planes in a friendly neutral, which was Saudi Arabia’s status at the beginning of Germany’s turn, is allowed because it’s under a credible threat. Friendly neutrals or true neutrals that have been attacked but not captured feel sufficiently threatened for the remainder of the game until they’re either annexed or captured (i.e. not neutral anymore). So Germany can in fact land its tac bomber in there.