Makes sense.
I take back what I said.
Are there any other islands though that are useless?
Greece and Crete
-
Since the island is actually named " Crete" it’s a bit ambiguous whether it is automatically controlled by the power that controls mainland Greece after Greece loses its neutrality. Historical events would also suggest Crete would need to be taken independently. What’s the official ruling on this? (I mean when you take Sicily or Sardinia, you don’t automatically control the Italian mainland…)
-
Every neutral is independent of every other neutral.
-
Every neutral is independent of every other neutral.
Hmm, I’d say it’s the same neutral in this case. Crete is a Greek island, like Hawai is an American one…
-
Every neutral is independent of every other neutral.
Hmm, I’d say it’s the same neutral in this case. Crete is a Greek island, like Hawai is an American one…
They’re not treated as such. Creete is independent from Greece just as much as Portugal is from Spain
-
Every neutral is independent of every other neutral.
Hmm, I’d say it’s the same neutral in this case. Crete is a Greek island, like Hawai is an American one…
They’re not treated as such. Creete is independent from Greece just as much as Portugal is from Spain
OK, so that actually works like Sicily and Sardinia and it’s historically accruate too! Was just afraid since A&A is usually a game of simplifications that it would count as one territory/nation for the purpose of taking control. :-)
-
Every neutral is independent of every other neutral.
Hmm, I’d say it’s the same neutral in this case. Crete is a Greek island, like Hawai is an American one…
They’re not treated as such. Creete is independent from Greece just as much as Portugal is from Spain
OK, so that actually works like Sicily and Sardinia and it’s historically accruate too! Was just afraid since A&A is usually a game of simplifications that it would count as one territory/nation for the purpose of taking control. :-)
Actually, treating every neutral as independent seems to be simpler than making rules grouping neutrals together
-
It’s important to make a distinction between neutral territories and neutral powers, as they are not treated in the same way. There is no such power in the game as “Greece”. Each neutral territory treated completely separately. An action on one has no effect on the others (other than the effects on strict neutrals that are stated in the rules).
-
Krieg, what nationality of pieces do you place when a “pro” neutral is attacked? Is it the choice of the opposing alliance.
For instance, Germany attacks Yugoslavia on RD 1 intent on weakening it for Italy’s eventual takeover.
After one round (or sufficent casualties inflicted) Germany retreats.What units are placed, who gains control of Yugoslavia. Can any aillied power? If so, may Russia? a power not yet at war could place its units there. Also placing a control marker, collecting that IPC on its turn. AND when Italy decides to attack Yugoslavia, there are now Soviet units there, meaning this will start war with the Soviet Union earler than the axis wants? Sound like WWI to me.
Please tell me whats wrong with the above statement, and also, would it be fair to instate a rule that.
1. When a “pro” neutral power is attacked, the units placed there to represent its army must come from the power that controls the closest territory to the one being attacked, and is already at war with this power. In the case of ties in distance, the defeding alliance chooses what power places units there.
In essance im worried that attacking a neutral then retreating leaves a force there that can act next, and could even spark war with a power you dont want to unintentonaly.
Hell, as far as i understand US units could be placed in Yugoslavia after germany attacks and retreats?
-
Krieg, what nationality of pieces do you place when a “pro” neutral is attacked? Is it the choice of the opposing alliance.
For instance, Germany attacks Yugoslavia on RD 1 intent on weakening it for Italy’s eventual takeover.
After one round (or sufficent casualties inflicted) Germany retreats.What units are placed, who gains control of Yugoslavia. Can any aillied power? If so, may Russia? a power not yet at war could place its units there. Also placing a control marker, collecting that IPC on its turn. AND when Italy decides to attack Yugoslavia, there are now Soviet units there, meaning this will start war with the Soviet Union earler than the axis wants? Sound like WWI to me.
Please tell me whats wrong with the above statement, and also, would it be fair to instate a rule that.
1. When a “pro” neutral power is attacked, the units placed there to represent its army must come from the power that controls the closest territory to the one being attacked, and is already at war with this power. In the case of ties in distance, the defeding alliance chooses what power places units there.
In essance im worried that attacking a neutral then retreating leaves a force there that can act next, and could even spark war with a power you dont want to unintentonaly.
Hell, as far as i understand US units could be placed in Yugoslavia after germany attacks and retreats?
No, that is wrong. You may use US or Soviet units, but they don’t represent an American or Soviet Army. They represent the neutral army. No ally gets control of it. They still have to land a land unit to take it, and only get the inf that are left
-
so i totaly misunderstood attacking neutrals?
-
so i totaly misunderstood attacking neutrals?
Yeah. You just use allied units because they don’t have neutral inf
-
if you have the old pacific game,use the red china infantry for pro axis and the dark green us marines for pro allies
-
if you have the old pacific game,use the red china infantry for pro axis and the dark green us marines for pro allies
Or some world at war pieces…
-
Bof … use AAP40 or AA50 chinamen for both sides. Since we still suffer the ACME wall :-P, you cannot confuse them with true chinamen because chinamen cannot attack a neutral power
Suggested Topics
