Why is Sierra Leone neutral?

Just to add to wittmann, the Russians are played with different political rules on each map (Europe/Pacific). They are still one power though, so you can send units from the Euro side to the Pac side if you want. For example if you are at war w/Japan you can send Russian ground and air units that start on the Euro map into China to help prop them up (because the Chinese are also at war w/Japan). You could even send those Russian ftrs to Burma or India (via China) once the UK Pac is at war with Japan (but just because you can doesn’t mean you should LOL)

Simon, Marc, Krieghund Thank you for input and clarification. This will avoid any confusion or debate later.
Sean…

@General:

If you do it early enough you can take Gibraltar without the need for a navy. It does open up more landing spots for the Allies but taking the base from them is a hindrance to the American player. And if you maintain parity with the Soviets above the Black Sea you can then undercut them through the Caucasus.

Unlikely to be worth it though. Opening up the weak points in both Spain and Gibraltar doesn’t help the Axis. And those 8 inf in Turkey are a real pain to take out.

If UK attacks and does not finish the standing army off, the standing army stays there.

I generally represent such a scenario with French units atop of chips as the French are the least utilized army.

If the Axis then moves in, you would represent all units there with the Axis nation that claims the remaining standing army.  So in example:

UK attacks Turkey and has to retreat after killing 4 units.
Put 1 French Inf atop of the remaining units (3, I think?)
Italy then moves in and claims Turkey.
Remove the French INF, place an Italian INF atop the chips.  They now move and act as Italian units.

Pretty sure that is how the scenario would work.  Just remember that claiming neutral standing armies is part of the NCM phase, so those units in Turkey can only defend until the subsequent Italian turn.

No, it wasn’t on my list.  I just added it as 16e

It is in the Triple A list in the program, though.  If you look down the description of the G40 map, one of the things is “rules Triple A engine doesn’t recognize” or something like that.  That’s the list I meant it was already on

The only scenario where I would consider attacking neutrals is if I had a big army (either Axis or Allies) that needs to go through Turkey and isn’t mobile enough to go around Turkey.  I’ve never actually seen that scenario though.

In general the downside to attacking neutrals is way more significant than any perceived upside.  It’s hard to justify a move that is going to gift 15+ infantry to your opponent.

thank you for the answers, that was my understanding aswell, but my group couldn’t agree on it so i wanted to clear out things.

I tried it already:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20754.75

It wasn’t one of my better games and I doubt it should be used as a guideline (think it was my third Global?)

I wouldn’t recommend it under the current True Neutral rules unless Germany or Japan seriously sends some loaded transports and a carrier group to contest S. America (and be willing to invest in a minor IC as well).  It’s just too much bonus to the US with all those extra free infantry produced.  Japan could send a loaded transport(s) to take Chile on J3 in conjunction with an attack on Pearl Harbor; if Germany is threatening a Sealion and the US is built heavily into the Europe theater, it might work.  You could also try a combined assault with Germany attacking from Gibraltar on G3 to seize Brazil or Argentina while Japan invades Chile; if you combine both carrier groups together and both powers built minor ICs, it could tie up the US for quite a while.  It will also be a huge drain on the Axis war effort too, for a measly 8 S. American IPCs, but it might be worth it if it takes the US out of the war for another 4-5 turns.