Attacking neutral when by power not a war

I’ve scrambled them at all time and been successful in destroying the German force.  last time he went after my fleet and used the remaining in France.  I was able to destroy all 6, me losing a fighter and damaged battleship.

Even if the thread looks dead, I just would like to underline Brados post, he is absolutely right! I somehow like DD and sub G1 more because usually the sub can go to SZ 125 and can hardly be removed - stealing the +5 from RU which makes Barbarossa easier.

I think sealion for any price does not make sense anyway for DE. Thus give UK the chance to make a mistake.
In case UK does Tarranto attack round 1 (which is imo necessary to keep the balance in the Med) he is indeed forced to go for ground only. Even with 1 fighter 6 inf and 10 inf round 2 German has 68% with a 10 transport sea lion.

However leaving UK with ground only leaves him somehow paralyzed and if dices roll slightly above average in German 1 UK will suffer painful convoy disruptions in Canada and SZ 109 for at least 3 rounds.

However I have to admit that I lack experience how “post sealion” game goes further. Germany does an IPC loss move by taking UK leaving him with 1-.3 ground units and air after the battle and ~34 extra IPCs.
On the other hand RU can take Poland, Slovakia Romania Round 3 giving them a +17 boost. On the other hand Germany has >80 IPcs round 4 allowing them to replace almost the entire ground force he lost in UK.
Plus US can take Brasil earlier and has already a drop in US3 to Gibraltar –> And at least threatens to recapture UK - which is again risky as in case Germany can recapture you shove IPCs in the German’s mouth^^. Looks still unclear to me - a lot of pros and cons.:)

I guess in my next German game I will simply go for that in order to see how this works empirically^^

In my games that never happened so far, would be interested how this would continue^^

but what I’m saying is that germany would use too much IPC taking england and would not have enough forces to take russia. In those extra turns russia will have the forces from moscow and Stalingrad on the front and will be a strong force. I was a little liberal with the strategy though. In my opinion if England can buy enough infantry to make it a 50/50 deal, and get the germans to invest the money into a Sea-Lion, than I would think it would be a gamble that the allies would be more than welcome to take. But I agree you should not give your capital too the germans… even though I recently said too… I= fool.

In the original game, it was thought (by players I spoke with and myself anyway) that a carrier unit represented a carrier, a couple escort carriers, a few destroyers and a cruiser or two.  A battleship represented the same, but with the battleship replacing the carrier in the line up.  Submarines represented 3 submarines and transports represented 3 troop-ships.  or whatever.  Infantry represented mechanized units (Jeeps, Halftracks) and Artillery.

After years and years of play, with the board growing more and more complex and with the prices of things changing with the addition of other things, my assumptions at least, have changed.

Carrier = Carrier, 2 Escort Carriers
Battleship = Battleship
Destroyer = 3 Destroyers
Submarine = 5 Submarines
Cruiser = 2 Cruisers

Infantry = 1 Battalion or Company
Artillery = 1 Artillery Company
Mechanized = Crap on the field (jeeps, Halftracks, Meat Wagons, whatever the trash is the Infantry is using that they might be able to strap a gun too.)

Fighter - Fighter Squadron down from Fighter Wing
Tactical Bomber - Some unknown fighter type, in squadron form
Bomber - Bomber Wing

As for the Carrier having no defense, I still claim they should have AA ability on Round 1, before combat starts.  Give them no defense or attack value otherwise is fine with me.

@Flashman:

Can we assume, then, that the neutral infantry are a once only force and cannot be replaced when the power moves in to take control?

Yes.

@Flashman:

What happens if there is a “wipeout” in the battle and all units eliminated?

The same thing, except there will be no units for the allied power to claim.  You could always place an upside down control marker to indicate the territory’s status.

@Krupp:

Any word on whether there will be more than just infantry that pop up on these neutrals when they  are activated?

I think just infantry, what were you hoping for?

Sorry to resurrect a thread that had it’s last post nearly two months ago but…
What if we put Italy and Japan together. It would allow Japan to have a hand in everything
2 Player: Axis v. Allies
3 Player: 1. axis 2. Russia/China 3. All others
4 Player: Japan/Italy 2Germany 3. Russia/China 4. Normal Allies
5 Player: Japan/Italy 2. Germany 3. Russia/China 4. UK/ANZAC 5.USA/ France
6 Player: 1-3 axis powers 4-6Allied powers as above
7 Player: 1-3. Axis 4-6 Major Allies 7. Minor Allies
8 Player: Seperate anzac
9 Player: Each for himself

This way for a game of 2-6 everybody sees both theatres while the game stays mostly historically correct (Italy Japan is a small matter as opposed to Russia+Democracy

I think the countries that will be pro axis/pro allies neutrals will be countries that are typically active in AA games (belonging to one side or the other), but have not officially joined the war by the games start date (around June 10th 1940). If they are leaning to your side you don’t have to invade (fight) you just move units in and take ownership (probably in the combat phase).

If they are hostile to your side you will have to attack the units printed on the map. New countries that have been added to AA40 expansion of say The Middle East or Africa that had not yet joined the war should also follow this format.

There could be something like move into a pro your side in combat move and take ownership the IPC’s are yours, where if you come in non combat the tt remains pro your side (you only occupy it) and don’t get the IPC’s. There may be some reason that you may only want to occupy a tt (avoid some kind of consequence, like others turn on you).

There will be certain countries that have been traditionally neutral like Turkey, Saudi, Spain, Sweden, maybe Switz, parts of S America etc. Either side will have to fight there way in like you do with Mongolia for these true neutrals. I could see certain countries having alliances, that if they are attacked others will join the other side like in S America. I hope there is no link between say Spain and Turkey, and if there is you can avoid it with political pressure in the individual regions. Like say you have Turkey surrounded, and attack them it keeps Spain out. I would not like a rule that says attack one true neutral and all the others join your enemy (but it could happen). If Germany/Italy attack Turkey to open up the Black sea (to invade the Caucasus) allows the US to start putting troops on Spain that would not be cool. The axis would have to invade both at the same time to watch their back. If an attack on Turkey brought the Saudi’s to the other side or vise versa, that I could live with, at least they’re in the same region. I don’t know if they actually had a political alliance though.

Maybe NO’s will dictate if/when you can invade a true neutral (w/o consequences). If you have say a Middle East NO (control of Persia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Egypt) you can invade Saudi or Turkey (Turkey may also include another NO w/Balkans making it more difficult). If you achieve an NO with the Scandinavian tt you can now invade Sweden Etc. Control the region (NO) gain access to true neutrals. I know its a stretch, and NO’s most likely won’t have any effect on neutrals, but it was worth mentioning.