DEI Question

@Spendo02:

What ruleset are people looking at that states Anzac/UK can land aircraft on the DEI without taking control of them?

I’m trying to determine of Japan can accomplish the same thing.

The game mechanic intrinsic in all rule sets is that a plane belonging to a power that is not neutral is always free to land those planes on friendly territories (assuming they started the turn under friendly control) or carriers; hence the UK and Anzac are free to use Dutch territories as landing spaces as the Dutch territories begin the game friendly to the Allied Nations.  The only difference in how Dutch territories behave is that the UK and Anzac can take control of them by noncombat moving a land unit to them.  Otherwise they act exactly the same as any other friendly territory.

Japan can’t land there.  Japan and the Dutch aren’t friendly, even if Japan hasn’t declared war on UK/ANZAC.

So when it comes to landing planes, one should think of Dutch territories having the exact same relationship to UK and ANZAC as USA has to UK and ANZAC.

@Spendo02:

Do they function in the same manner then as the pro-allied neutrals?  Can UK then land its aircraft on Greece?

No; the DEI are an allied territory with the special function that they can be freely taken by UK/ANZAC (or anyone else if they can get there  :mrgreen:)

@Spendo02:

Do they function in the same manner then as the pro-allied neutrals?  Can UK then land its aircraft on Greece?

No. Greece, Yugoslavia, Persia and Brazil are neutral. While they are Pro-Allied, they are still neutral and must be treated as such until Allied land units move in on the NCM and turn those territories into full-fledged Allied territories.
As for the Dutch territories, they are actually Allied to the UK, which is why you can land UK/ANZAC planes on them. That being the case, I personally don’t understand why those territories don’t start out with their incomes part of UK India or ANZAC incomes but have to have land units move there in the NCM to gain that income for UK India or ANZAC. It seems to me like the IPCs for Sumatra, Java and Celebes should already be part of India or ANZAC incomes if they are Allied already. Having UK or ANZAC moving troops there just seems like an extra, unnecessary move.

@knp7765:

@Spendo02:

Do they function in the same manner then as the pro-allied neutrals? Â Can UK then land its aircraft on Greece?

No. Greece, Yugoslavia, Persia and Brazil are neutral. While they are Pro-Allied, they are still neutral and must be treated as such until Allied land units move in on the NCM and turn those territories into full-fledged Allied territories.
As for the Dutch territories, they are actually Allied to the UK, which is why you can land UK/ANZAC planes on them. That being the case, I personally don’t understand why those territories don’t start out with their incomes part of UK India or ANZAC incomes but have to have land units move there in the NCM to gain that income for UK India or ANZAC. It seems to me like the IPCs for Sumatra, Java and Celebes should already be part of India or ANZAC incomes if they are Allied already. Having UK or ANZAC moving troops there just seems like an extra, unnecessary move.

Well if the DEI were all UK, IIRC (don’t have the map here) UKP would start with 28 income–more than Japan by a small margin. That means that the UK would be able to build up earlier, requiring Japan to make a DOW earlier, bringing US (and its extra $$) into the war earlier.

It would make the game somewhat balanced in OOB, but with Alpha+3.9, game over for Japan.

And note that these are the DUTCH East Indies, not the British East Indies  :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

It’s not friendly - it’s a friendly neutral.  There is a difference, in that it is still neutral.  A friendly territory is one that is controlled by you or another member of your alliance.  A friendly neutral does not meet that requirement.

There is a procedure for converting a friendly neutral territory into a friendly territory, which involves moving a land unit with an attack value into it.  Until then, no other unit may be moved into it, as it is still neutral (though friendly neutral).

Here’s something that might clear it up a bit. In Spring 1940, countries like Greece and Yugoslavia still had their governments intact and preferred to remain neutral, although leaning toward Britain and France. Holland had been overran by Germany, it’s government was in exile in London and thus was a full-fledged Ally to Britain. That’s why the Dutch colonies are treated differently from Pro-Allied neutral countries.

I’m not sure I understand this correctly, but here is how I think it works:

When the game starts, Belgium is an ally that has been conquered.  No one actually plays Belgium and the Dutch have no government, no capitol and no military units, but the former Dutch colonies are still allies.  So an allied air unit can land there just like a US plane can land in Morocco after Paris falls.

The difference between Belgium and France after Paris falls is that France has military units that are played by the France player as their goverment (in exile?).  Pro-allies neutrals like Greece have their own governments intact and all they will choose to join the Allies if attacked or activated.

Former Dutch colonies are allies but they have no government so they are up for grabs (Anarchy!).  Whoever can get a land unit (not AA) there to establish a local government takes control.  In the meantime the allies can land air units there but do not take control of them.

If a former French colony is taken by an axis power and then taken back by an ally of France, then it is provisionally governed by that ally until Paris is liberated.

I think using Greece as an example is bad for this game because it has 2 territories.  Its better to look at Turkey or some other neutral with only 1 territory.

Is crete part of greece or is it a separate pro-allies neutral?

Crete is a separate Pro-Allies neutral territory.

@techroll42:

Crete is a separate Pro-Allies neutral territory.

Correct, and Crete is part of Greece.

So if Crete is activated does it activate Greece too?  And if greece is attacked, does Crete become allied?

@Vance:

Former Dutch colonies are allies but they have no government so they are up for grabs (Anarchy!).  Whoever can get a land unit (not AA) there to establish a local government takes control.

Not “whoever”, just UK or ANZAC.  They are the only powers allowed to take control of Dutch territories peacefully, by special agreement with the Dutch government in exile.

@Vance:

So if Crete is activated does it activate Greece too?  And if greece is attacked, does Crete become allied?

No.  There are no “countries” in the game - only powers.  Neutral territories are all treated independently.  The only exception is Mongolia, and then only for the purposes of the Soviet-Japanese Nonaggression Pact.

OK so that would explain why US can’t land planes on Dutch colonies or take them over unless they have first been taken by an axis power (Japan).  It is a special arrangement between Belgium (in exile) and UK/ANZAC that allows them to land planes in the former colonies or to take possession.  A bit murky but becoming clearer.  Thanks.

The US can move units of any kind into Dutch territories, as long as it’s no longer neutral.  It just can’t take control of them.  (By the way, it’s Holland, not Belgium.)

The important concept to understand is that the Dutch territories are treated in almost every way as territories belonging to a power whose capital is held by the enemy.  The only exception to this is that UK and ANZAC can take control of them while they are are still Dutch by moving in a land unit.

Well yes, but West Germany is a part of Germany…  :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I don’t think it matters–it’s all for game purposes.