Images of the Map?

You mean something like this? djensen says Poland does have a small coastline.

The things Larry will do to keep the Germans out of Petrograd…

@wove100:

I know it’s hard to tell, but blowing up the image of the eastern mapboard, it strikes me that Poland may not have a coastline. When I look at it, it seems that Belarus might border the Baltic (it wouldn’t be much stranger than Tuscany bordering Naples).

Like I said, I’m blowing up the image and resolution drops quickly. It’s also late and just possible I’m having a fever dream.

Well, we’ll know soon enough. One last throw for an extant, but distorted East Prussia.

Edit:

The more I stare at it, the more it looks like Belarus might include Lithuania or that Livonia meets Prussia at one point, blocking Poland’s access to the Baltic (similar to how Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona all meet at one point, with Prussia and Livonia being “adjacent” in the same way Utah and New Mexico are - they touch, but movement directly between them is impossible in the A&A sense).

Like I said, I’m tired and desperate, so I’m swinging wild. I just can’t shake the feeling that something’s going on with Belarus. Look at Poland’s eastern border - it doesn’t swoop up toward the Baltic, it seems to be angled so that it meets the line separating sea zones 11 and 12 (although the fold in the board isn’t helping clarity).

@wove100:

So, Chacmool, are you somewhat statisfied by the way Greece is handled in A&A1914? As a minor neutral, it resists whoever invades it first, joining the opposing alliance.

Yes, in AA1914 Greece is handled the way it should be

Yeah Greece should be a strict neautral. That’s why I was confused when Flashman said that Allies shouldn’t be able to invade neutrals…they didn’t seem to have a problem doing it to the Greeks :-P

I agree with Flashman that in this game the neutrals (white painted) should not be invaded. By both sides.
Belgium is a special case as you can see even in this game its painted blue (france aligned)
What Larry Harris did in his Germany Game Report as he invaded the Netherlands would have been never happened in WW1 because of the Emperors affinity with Holland.
In spring 1918 the German Army High Command asked to allow the transport of troops via Roermond and the stationing of German gun batteries in the Netherlands. The national government with support of Kaiser Wilhelm II (“Holland is to leave alone”) resist this notion successfully.
If the Allies want to keep their “good guy” image, AA1914 gives them with Albania a solution for the Greek-problem.
Larry Harris has pointed out that Albania stands also for Montenegro so if the Allies want to intervene at Balkanfront they can use this door to enter.

Yes but from the strategic aspect of the game the invasion of neutrals makes everything suddenly much more interesting. Suddenly Switzerland can become a gateway, for who it’s up to the players to decide. A British invasion of Perisa and suddenly the whole strategy on the Eastern Front has to change for the Centrals. An invasion of Greece either creates more trouble for the Centrals in the Balkans or assures their hegenomy. I support it 100%

I guess it was just a daylight savings-induced fever dream. After all, I’d just lost an hour of my life. :wink:

I personally think there should be more negative repercussions for invading a strict neutral, although 1940 rules didn’t make a whole lot of sense historically. I just feel like there would be more international outcry than, ‘Oh well, they have to defend themselves now.’

That’s partly why I’d ban the Allies from invading neutrals, or at least make them think very carefully. It’d be largely keyed to American intervention; every time either side invades a neutral the American DOW gets moved up or down against their interest.

Since the CP will be looking for a quick victory before America gets mobilized they’re much less likely to be worried about what Woodrow thinks.

Otherwise, I think the number of units you mobilize against you is about the right disincentive to attack.

Well considering the only theater of the game already involves most of the “international community” and they happen to be killing each other, I’m not sure there’s much of an international outcry to be had. If you wanted to fix that maybe each alliance is allowed to invade two neutral countries, and after that their “infamy” is too much and all already neutral powers mobilize for the opposing alliance if another one is invaded. Like say the Allies invade Persia and Greece but then the British player feels like invading say Denmark is a good way to open up a new front against the Germans, because that would be the third country then the remaining non-invaded neutrals mobilize for the Centrals, like Spain, Afghanistan, the Scandanavian countries, ect.

If the Devil invaded Denmark I can’t see Sweden or Switzerland mobilizing against him. They’d just appoint an Ambassador to Hell.

Can anyone see a likely scenario where Norway and Sweden are invaded? I could see the UK invading Denmark to open a third/fourth front. I can’t imagine Germany doing it, if they want a Baltic invasion they’ll go for Finland.

My guess is the Persia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Greece (in that order) are going to be the repeatedly invaded neutrals. The rest are just there for the warmongers who can’t help themselves. :-D

P.S.: Don’t think for a minute I’m not gonna invade Spain, just for the hell of it.

@Flashman:

If the Devil invaded Denmark I can’t see Sweden or Switzerland mobilizing against him. They’d just appoint an Ambassador to Hell.

Are you trying to say that they don’t already have an ambassador to hell?

Depends what IPCs neutrals have. If Spain is only 1 its an easy conquest for France, with little prospect of losing it.

Germany invading Holland R1 is supreme folly.

Germany might rather consider Sweden or Norway as a step into a northern front against Russia.

There are good strategic reasons for both sides in invading Persia.

Indeed, mobilizing Portugal on F1 and then invading Spain on F2 seems like it will be pretty standard, Germany invading Holland is frankly stupid, Switzerland is a much more viable option.

With Finland having the Arctic coastline, I can’t see Germany invading Sweden or Norway as they can’t quickly strike at Karelia. Each Central Power has only one neutral they should try to conquer.
Germany: Switzerland. That army in Bavaria, or whatever the hell it’s called, can’t reach the Western front without rails anyway, so why not open an extra front against both the French and Italians?
Austria-Hungary: Greece. The Allies are eventually going to land in Greece anyway, so the Austrians may as well try to forestall these landings once they and the Ottomans have won in the Balkans.
Ottoman Turkey: Persia. If both the British and Russians haven’t yet invaded and Turkey has sufficient force to strike eastwards and cover Mesopotamia, then a Turkish assault on Persia will level a threat against both Eastern Russia and India and force the Allies to divert troops to defend against it.

Austria has to be doing pretty well to attack Greece; adding 4 units to the enemy ranks in a tt it’ll be very difficult to hold onto could open the door for the Allies.

Albania is already an open door - invading here should be standard, but again Austrian plans are upset by that damned stupid Serbian attack.

With Russia and Britain moving before it, Turkey will be doing well to hold onto Mesopotamia and even get a look at Persia.

If the Allies are cooperating properly, the Turquish fleet shouldn’t get the chance to sail, leaving the Allies with the freedom to land anywhere in the Balkans. The Russian Black Sea, and French and British Med fleets all move before Turkey, with the Italians to follow up (Austria can wait).

Note: not certain Finland does have an Arctic coastline, it certainly shouldn’t have in 1914. Might be another 4 cornered job.

If any Central tries to invade Greece it should be Ottomans with their Bulgarian troops…that said neither they should probably just wait for the Allies to invade and then attack the weakend allied force.

Let’s take a step back. Why didn’t major powers invade so-called ‘strict neutrals’ in the war? Was it because it wasn’t worth the effort, or because there were repercussions for doing it? I think whatever rules are put in place should be as historical as possible.

@ossel:

Let’s take a step back. Why didn’t major powers invade so-called ‘strict neutrals’ in the war? Was it because it wasn’t worth the effort, or because there were repercussions for doing it? I think whatever rules are put in place should be as historical as possible.

It wasn’t worth the effort mostly, who wants to invade switzerland? It’s full of old ladies with guns and really tall mountains.

It wasn’t gentlemanly. That’s why the invasion of Belgium caused such outrage.

Other than that, there are very few examples; Portugal, Romania and Bulgaria all joined in voluntarily to grab tt; Persia was already considered a “protectorate” by the UK & Russia; Greece invited the Allies in; Albania was in a state of anarchy and scarcely had a government to overthrow; Austria and Serbia each accused each other of starting the whole thing.

The other neutrals pretty much minded their own business and made a quiet profit from the war.
By and large, not giving the defending forces to the enemy should be enough to discourage attacks in a game which should be finely balanced between existing units.