True Neutrals

@Ichabod1862 said in Strict Neutrals - Planes Flying Through:

@Krieghund

I get you have been declared an official ruling somehow.

That would be because I was a developer and editor for the game.

I’ve been playing Triplea live a lot lately…gotten used to clicking “DOW on the strict neutrals.” That’s besides the situation really.

Triple A doesn’t get everything right. Some shortcuts are taken for whatever reason. Page 10 of the Rulebook is clear on this matter.

Your ruling to me I think eisegetes into the text a fuller meaning not intended.

Germany conducts combat moves into Turkey while simultaneously combat moving planes through Turkey, but due to the ruling this means they somehow really have to simultaneously respect their air space? Makes no sense which makes me think you exegeted into the rule book an unintended end state.

page. 11 Europe book. “Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it.”

The point of the rule on page 11 is that you cannot simply fly planes through strict neutrals in general.

For your interpretation, the rule should say all air units no matter what until AFTER attacking it. Because I think they should be able to fly over it even if just 1 infantry attacks the same neutral territory. The point of the rule is you can’t fly through like ground cannot go into the pripet marshes.

Germany is attacking it with air units. Why the interpretation that other air units cannot simultaneously fly through? The rules intent is to prevent flying through when never and not attacking them in general.

It’s not a ruling, it’s the rule. The rule is straightforward as written. “Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it.” It says air units cannot fly over an unfriendly neutral, then provides an exception for attacking it. An air unit that is flying through a neutral territory is not attacking it, so it is not allowed. It may only fly into one to attack it. That is the intent of the rule. Any other interpretation is simply reading something into it that isn’t there.

Per page 11 of the Rulebook, once a neutral territory is invaded, it is no longer neutral, so the restriction no longer applies. However, since all combat movement is simultaneous, the restriction is not lifted until after the combat movement phase in which it was invaded.

I hope this clears things up.

@P@nther:

When it comes to the British turn, Yugoslavia is an Ally, because of the German attack before, so the territory of Yugoslavia is friendly to the British.

So in NCM the British fighters may land there.

Thank you! Before this thread, this effect had never really occurred to me, and I think I may have let a British plane or two sink into the Adriatic when it could have landed in Yugoslavia. Not that it would really have survived there anyway, but it’s always good to make life a bit harder for Italy when taking it.

#houserules

@Krieghund:

@Shaniana:

Is the basic rule that every British unit counts as “Europe” as soon as it is on the European board and treated accordingly (may not enter Russia), whereas every UK Unit in Asia is treated as Pacific and may enter Russia, regardless of where it started or was built or anything?

UK units are just UK units, no matter where they are or where they came from.   The distinction here is which map the Soviet territories are on, not the source of the units moving into them.

@Shaniana:

What if my Russian airplane lands on a carrier off the Indian cost, and that carrier then tries to move to Africa?

The carrier may not leave the Pacific map until either the Soviet fighter leaves it or the USSR is at war in Europe.

@Shaniana:

And what about an ANZAC fighter entering the European board? Is it allowed to fly to Russia’s European side?

No.

Thanks alot!

With some simple house rules attacking the true neutrals does not need to be insane.

In our group we are remove 1 inf in each of the mongolian territories and in angola and mozambique. This makes attacking an European true neutral less devastating for the asian land war and makes it less severe for the Italians. Its also more true to history which is a bonus.

We are also thinking of making Argentina as a pro-axis minor. This would be partly to make south america a possible theatre of operations and also to reduce the extreme impact on the american economy and manpower from attacking a true neutral. Not very true to history but we just regard that as a potential bonus.

@Gargantua:

So there is a DEFINITE seperation between invading a Friendly Neutral, and a friendly/allied territory.

That is what we’re currently trying to determine.

@kcdzim:

A) if the US controls finland (or has fighters there), it’s no longer neutral.  It MUST be at war to be in Finland, no other way around it.
B) if any axis power declares war on Russia on the Europe side of the map, Russia is no longer neutral (it’s at war with someone, so it’s a friendly power to the Allies).
C) Declaring War occurs at the beginning of the move phase, and scrambling occurs at the end (at which point Russia is at war with at least one Axis power).

So in your example, as Russia is not neutral, and the US is not neutral, US planes in Finland can scramble to the seazone against an attack on Russia.

Correct, except that TheDefinitiveS said “UK”, not “US”, but that is a minor point.  Either way, the scrambling power is at war.

@kcdzim:

Neutral non player powers are different, in that they never automatically flip to a side, they just change to “friendly neutrals”.

Not exactly true.  When attacked, they join the opposite side from the attacker.

@kcdzim:

And even “friendly neutrals” require a non combat move into them to take control, even after they’re forces have been activated by a failed enemy attack.

After being attacked, they are no longer neutral, but friendly to the opposite side from their attacker.  However, the territory and forces are uncontrolled, as you say.  The question at hand is the timing of this status change.

@kcdzim:

And a friendly neutral is not the same as a player power not yet at war - they have completely different diplomatic rules.  For example, if Russia is not at war on the Europe map, Britain CANNOT noncombat move through their spaces.  It is NOT the same as a friendly neutral, for lack of a better term it’s a Neutral Power, completely different than a Friendly Neutral or a Strict Neutral.

Correct.

I think attacking a strict neutral may become a late game move in which the other tt on the board are worthless to the outcome of a game that may end in 3-4 turns.

Ok, everyone, I tried out this strategy and ultimately conceded that game.  Here’s the thread if you’re interested:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20754.0

If you’re going to try this out, make sure Japan tries SOMETHING in S. America J3 to tie up the US for at least a few rounds.  US had like $92 for most of the game, and the Axis dropping the ball in the Atlantic/Med made it WAY too easy for the US to whup up in Europe.  Also, I played Italy like a demented retard, as the Italian BB had some awesome rolling killing TWO separate 95%+ UK attacks, and I also gave up a FREE IC in Egypt TWICE.  Don’t let the True Neutrals distract Italy, especially if you’re lucky enough to have your BB survive UK1!  Take Egypt and build/seize that IC on it!

Also, don’t throw away the German airforce in the Med trying to help the Italians, build a minor IC in Yugo and build subs or your fleet moved in from Gibraltar; I keep telling myself that every game, and every game I end up with just a few planes on the carrier by G3-4.