Mongolia and Neutrals - rules summarized here

@Imperious-Leader
Sure - I was addressing the specific scenario.

@krieghund said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

@andrewaagamer said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

Two ways to look at this:

Reason A is dominant and supersedes and cancels any other Reason. (Which leads to your ruling) Reason A is limited to the Soviet/Japan conflict and does not override Reason B which leads to my statement.

The first way is correct, as indicated by the phrase, “In all other respects and for all other purposes”.

Ahhh, I didn’t put enough emphasis on “In all other respects and for all other purposes”. That makes more sense to me now.

The tipping point for me is if Reason A is dominant than if any other Allied Power rather than Russia, (US, UK, ANZAC or France), attacks Mongolia, Mongolia WOULD NOT turn Pro-Axis. This goes against every other instance regarding Neutrality in the rules. A standard is if a Neutral is attacked it becomes Pro to the opposing factions.

Yes, that’s true, but Mongolia is an exceptional case. Its ties to the USSR against Japan are so strong that an attack upon it by another Allied power would not change its stance to pro-Axis, and it would remain strict neutral. The same is true if an Allied power attacks another strict neutral.

Wow - that’s cool. THANKS for explaining that!!!

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)

@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.

@BJCard:

So a British IC in Persia or Iraq is recommended if someone does this?  I’ve never really liked an Egypt IC.

For me, I would have needed at least two ICs in the Egypt-Persia belt.  But you pretty much need them before the Axis show up in Turkey, otherwise you won’t have enough units to hold the area.

It seems vital for the UK to have an Egypt IC down by at least UK2, preferably UK1, but this opens you up to the potential of a Sea Lion.  It’s a very catch-22 situation for the UK which I discussed at length in this other thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29771.0

Rules are rules anyway, if you want leniancy, you have to ask for it.  This would not be a case where I would be inclined to grant it, mind you.  If you moved everything from Hawaii to Carlines but forgot to move a fighter there leaving it prone to attack, then I could see a case of “yea, okay, so you intended to move it but it got lost in the shuffle” fine, generally I’d allow that change (for non-league, non-tournament games, of course.)

@kcdzim:

Tragically, there are not enough japanese roundels to do this (later in the game).

What’s even more tragic (or fortunate depending on how you look at it) is that I have 10 differe A&A’s so a lack of control markers for the big 5 is never an issue. A lack of ANZAC markers on the other hand…

i have modified the first text today with a nr 4 sentence.

check at the beginning of this topic