Mongolia and Neutrals - rules summarized here

Nice one.

Man, you gotta believe there must have been an easier way to encourage the Non Agression pact, without requiring such complex Mongolia rules.  Or a way to provide disincentives for the neutral crush, or dealing with the Dutch, without requiring so many specific rules to be memorized.

The second edition would have been a nice oppertunity to step back and say “Ok let’s simplify all this” down to just couple basic conditions, reducing the Mongolia weirdness, instead of tacking on even more territory specific politics rules.

Like all that Mongolia stuff just to keep the Japanese out of Amur?
Or with the Dutch, all those exceptions just to give Anzac a gamey landing spot in Sumatra?
It’s just a lot of rules, for a comparitvely small payoff, in gameplay terms. There must have been an easier way to approach this.

I know it’s a dead horse, but I can’t help but repeat the old lament… I wish they didn’t try do so much at once with Global. A bigger map, with more nations and an expanded unit roster would have been a lot in and of iself. But then they had to go and throw all the political rules and objectives on top of it. It’s like, wouldn’t it make more sense to test the waters first, before diving in headlong? See how sales hold up for a large combined map game, and gauge player response to that idea by itself, before setting in 1940?

Oh well, that ship has already sailed I guess. But threads like this remind me why so many people I know are intimidated by Axis and Allies 1940 haha. Its because the rulebook reads like a confusing study guide, for a poorly written standardized test, in some subject you’re not very familiar with hehe. Basically you just skipped from Pre-Algebra to Calculus, without any primer. And now you’re all stressed out for trick questions on Mondays exam lol!
:-D

Well, this version of the NAP is better than “the players can decide what the consequences of breaking the pact would be.”

Although it’s not really a NAP, since Russia can still help China and even attack Japanese-occupied China, as long as it doesn’t border Mongolia.

Hmm, wasn’t it 12 IPC’s that could be spent on troops in Siberia (for Russia)? Or am I misremembering?

@calvinhobbesliker:

Hmm, wasn’t it 12 IPC’s that could be spent on troops in Siberia (for Russia)? Or am I misremembering?

First Edition of G40, yes, not the Second Edition.

If the rules were that simple, this thread probably wouldn’t need to exist.
 :-D

But the Dutch rules create a kind of separate class of “Allies” with a different treatment for taking possession of Dutch territory and landing aircraft there, which are unique to UK/Anzac.

The Mongolia rules create a third class of neutral, which behaves differently than true Neutrals or Pro-side neutrals, which is why they have to be treated as a separate “nation” in tripleA. And these cover Korea as well, which isn’t a territory bordering Mongolia itself.

My point is just that the gameplay benefits/excitement introduced by having such territory and nation specific rules is rather insignificant, when compared to the confusion and need for clarification and examples that seems to attend to them.

But yeah, I was being intentionally flippant for emphasis.
;)

I just think you could probably have achieved similar ends, with rules that were more universal and less nuanced.

3. You CAN’T fly over neutrals

Interestingly, during Operation Torch, planes from the UK flew over Spain on their way to Algeria.

Well I’d complain about those too, if the “special case” rules didn’t go back to Classic, and if I thought anyone would pay attention to my views.
:-D

The two canals that limit naval movement in A&A, could have both been handled the same way, (control of a single territory) with the canal feature clearly denoted graphically on the gamemap so you know which territory is relevant. In other words, movement through the Suez Canal could have just been through Egypt instead of between Egypt and Jordan, so it worked exactly like Panama does, which would have been simpler. ;)

Straits are straightforward enough, the key difference between those types of rules and the ones I was grumbling about, is that they are the same for all player nations. The way they work doesn’t change from nation to nation, or as a result of the political situation. They are universal.

The Dutch rules are bizarre. If the rules for French territory worked the same way (after the fall of Paris) at least it would be consistent. Wouldn’t the same “special relationship” to the British/Anzac hold as much for free French territory as it does for the Dutch? But the UK cant take control of such spaces until they are first occupied by Axis. This puts limitations on air base and naval base locations, that might otherwise provide some gameplay interest.

And anyway, why make it UK/Anzac exclusive? It’s as if the American-British-Dutch-Australian Command never even existed heheh! I mean who hasn’t heard of ABDA Com? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-British-Dutch-Australian_Command
Salt in the wounds, as always.
:-D

Haha, in real life, after mainland France fell, the colonies would become pro-Axis neutrals that were never activated.

@Black_Elk:

The Dutch rules are bizarre. If the rules for French territory worked the same way (after the fall of Paris) at least it would be consistent. Wouldn’t the same “special relationship” to the British/Anzac hold as much for free French territory as it does for the Dutch? But the UK cant take control of such spaces until they are first occupied by Axis. This puts limitations on air base and naval base locations, that might otherwise provide some gameplay interest.

The OOB rules don’t actually replicate the historical Vichy/Free French situation; they treat France as though it had continued to fight alongside the British as a government-in-exile after the loss of its homeland territory – so there are actually no Free French territories on the map.  But your point is a good one because, under the OOB non-historical rules, France and the Netherlands are both governments-in-exile who own foreign colonial territories, and who are thus technically on an equal footing.

The real explanation for the difference in treatment between the DEI and the French colonial empire is probably therefore due to two things.  First: France is a player power in the game, whereas Holland is not.  The French player would be understandably torqued off if the rules allowed other Allied players to simply walk into his territories and take them over, but in Holland’s case no player-power feelings need to be considered.  Second: the DEI situation is in essence a special variation of the game’s “pro-Allied neutral” mechanism, hidden from view by the fact that the DEI territories have a Dutch roundel rather than diagonal shading bars.  And that mechanism is probably there because the DEI played such a crucial role in the outbreak of the war in the Pacific in the first place.  You’ll note that no such special rules apply to Suriname, Holland’s colony in South America, because Suriname – unlike the DEI – had no significant role in WWII.

Wait, but the British Empire troops can take control of Suriname, right?

@Gamerman01:

Yes, Calvin

Perhaps I’m interpreting this incorrectly, but the rules say:

“These two powers [meaning the United Kingdom and ANZAC] have an arrangement with the Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch territories in the Pacific. As a result, they are free to move units into these territories as a noncombat movement at any time, as long as they have not yet been captured by Japan. They may actually take control of them (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into them. Additionally, the United Kingdom and ANZAC consider attacks against any Dutch territories to be acts of war against them directly. Once a Dutch territory has been captured by Japan, however, it may be captured and controlled by any power.”

Because these rules are specifically referring to “the Dutch territories in the Pacific”, I’m assuming that the part which says that the UK and ANZAC “are free to move units into these territories” only applies to the DEI.  Suriname is in South America, on the continent’s Atlantic side, not its Pacific side, so it’s not a “Dutch territory in the Pacific.”  The later part which refers to “attacks against any Dutch territories” certainly seems broad enough in scope to cover Suriname, but it concerns what the UK and ANZAC consider to be an act of war, not what territories they can occupy by special arrangement with the Dutch government.

@Gamerman01:

It’s written like that because it’s written in the Pacific rulebook only

Nope, it means what it says - Pacific only.

Well, I guess TripleA is wrong then…not that it matters much.

thanks this was helpful