Mongolia and Neutrals - rules summarized here

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

Refresh my memory on neutrals…

say an ally attacks a neutral, but not myself. does it then mean my whole alliance is at war with all neutrals or just that player who attacked the neutral?

Question: Can an ANZAC FTR land in Dutch New Guinea even though it has yet to be taken by an Allied force? i.e. Still Orange in colour

If Japan attacks a Mongolian territory (but not a Soviet territory bordering Mongolia) then all strict neutrals (or neutral neutrals as I like to call them) become pro-allied, including the rest of Mongolia, correct? Does the rest of Mongolia then directly join the Soviet Union?

@Gamerman01:

Neutrals:

1. You can’t move a tank through a friendly neutral that you just activated
    a) You CAN blitz strict neutrals and unfriendly neutrals
    b) You also can’t non-com mech or tanks through the friendly neutral that you just took control of.

Rule 1 b) the mention of tanks seems redundant, as the initial line already says you can’t move a tank through a friendly neutral.