Should we make better rules for invadable neutrals? (1940)

Which is insane to see Germany do that is the fact of the matter is that Germany from 37 to 43, did not give two $hits about your neutrality and only choose not to invade Switzerland or Sweden because those two nations had an actually good size military. I like the idea of small neutral alliances but I believe Switzerland should have ten infantry, not two. As Switzerland went into war economy once France was invaded. I would go as far as giving Switzerland two fighters and two AA guns.

@WILD:

@Charles:

How much is enough punishment? Maybe we should ask Germany. My new setup for Spain is 10 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 tank, and 1 fighter.
I revised the setup above after a playtest.

So you dropped an 1 art and 1 mech from the orig Spanish army that you posted.

In your test I’m assuming the US attacked Spain

What did the US take in if so? (was I close on the US attack force)

How’d it go for the Americans afterwords (did UK reinforce)

Were the allies able to hold and advance, or did the axis push them back into the see?

De Gaulle where you at ? The Vichy catch up to you ?

You never did answer this question. Im still looking at ideas before game Saturday. How did the US do if they attacked Spain ? My plan is to attack Spain to SBR Rome and Paris and take one or thee other. Other option is From Africa but

@Charles:

In a Europe game, US has Spain by round 4 or 5 if it wants it. In a Global game, the US can get there sooner granted that Pacific forces are brought over to cover the transports (instead of having to build an Atlantic fleet).

I feel that my setup on the first page is well balanced and also respectful to history.

Thanks. Im going with these stats for now. Axis needs to go through Turkey to get bonus point in game for Mideast oil. US does the same thing every game so now Spain is an option which it should be.

Spain : 6 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fig, 1 aa gun (leftover from Spanish War) 1 dest ea sz

Turkey : 5 inf, 1 art, 1 fig, 1 aa gun.  1 dest sz  Weaker in supplies.

If I need to increase will see. Depends on setup and what comes from Pacific and how fast allies can move in Atlantic in my game due to German Subs and if Germany gets there Sub Interdiction NA, then it will cost US UK ea 1 icp per German sub every turn
in which now allies will be delayed due to destroyer buys at start of game. Too many subs in Atlantic could very well make US go another route the longer there delayed in taking Spain. By then Italy will have done what they need to do and later turns can defend better. Or do Operation Torch. Goal is to SBR the crap out of Rome early.

@Charles:

While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

Ya but historically there were plans for both territories to be attacked. The game becomes to generic after so many games. Thats why you see guys now adding stuff to the G40oob game ( Still a great game ). I got 5  39 games that I play and most stuff thats been coming out that HBG and others have put in games now was in these games since 1997.

@Charles:

While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

After playing game Saturday , Allies never went to Spain. But realized now that I’ll probably put in your suggestion for Spain troops because the allies could build a IC in Spain. I know you dont like but got to change game up so it aint always the same routes. If Germany sees it coming, Italy and Germany can counter it and probably take back. Will see.

@SS:

@Charles:

While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

After playing game Saturday , Allies never went to Spain. But realized now that I’ll probably put in your suggestion for Spain troops because the allies could build a IC in Spain. I know you dont like but got to change game up so it aint always the same routes. If Germany sees it coming, Italy and Germany can counter it and probably take back. Will see.

If you take the basic numbers, France has a total factory strength of 9 (usually in German hands) with Italy having 13 right in direct naval and air distance to Spain. Hence why I don’t like the idea of US landing in Spain because you need a good size force to take Spain and hold on to it and then factory it and now worry about defending a factory worth of 3 against a total of 22 from the Axis and on top of that, you just turned the neutrals pro-Axis and thus US and UK have to reinforce it (which normally would be easy for US as they usually have naval dominance right from the get go). However, you can argue it is worth it even if Germany or Italy takes Spain because it just drained Axis resources away from USSR.

1. Get rid of the “attack one, fight all” rule on strict neutrals. 
2. Allied powers (except Russia) cannot attack strict neutrals.
3. Strict neutrals must always be occupied, otherwise they become friendly neutrals for other side.
4. Strict neutrals always get 1 infantry beginning each turn that must be attacked (represents partisans).

@Carolina:

1. Get rid of the “attack one, fight all” rule on strict neutrals. 
2. Allied powers (except Russia) cannot attack strict neutrals.
3. Strict neutrals must always be occupied, otherwise they become friendly neutrals for other side.
4. Strict neutrals always get 1 infantry beginning each turn that must be attacked (represents partisans).

In the scale of G40, there isn’t any nations that USSR invaded that were neutral.

I think every neutral needs a more varied army- the neutral nations of WWII were not all a handful of infantry divisions. Turkey, for example, should have the 8 infantry, plus a fighter, an artillery, and maybe even a tank. They should also have a destroyer or two. Much more intimidating than just 8 infantry. And who’s to say that game events can’t influence neutrals? For example: if Moscow falls, roll one die. On a roll of 6, Sweden joins Germany (just as an example). I also like the Global War idea of ‘aligning’ neutrals a lot more than just moving units in. For example, if Axis powers control both Yugoslavia and Greece, Bulgaria aligns to Germany (just as an example).

@AxisAndAllies1940:

I think every neutral needs a more varied army- the neutral nations of WWII were not all a handful of infantry divisions. Turkey, for example, should have the 8 infantry, plus a fighter, an artillery, and maybe even a tank. They should also have a destroyer or two. Much more intimidating than just 8 infantry. And who’s to say that game events can’t influence neutrals? For example: if Moscow falls, roll one die. On a roll of 6, Sweden joins Germany (just as an example). I also like the Global War idea of ‘aligning’ neutrals a lot more than just moving units in. For example, if Axis powers control both Yugoslavia and Greece, Bulgaria aligns to Germany (just as an example).

As I said time and time again, in terms of real firepower and numbers, Swizerland and Turkey should have the largest military for neutrals.

I combine these neutral rules with the CDG 1939 v3 setup (which is really great btw).

My questions are in regards to the Islamic alliance.

1)  What is the house rule for the fortification mentioned in the Turkey setup?
2)  The rule states Islamic Alliance is worth 5 IPCs (2 Turkey, 2 Saudi Arable, 1 Bosporus) but that is Allies only.  Axis would get 7 if Saudi Arabia NO is included?

Thank you…

So are people still seriously considering having ‘groups’ of strict neutrals that support each other? If so, how would you group them?

I could imagine Sweden and Switzerland supporting each other. Both are industrialized central European countries with strong militaries, a history of neutrality, and vaguely Christian Social Democrat kind of ideology.

It’s not clear whether Spain and Portugal would support or oppose each other – if you invade Portugal, does that flip Spain to the enemy side? Or to your side? South America seems like it should mostly follow Spain…except there were rivalries within South America. I think Ecuador and Peru even fought a war in the 1940s against each other.

Same problem with Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia…sure, they’re all Muslim, but they’re also rivals.

I still think the politics/diplomacy in G40 are too thin to support anything more nuanced than the current neutrality system, but I’m open to practical, concrete arguments to the contrary. It’s not enough to just say “the current system is totally unrealistic” – you have to specify some specific alternative that is more realistic and still playable.

I don’t like the idea of neutral alliances because my idea of neutrals having more firepower is based off history which there is a reason why in G40, they’re neutral because they want nothing to do with WWII. Some countries like Sweden were threaten with invasion by both USSR, Germany, and UK. Switzerland should be the most neutral of neutrals in the game. Portugal has a defensive alliance with UK and that should play a role somehow. But the idea of the Muslim Alliance is foolish and those nations were mostly pro-Allies because they wanted to make money off their oil. Afganistan for example had talks with Germany, USSR, and UK to try to get them to join their side.

@Caesar:

I don’t like the idea of neutral alliances because my idea of neutrals having more firepower is based off history which there is a reason why in G40, they’re neutral because they want nothing to do with WWII. Some countries like Sweden were threaten with invasion by both USSR, Germany, and UK. Switzerland should be the most neutral of neutrals in the game. Portugal has a defensive alliance with UK and that should play a role somehow. But the idea of the Muslim Alliance is foolish and those nations were mostly pro-Allies because they wanted to make money off their oil. Afganistan for example had talks with Germany, USSR, and UK to try to get them to join their side.

I agree.

The only real neutral alliance was the fact that the US has Sphere of Influence over the Americas has every single American nations basically joined the Allies with Argentina being the only possible Pro-Axis during WWII and they decided in the end not to join the Axis.

Maybe some of you did not see this new forum below.
Here is how YG and team try to solve this issue:

@Young:

NEUTRAL BLOCKS

BLOCK #1 - SOUTH AMERICA

If an Allied power attacks any strict neutral territory in South America, all remaining standing armies in South America and the territories they’re on, become German.

If an Axis power attacks any strict neutral territory in South America, all remaining standing armies in South America and the territories they’re on, become American.

BLOCK #2 - EUROPE, AFRICA, & THE MIDDLE EAST

If an Allied power attacks any strict neutral territory in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East, all remaining standing armies in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East and the territories they’re on, become German.

If an Axis power attacks any strict neutral territory in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East, all remaining standing armies in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East and the territories they’re on, become British.

BLOCK #3 - MONGOLIA

If an Allied power attacks any strict neutral territory in Mongolia, all remaining standing armies in Mongolia and the territories they’re on, become Japanese.

If an Axis power attacks any strict neutral territory in Mongolia, all remaining standing armies in Mongolia and the territories they’re on, become Russian.

While that is a good idea, it’s far from historical truth.

As Ceasar said, while it is a good idea for the playability and balance, its far from historical truth.

According to International Law for that period, and that is the Haag convention of 1905 and 1907, a country that declare neutrality at the start of a world war, can not take part in any kind of warfare or let other partys use their territory. The Law says the neutral state must have a strong military force to protect and defend its neutral territories.

Based on the International Law, all neutrals should have strong Infantry/Fighter defense for self protection, stronger than the OOB set up, and even maybe let them grow with one additional unit every second turn, if that dont make it too complicated.

The OOB rules for neutrals dont model the historical truth, it models the collective safety mechanic that the League of Nations tried to implement after WWI, but was abandoned in 1938, when every neutral minor country in Europe reverted back to the Haag convention from 1905/07. Attack one member, and you attack them all. I love that idea, and maybe it would have worked, but no matter how beautiful the idea is, it was in fact abandoned in 1938 because UK and France denied the League of Nations to punish Italy and Japan after the attacks on true neutrals Ethiopia, Albania and Manchuria. PM Chamberlain said in his speach that the collective safety mechanic was dead, and that each neutral minor had to depend on their own military defense, or join the Western Allies.

Still, the idea of collective safety for neutrals is not dead in A&A. Attack neutral Spain, and all the neutrals of the world will attack you. Sorry but its not the historical truth, not for the first years when strict neutral Ethiopia, Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland, Romania, The Baltic States, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium and Netherlands all were attacked, and all this were strict and true neutrals, its not like they were pro something that would have justified the attacks, but the truth is that the rest of the true neutrals did nothing, strict neutral Sweden did nothing when its brothers Finland, Norway and Denmark were attacked, why would neutral Sweden do something if true neutral Bolivia in South America, or true neutral Zimbabwe in Africa, or true neutral Mongolia in Asia got attacked ? I just cant see the reason. A neutral is a neutral, when your brother get stabbed you turn your back to it, you dont suddenly join any fight, because then you are not neutral.