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

Yes, it is very important to make better rules for the neutrals. If you attack a true neutral, then the rest of the true neutrals would never make a world wide uprising. In fact, if they are true neutrals, they would not care. Its in their name, they are true neutrals. I am still waiting to get a rational explanation on why neutral Sweden would declare war on Germany if they attack neutral Turkey. It just dont make sense.

The OOB true neutral rule is for 2 reasons, game balance and the need for an historical correct scripted game path. We just hate to see Spain or Turkey join the game, since that did not happen in the real war, right ? We can deal with a lot of things that would never happen in the real war, like Japan invading USA, or Japanese Tanks driving to Moscow, or Italy invading all of Africa, and so on, but we dont want Germany to attack Turkey so they made a rule that punish any player that attack a territory that was never attacked during the real war, by introducing a rule that is closer to fantasy than actually attacking a neutral. I tell you man, attacking neutral Turkey could have happened in the real war, in fact all major powers had plans to do it, they would just wait for an opportunity. But, and I cant stress this enough, if anyone had actually attacked true Turkey in the real war, there were just no, even remotely, possibility that the rest of the neutrals of the world would raise up in anger and declare war on the attacker. If they had, they could not be named true neutrals.

Well, we cant to nothing with peoples feelings, but we can fix game balance and playability. We can ditch the neutrals joint defense alliance, which was historically not correct anyway, and give each neutral a stronger defense. Let them have a few Tanks and a plane too, maybe even an occasional destroyer to block shore bombardment, and I figure you wont be so eager to attack them, man

In general I agree with your list of standing neutral forces.  As to how neutrals react towards aggression, should be a matter of influence.  To represent diplomacy and influence, there should be a mechanism for spending IPCs to influence a country’s alignment (pro-Axis or pro-Allied), but there should be an element of risk when attacking.  So, without any play-testing, and as a starting suggestion I would propose something like comparing the [Side 1 IPC influence + 2d6] minus [Side 2 IPC influence + 2d6] (the 2d6 rolls are the element of risk).  If the result is >= then they are friendly.  The alignment determination would be after the combat move and a friendly result would have the neutral welcome the invaders with no battle, otherwise combat!  Once aligned in this manner - their alignment would never change.

You get to influence 1 neutral per turn. Roll 1 d6 die, on a roll of 1 you get the neutral country with there ground troops only.
You add the value of territory to your income.
Don’t influence neutral then you need to attack to take over.
If you attack a neutral and lose battle, what ground is left over becomes pro the other side and they get value of territory added to there income .

I think the true neutrals ban is pretty ridiculous, and like the list you have put together for individual standing armies that includes some better units and a bit of navy (might be a bit over zealous though)

I have mixed feeling about countries that had colonies linked to them. My first thought was that if a country like Portugal was invaded that their 3 colonies would be immediately activated (pro axis/allies) against the power that attacked the home country. Then I thought if Portugal was attacked would their colonies actually pick up arms, but for game purposes yea I think you do it. However if Angola was invaded would Portugal go to war against the aggressor?

Do you lump the Iberian peninsula together and their colonies? Portugal feared Spain joining the axis and/or an axis assault through Spain. They also had an Anglo-Portuguese Alliance for over 600 years that Portuguese Government announced was still in tact at the start of the war (The Brits decided to let them stay neutral). So if Spain joined the axis, or Hitler invaded Spain, yea Portugal would join the allies (go pro allies). However if the UK/USA invaded Spain, Portugal certainly wouldn’t join the axis.

I am testing a game right now where I have messed around with the neutrals. I have tweaked the inf and gave some better units (art, tank, ftr) and some navy to the neutrals that matter like Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, and Argentina. I have even split Turkey (east and west) and Spain (north and south) into 2 territories. What I put down is very similar to what you listed (a bit lighter). The rest of the neutrals like in South America and Africa I  added one inf to all. If they had 0, they get 1 inf; If they had 2 they now have 3 etc….for simplicity.

Was also looking at a broad rule based on IPC value.
0 IPC value get 1 inf unless listed otherwise on the map (most won’t get invaded because they have no value).
1 IPC value they get the inf listed + 1 art
2 IPC or more they would get the inf listed +1 art, 1 tank

Place a dd in countries like Port, Spain, Turkey, Sweden, Argentina

But that doesn’t seem work in some cases?

If you think about it Turkey and Spain would be the key players here (maybe Portugal because they kinda share space w/Spain, and have the most colonies). I think you could look at the Paris set up as a model, and keep Turkey and Spain reasonably close, but keep in mind the resources that Germany has to use to take Paris down G1. That plus neither Spain or Turkey had anywhere near the armed forces the French did (I realize that was greatly toned down for play ability). So you need to find the balance between too easy, and paying too big a price when setting this up.

The French units in France (not counting UK):
6 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 ftr, and 1 AA

So using that as a template you keep the standing inf that is shaded in both Turkey and Spain as is, and just add 1 art, 1 tank, 1 ftr, and 1 AA gun.

Turkey - 8 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 ftr, 1 AA gun (1 dd in sz99)
Spain - 6 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 ftr, 1 AA gun (1 dd sz91, 1 dd sz104)

Then work the rest accordingly.

Couple other territories that might come into play are Sweden and Saudi because of IPC and strategic values.

OK maybe you add a couple (few) more inf to Spain (make it 8 inf the same as Turkey).

Say the US is invading Spain w/8 loaded tps (8 inf, 2 mech, 4 art, 2 tanks), and they also have 3 loaded carriers (3 ftrs, 3 tac) and the planes will join in. Even toss in 2 bmrs from England. I think this would be a typical US assault force. Say they are attacking from sz 91 or sz104, so the won’t get bombardment because of Spanish dd’s (damn Americans are always in a hurry so they attack from DC).

Yea the US has a 100% chance of killing Spain, but it should go 2 rounds. The US should loose on average 7 inf (pretty much all of them) and maybe a plane. Just saying it will hurt later taking out most of the US cannon fodder, and how much is enough punishment?

My 2 cents after only playing one game (which is why it’s only worth 2 cents) is that it works fine if you can attack any true neutral nation and you’re only at war with that nation, even with only as many soldiers as that nation starts with according to the official rules.

I think it depends on what appetite your group has for rules.  I played with a group of young gamers (video gamers that is) who had less appetite for complexity and rules and preferred speed over accuracy.  The attack any neutral without consequences rule made it much more fun for this group: it’s fun to take over countries, plain and simple.

If you were playing with a bunch of guys like me (which you probably never will since I’m a little uncommon), then the best would be to have each country’s neutrality rules follow the treaties and obligations that country had during world war 2.  Additionally, their military would be the relative size that it was as compared to the playable countries in this game as/of the starting setup (I’m afraid I wouldn’t have an appetite to adjust each countries military as the game went on according to the size it was at each time period, so a starting 1940 setup would remain throughout the game).  You’d follow a chart showing the alliances.  For instance, you want to invade Spain, you look on the chart and it mimics their treaties during the war:  it says if you invade, you’re also at war with Portugal and their colonies in Africa (maybe there were more treaty obligations I’m unaware of).  Additionally, if the invasion of the neutral country failed or if that country was liberated, a factory would be placed on it (major or minor depending on that country’s relative industrial capacity. The relative industrial capacities would also be listed on the earlier mentioned treaties chart, which may indicate that country may produce more than it’s territory value in units each round) and the aligned/liberating nation could place units on that country each turn.  That country would have it’s own income though and would not go to the aligned/liberating nation’s pool of cash.

With the rules for a bunch of guys like me, yes, the allies may invade Spain with regularity, but they’d be taking on a large military as well as Portugal and it’s colonies.  They’d also need to make sure their invasion stuck, otherwise, if the Axis liberates Spain, they will have an operational factory pumping out a pretty good amount of units each round.  This inverse is true with potential Axis invasions such as Turkey, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.

@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?

@iwugrad:

My 2 cents after only playing one game (which is why it’s only worth 2 cents) is that it works fine if you can attack any true neutral nation and you’re only at war with that nation, even with only as many soldiers as that nation starts with according to the official rules.

I think it depends on what appetite your group has for rules.  I played with a group of young gamers (video gamers that is) who had less appetite for complexity and rules and preferred speed over accuracy.  The attack any neutral without consequences rule made it much more fun for this group: it’s fun to take over countries, plain and simple.

If you were playing with a bunch of guys like me (which you probably never will since I’m a little uncommon), then the best would be to have each country’s neutrality rules follow the treaties and obligations that country had during world war 2.  Additionally, their military would be the relative size that it was as compared to the playable countries in this game as/of the starting setup (I’m afraid I wouldn’t have an appetite to adjust each countries military as the game went on according to the size it was at each time period, so a starting 1940 setup would remain throughout the game).  You’d follow a chart showing the alliances.  For instance, you want to invade Spain, you look on the chart and it mimics their treaties during the war:  it says if you invade, you’re also at war with Portugal and their colonies in Africa (maybe there were more treaty obligations I’m unaware of).  Additionally, if the invasion of the neutral country failed or if that country was liberated, a factory would be placed on it (major or minor depending on that country’s relative industrial capacity. The relative industrial capacities would also be listed on the earlier mentioned treaties chart, which may indicate that country may produce more than it’s territory value in units each round) and the aligned/liberating nation could place units on that country each turn.  That country would have it’s own income though and would not go to the aligned/liberating nation’s pool of cash.

With the rules for a bunch of guys like me, yes, the allies may invade Spain with regularity, but they’d be taking on a large military.  They’d also need to make sure their invasion stuck, otherwise, if the Axis liberates Spain, they will have an operational factory pumping out a pretty good amount of units each round.  This inverse is true with potential Axis invasions such as Turkey, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.

You have a good point about not over complicating things. It would be fun to just steam roll Turkey or Spain with no strings attached like you do Yugo or Greece, or even France for the matter. Both sides would have opportunity to make attacks that benefit them. The axis could make some good early gains,  but would eventually end up on the short end of the stick.

The Germans could blast into Turkey on on G3 (utilizing the strength of the Luftwaffe), and set-up a pretty nice secondary force opening up the oil NO’s of Caucasus and the Mid East (then march north). The Italians would also get access to the Black Sea to join in the action behind the protection of the Turkish straight. The UK would get pretty stretched out, and Russia still has its hands full with the main German front.

The US counters by invading Spain to establish a foot hold in Europe once at war, and the UK grabs Portugal and maybe the African colonies, Saudi etc….

Like you said you could also go the opposite direction and make up some treaties and alliances, plus a way to sway them. Could have it that only the axis can attack true neutrals, but if certain events or situations come up the allies are allowed to violate neutrality of some countries. Certain events trigger the activation of neutral minors to go pro axis/allies etc… Just depends on what you want out of your entertainment.

@WILD:

Could have it that only the axis can attack true neutrals, but if certain events or situations come up the allies are allowed to violate neutrality of some countries.

Which they did in real life.  The British occupied Iceland (the Americans later joined them in doing so) and the Americans seized Greenland, in both cases to keep them out of enemy hands in case the Germans had any designs on them.  The Icelanders and the Danes were seriously torqued off by these actions, but were hardly in a position to do much about it (especially the Danes, who were under Nazi occupation).  The British and the Soviets jointly invaded Iran when they started getting nervous about where the Shah’s loyalties were.  The British also staged a mini-coup (using troops and tanks) against King Farouk of Egypt in 1942; Egypt was technically an independent country at the time, though in practice it was a British protectorate.

We have house rule that activates Spain pro-Axis as such: Germany collects income.
Franco joins the Axis powers. Spain can no longer remain neutral due to increasing pressure from Hitler.
Place German units consisting of 4 INF, 1 armor, 1 mobile infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 naval base, 1 airbase, 1 Minor Industrial complex in Spain. Place 1 Italian transport and 1 Italian destroyer in SZ 92. Morocco place 1 Italian INF (This event is negated if Spain is ever seized by the Allies. Morocco and naval units unaffected.)

I thought about giving neutrals units and factories on crack. I wanted to change the neutrals to be more power thus making Switzerland, Turkey, and Sweden the most powerful neutrals to invaded. I mean everything. Infantry, tanks, aircraft, naval, and factories and try to match how close they are to real life. I always found it stupid that Argentina getting invaded would drag Afghanistan into war. Doesn’t make sense. My idea of neutrals is to remove them from being single territory. I thought about building each continent the same size as a regular AnA board. As far as what happens to neutrals if they don’t get conquered is difficult to work with. G40 rules states that their military just sits as is. I thought about the nation that they were closes to will join that nation automatically or even go as far as making them their own faction.

Here’s what I did. While it’s pretty much inconceivable all neutral countries would go to war if one of them was invaded, it’s NOT inconceivable some would have alliances, regional in nature and among countries with shared interests. Excluding Mongolia (whose rules I left the same), I created 4 alliances among the remaining neutrals. No, not everything in these alliances make sense (Switzerland and Afghanistan would never go to war unless they were invaded), but it adds a new dimension to the game. Also, invaded neutral countries have an impact on geopolitics, so countries need to think carefully before attacking. It is risky and costly, however, in some cases there is value in doing it - unlike in the actual game.

Here’s the way it works: each alliance has one country that is the center of it all. This is the real gem - it either has the most IPC value or strategic value. The four countries are Sweden, Turkey, Argentina, and Spain. These countries each have a minor IPC and a proper military. This was easy to pick out, as these countries all had at least 2IPCs in value and 4+ call-ups. So I took their initial call-ups, and added 40IPCs worth of soldiers/bases for Argentina (4), 50 to Sweden and Spain (6), and 60 to Turkey (8). I based the units on what such a country would reasonably have. Sweden had advanced industry and an effective navy but hardly any air force in 1940; Spain was along the lines of Italy in land power, Turkey was mostly struggling to modernize but had fortifications and a small but professional british-trained air force (insignificant navy), Argentina had a small army and navy (though far better than its neighbors) and a great port.

Here are the official rules and set up:

If you attack a single neutral country, not all of them will become hostile - only ones they have a mutual defense pact with. There are four alliances on the map; an attack against one of these members is an attack on all.

Mongolia is unaffected by these changes.

If a territory/alliance is attacked, it will immediately join a specified member of the opposite side.

Note: Each South American neutral “country” for our purposes has been combined. For example, Venezuela is now a part of Ecuador and Colombia. “Greater Venezuela” does not receive an IPC bonus for this, however it does receive an additional infantry unit per added territory. So instead of spawning +2 infantry when attacked, it will create +4. Same rules apply for Greater Argentina (Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay) and Greater Chile (Chile, Bolivia, Peru).

Finally, note that Sierra Leone is UK territory and Liberia becomes a US territory once it enters the war. They are not neutral territories.

Starting Neutral Territory Units:

South American Alliance:
Greater Venezuela: 4 Infantry
Greater Chile: 4 Infantry
Greater Argentina: 6 Infantry + 3 Artillery +  1 AAA + Naval Base + Destroyer (Sea Zone 85) + Minor IPC

If attacked by the Allies, the South American Alliance joins Germany. If attacked by the Axis, the South American Alliance joins the US. All of the South American Alliance’s units and factories immediately become controlled by that player. An Axis attack on the South American Alliance is considered a declaration of war against the US. The US may not attack the South American Alliance until war against Axis has been declared.

Total Alliance IPC Value: 6

Iberian Alliance:
Spain: 8 Infantry + 3 Artillery + 2 Tanks + 2 AAA + 1 Fighter + Minor IPC
Portugal: 2 Infantry
Mozambique: 2 Infantry
Angola: 2 Infantry
Rio de Oro
Portuguese Guinea

If attacked by the Allies, the Iberian Alliance joins Germany or Italy. If attacked by the Axis, the Iberian Alliance joins the UK (European Economy) or France. All of its units and factories immediately become controlled by that player. An Axis attack against Spain is considered a declaration of war against the US.

Total Alliance IPC Value: 5

Swedish-Swiss Alliance:
Sweden: 6 Infantry + 4 Artillery + 2 Tanks + 1 Mech Infantry + 2 AAA + Destroyer (Sea Zone 113) + Minor IPC
Switzerland: 2 Infantry

If attacked by the Allies, Sweden joins Germany and Switzerland joins Germany or Italy. If attacked by the Axis, Sweden joins the UK (European Economy) and Switzerland joins France. All of their units and factories immediately become controlled by those players. An Axis attack against Sweden or Switzerland is considered a declaration of War against Russia and the US.

Total IPC Value: 3

Islamic Alliance:
Turkey: 9 Infantry + 4 Artillery + 1 Tank + 1 Fighter + 2 AAA + Fortification + Minor IPC
Saudi Arabia: 2 Infantry
Afghanistan: 4 Infantry

If attacked by the Allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia join Germany or Italy, and Afghanistan joins Germany. If attacked by the Axis, Turkey and Afghanistan join Russia or UK (European Economy), and Saudi Arabia joins the UK (European Economy). All of the Islamic Alliance’s units and factories immediately become controlled by that player. An Axis attack on the Islamic Alliance is the equivalent of a declaration of war on Russia, the UK, ANZAC, and France. Russia may not attack the Islamic Alliance until war against Germany has been declared.

Additionally, the Bosporus Straight is considered a universal national objective worth an additional +1 IPC to the player controlling it.

Note: Italian and German national objectives include Saudi Arabia in their quest for Strategic Oil Reserves. If controlled, they gain an additional +2 IPCs such as in Northwest Persia, Iraq, and Persia.

Total Alliance IPC Value: 5

If you break the tripwire rule, invading Turkey and Spain are no brainers, anyone who can do it should do it, its not just the income but the new paths opened to the money zones.

What people are essentially saying is that they want to add 10 new minor powers to the game.  I suppose that’s fine, but they are just like defended territories that cannot fight back, they take time to design balance set up, and may just sit there for the whole game.  Someone got ahold of some taupe colored HBG infantry at the tourney, these make good neutrals.

These ideas seem more appropriate for GW36 or a game that starts with more choice and complexity.  This “minor powers” concept was tried in the 1914 AxA and its complex and confusing.

If it just adds more territories to be attacked and killed by Germany, Germany will do that early and often, they have abundant power to attack all the (worthy) neutrals at once already.  America has its own neutral zone, but at 6 IPCs and in the wrong direction, its not comparable.

There also aren’t any on the Pac board, so again it seems to address Germany most clearly (as the power to kill/take any neutrals in range and the forces to do so lie with Germany at game start)