• I got that impression too. Which makes sense. theres a reason invading mongolia or afganistan doesnt give you anything. there arent any resources to get from there! and youll be attacking but not getting anything back!


  • Hmm… then what is the purpose of conquering them, I wonder? It surprises me that Neutral territories don’t have any IPC value. Krieghund, could we please have a clarification on this?


  • This edition is said to have pro____ neutrals.  This is a (perhaps modified) rule dating back to the Nova Games edition in 1981.

    Pro____ neutrals did have an IPC value, and that money went directly to the power to which the neutral was pro.  eg, when Germany collects income, they add the IPC values of all the territories they control as well as the values from any pro Germany neutrals.  Germany still could not enter those neutrals without violating neutrality like anyone else.  Once violated, a neutral becomes an ordinary territory.

    If the neutrals in AAP40 don’t generate income, we will need a new definition of what it means to be pro____.

    Perhaps the true neutrals won’t generate income.  In that case we would only ever attack them for strategic positioning.  I remember in MB edition seeing an American player invade Spain and put some tanks there.  That way if England captured Western Europe, even in a trade, America could blitz into Southern Europe.


  • Neutrals are just like any other territory with regard to IPCs values.  Some have them, and some don’t.  It just so happens that there aren’t any neutrals on the Pacific map with IPC values.  As idk_iam_swiss mentioned, there’s little reason to attack a neutral if you’re not going to get anything out of it (such as income or strategic value).

    “Pro” neutrals aren’t going to behave in the same way that they did in the Nova version.  Each of the three types of neutrals has its own political rules, and violating each of them will have unique benefits and consequences.

    That’s all I can say right now.


  • Mongolia should be pro-soviet by the way (it had a commie government supported by USSR). Can you confirm this Krieg or it’s too much?


  • @Funcioneta:

    Mongolia should be pro-soviet by the way (it had a commie government supported by USSR). Can you confirm this Krieg or it’s too much?

    Mongolia is a true neutral.  Some liberties had to be taken with the “leanings” of certain neutrals in the interest of game balance.

    @Nickiow:

    While the concept of pro and true neutrals is sound, there should also be regions that are impasasable due to geography, the Alps/Himalayas for insatnce.

    There are such territories.


  • Pripet Marshes is represented.


  • lets let johnny marr copy paste everything now


  • thanks krieghund

    that helps a lot


  • @Krieghund:

    Pripet Marshes is represented.

    Vichy France is not

1 / 1

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 3
  • Why is Mongolia Neutral?

    Feb 26, 2010, 5:20 PM
    13
  • Neutral IPCs

    Jan 15, 2010, 3:51 AM
    7
  • Neutral power and declaring war

    Dec 28, 2009, 10:23 PM
    4
  • Neutral Territory

    Dec 25, 2009, 5:42 PM
    24
  • Neutrals

    Dec 12, 2009, 8:01 PM
    3
  • Neutral Figures

    Dec 8, 2009, 9:24 PM
    1
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.6k

Users

40.2k

Topics

1.7m

Posts