Sweden Rules

Back to topic.
I hope that Sweden is a pro axis neutral. Larry has hinted that if you invade a true neutral that there may be some kind of domino effect, aligning other true neuts against you. I don’t think that should happen w/Sweden. They actively worked w/Germany through out the war, caving in on most demands. Although there was no total German occupation like in Norway & Denmark, if Sweden would have tried to cut off the iron ore shipments, Germany would have went in guns blazing. Why waste the resources if they are giving you what you want.  Maybe Germany will be able to invade Sweden w/o consequences if Norway falls to the allies, to protect its interests. I also think there should be an NO linked to all the Scandinavian countries for Germany, but a similar NO should be available to the allies. I don’t think Russia’s NO should link E Europe to Norway (like in AA50) once the allies control Nor/Fin it was to easy for Russia to get one more country. I could see the Russian NO for E Europe also include Finland, because the soviets had the Finns in there expansion plans.

I would also like to see the Luftwaffe be able to scramble in the Baltic. I’m holding out that maybe Zealand Denmark will be a separate playable island in the straight so you can scramble from Copenhagen. Also Finland should not have a coast line on the Barents sea, unless they invaded that part of Norway and took control of those Norwegian ports during this time. That I’m not sure about. I don’t think the UK should be able to attack Finland directly from the north. It should first have to take Norway first IMO.

I would say that Finland was a pro axis neutral, Sweden was not. If Sweden leaned towards one side, it was the axis, but I do not agree about it being a pro axis country. Sweden caved in on some demands, yes, but out of cowardice, not pro axis sentiment.

@Raeder:

I would say that Finland was a pro axis neutral, Sweden was not. If Sweden leaned towards one side, it was the axis, but I do not agree about it being a pro axis country. Sweden caved in on some demands, yes, but out of cowardice, not pro axis sentiment.

Understood… But I don’t think the system will be detailed enough to make that distinction.
So I’d have to give the nod to “pro-Axis” as the best way to model their cooperative perspective, no matter the underlying motive.

@allboxcars:

@Raeder:

I would say that Finland was a pro axis neutral, Sweden was not. If Sweden leaned towards one side, it was the axis, but I do not agree about it being a pro axis country. Sweden caved in on some demands, yes, but out of cowardice, not pro axis sentiment.

Understood… But I don’t think the system will be detailed enough to make that distinction.
So I’d have to give the nod to “pro-Axis” as the best way to model their cooperative perspective, no matter the underlying motive.

Especially if a leaning-neutral allows unrestricted movement through their space (which is what I’d hope is the case, as opposed to invasion scenarios).  Sweden was really just trying to do whatever it could to stay out of the fight to avoid damage/loss of life/loss of freedoms.  Economically, it depended on Germany because it was completely surrounded.  Diplomatically, it was more alligned with UK/US but had no love for the Soviets.

However, the unrestricted movement is historically counter to Spain, which while diplomatically very aligned with fascism, they didn’t want the Germans rolling through under any conditions.  It’s a pickle.

I hope sweden works something like this:

Norway worth 1 IPC.  Sweden as a neutral is worth 3-4 with a hefty infantry garrison (I think they were able to mobilize over 300,000 if need be.

Germany objective: 10 IPC while Sweden is Neutral and Axis controls Norway OR Axis controls Sweden.  This value is susceptible to convoy interdiction in Baltic Seazones.

IPC value of other territories or even Germany may need to be lowered to acheive the balance here, but a huge value objective would be appropriate.  Germany would need to make sure Norway (and Sweden) are secure or else they’ll lose a hefty amount of cash, and historically if Sweden had not been supplying Germany their steel, their military industry would have been seriously hindered.  It will also mean that the Allies will want to disrupt the shipping or invade Norway, at which point Germany would need to invade Sweden or take back Norway to keep industry going.

I hope Larry lets us in on how neutrals will work in AA40E. Then if those same rules will govern the global game.  How do pro neutrals work when occupied by their future ally vs invaded by the enemy. If a country is pro your side are you allowed to occupy it only, but don’t collect IPC’s unless you liberate the same country from the enemy, or can you move in and take ownership with out a fight (maybe add the inf printed on the map to your army there).

Will there be true neutrals that will have consequences involved upon an invasion, as Larry has talked about very early on. The only real neutral in AA40p is Mongolia. If you invade one of those tt it had no effect on even the other Mongolian tt, much less any other neutral nation. I would hope that attacking say Turkey won’t have an effect on Spain or Sweden. An attack on Turkey could start a domino effect in the Middle East though, keeping it semi regional. Maybe you will have to have met certain NO’s to invade a true neutral w/o causing a domino effect.

Norway should be worth only 1 IPC.  Its importance to Germany should rest more on covering sea zones accessible from Norway based aircraft.

If “Ships in Port” rules are used it also becomes a crucial naval station; but without this rule German ships here will be bombed out of the water very early on.

wait why did adlertag make another account? you only need one!

@Flashman:

Norway should be worth only 1 IPC.  Its importance to Germany should rest more on covering sea zones accessible from Norway based aircraft.

If “Ships in Port” rules are used it also becomes a crucial naval station; but without this rule German ships here will be bombed out of the water very early on.

Germany should hopefully start with a more realistic account of their Baltic Fleet strength. At least one cruiser to reflect strength of the Ugly Sisters; Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, not to mention the Bismark and Tirpitz should makesure at least one german battleship starts in the baltic, plus your misc destroyers and subs.  At start of game, I’d hope German fleet should have a consolidated naval force that can repulse an air attack, with a larger british fleet spread all over the place.  It should be difficult for the UK to crack that nut for at least the first half the game, not a first turn air raid ala AA50.  The Bismark sank in open waters, after all, not in the Baltic.

@Bizarro:

I understand that in AAE 40 that Sweden will have an IPC value of 4 contingent on a convoy zone and Norway will be reduced to 1 IPC.

The value and treatment of the nordic neutral minors are intriguing. Sweden was Germany’s main supplyer of iron ore and high grade steel. The problem was that this steel had to be transportet on railway through Norway, and from a norwegian port it had to be convoyed to Germany. To make this historic correct, Sweden should have 4 IPC value and a convoy box adjacent to Northern Norway. This will need a special rule, so I doubt it will happen. It is more realistic that Norway will be a 5 IPC NO for Germany. Maybe Germany need to control both Norway and Denmark and Finland to get this NO. That would be fair.

@i:

cool a actul fleet in the baltic in revised you get 2 subs 1 destroyer et 1transport
so in this i would like 1 battleship 1crusier 1 destroyer 2 subs 1or2 transports!
it will be invisible :evil:

Invisible or invincible?