Poll: Managing Neutrality in 1939

The issue I have with tying it to turns is that this creates a kind of false timeline analogy. It encourages the impression that a “game round” = some consistent block of time, ie. 1 round = 3 months, or whatever. But this invariably breaks down after the first few rounds go by.

Consider a game like 1942.2, which supposedly begins in the Spring of that year. If the game reutinely lasts upwards of 20 rounds, where does that put you. Like 1950? It just strikes me as kind of silly.

I think for a 1939 timeline, or even a 1940 timeline for that matter, I think the goal should just be to control what happens in the first round, or the first 2 rounds of gameplay. After that it could be anytime really as far as I’m concerned. Round 3 could be new years eve 1939, or it might be new years eve 1941. As a player the timeline narrative I construct is based on where the units are positioned at that time, not how many game rounds have elapsed.

A hard and fast example is Overlord. When the Allies take and hold France, that’s D-Day for me, vaguely 1944. Doesn’t matter if it happens in round 6 or round 12, either way I still think of “the time” as corresponding to the historical invasion somewhere around 1944. I don’t think I’m alone in this, players have a very flexible approach to the timeline. So I think as long as you capture the “flavor” of the start date with the opening set up, the rest is pretty vague.

Just considering how much can happen in a single game round, and comparing that to what can’t happen (for example you can launch an invasion across an ocean, but only at 2 tiles per turn, even though a ship from that period could cruise around the globe in just couple months.) Basically the further you get from the round 1 opening, the harder it is to maintain the illusion that game time corresponds to historical world war 2 time.

If I had to choose, I think I’d prefer a roll.

Me too are working on a Global 1939 game, for non-commercial use in my own basement, so I am happy to share ideas.

First, I don’t love the straight jacket scripted game with fixed entries. In that case I rather watch TV. So must of your options are out, and I voted OTHER.

Now, if we read history, it is a pattern. In the real world there are no true neutrals among the minor nations, nor is it any pro-neutrals neither. They are all plain neutrals. And no strict neural have ever gone to war because another neutral was attacked on the other side of the globe. It don’t work like that. Turkey signed the Balkan Pact with Romania and Greece just before the war started, but when Romania and Greece got attacked, Turkey did nothing. Pacts, Alliances, Treaties are not worth the paper. Action is everything.

Rule 1. The pattern is that minors who were pro someone, joined that party before the war stared. It was not necessary to move a friendly army into them.

Rule 2. Another pattern is that when parts of a minor neutral got occupied, then this minor would join the other side.

Rule 3. Major neutrals like USA and Russia are not neutrals, they are players just waiting for a good opportunity.

examples 1. Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria signed the Pact of Steel before the war started, they were not pro neutral, just non-belligerent waiting for the start signal. Poland was not a neutral, it was allied to France and UK.

examples 2. Russia attack Finland and occupy the Viborg area. Now Finland are no longer a neutral and will join any enemy of Russia. France and UK want to join Finland, but cant find any way through. Germany is the first player that is able to move units into Finland, so now they are allied, even if the Finns were pro-democracy before the war.
Then Russia attack Romania and occupy the Bessarabia area. Romania actually had alliances with both France and Turkey, but paper is worthless, so Germany move some tanks in and Romania join the Axis.

Now Germany attack neutral Norway, and UK and France move units into the parts of Norway that is not occupied, and Norway becomes an Western Ally.
Then Germany attack neutral Yugoslavia and neutral Greece, and they both become Western Allies as soon UK is able to land units there.
Germany attack neutral Belgium and Netherland, and they immediately becomes Western Allies.

This pattern is true for the whole world both during WWI and WWII.

Russia was not a neutral in 1939, it attacked a lot of neutral countries like Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Finland, Persia and Japan in Khalkin Gol, and supported Mao in the Chinise civil war. Russia don’t enter the war in Turn 4, it is building up and are free to attack anytime when Stalin think the time is right.

USA is not neutral, its non-belligerent and building up waiting to be strong enough. In the mean time it send Lend Lease stuff to everyone that is in war against Germany. How could USA occupy neutral Iceland if USA was neutral ?

Another funny pattern is when former Allied countries got their Capital occupied. It looks like they turn neutrals. Take Paris and all French units turn neutral. Take Rome and Italy turn neutral

Are you planning for a September 1939 start date or a January 1939 start date?
If it’s January, I was wondering how you will handle Czechoslovakia?

This has always intrigued me as well, largely because it would be fun to have a less scripted game. While I love AA Global 1940, the idea of greater politics is intriguing to me. What if Spain joined the Axis? Norway in real life thought it was 50-50 who may attack them right up until Germany invaded.

An interesting thought from that perspective to me was some kind of “point system” or scale to see where the minors tilted towards joining one side or another and into the war. You could have some nations farther up or down the scale based on their historical alliances and leanings at the time. Say like a 100 point scale. 1-40 is leaning more towards the Allies, 41-60 is neutral, 61-100 is towards the Axis (or some variation on that). You start nations on the scale similar to historical perspective. Poland was allied with France and the UK, put them at like 20. Norway was neutral, put them at 50, Finland was mildly Axis (this is after the Winer War of course), put them at 65, etc. etc. Once you reach, say, the top 20 of the political spectrum for one side, you would join the major powers you’re aligned with in war. Example below:

1-20 - Minor country goes to war on the side of the Allies whenever it comes.
21-40 - Is sympathetic to the Allied cause, but public opinion doesn’t want war, or they are scared to anger the Axis. They allow Allied units to pass through or fly over, but will not fight.
41-60 - Country is strict neutral.
61-80 - Is sympathetic to the Axis cause, but public opinion doesn’t want war, or they are scared to anger the Allies. They allow Axis units to pass through or fly over, but will not fight.
81-100 - Minor country goes to war on the side of the Axis whenever it comes.

From there you can use “political intrigue” to lure minors to your side. Maybe paying like 1 IPC shifts a nation one point your way (or three points, etc.). So if Spain starts at like 68 points (so leaning towards the Axis), the Germans could spend IPC’s to trend that score closer to an military alliance where they would fight. The Allies may want to stop this and use IPC’s to bring the score back down, keeping them out of the war, or maybe even turning them neutral entirely. Do that so on and so forth. Of course, if a major power attacks a minor that minor automatically climbs the ladder to at war to some degree.

Every time a neutral country is attacked though, all other neutrals will knock 3 points in the direction of the other side, not liking the belligerence of the attacking country.

Conceivably you can have war start at any time then. Germany could take it’s time and recruit Austria into the Axis, or maybe they jump right away and just invade little Denmark to the north.

Thought it was interesting. Brings a little politics into the game that way. Thoughts?

That is an intriguing idea. It would involve some definite tracking.

I think something like this could be ideal in a tripleA game, if the function could be worked out.

In face to face game it would require a fair amount of notation.

It would be nice if the point scale could somehow be represented with physical chips, in the territory itself. A 100 points system would necessitate a notepad, but if could you do it with a 10 point scale, you might be able to chip the points out on the actual map. So everyone can see it.

I’m not sure how that might look exactly, but say the average neutral began at 5 points, red chip…

0 = War vs Axis,
10 = War vs Allies

Axis provocations result in chips being removed.
Allied provocations result in chips being added.

Neutrals with an Allied slant means less than 5 points, or neutrals that have 4 chips or less.
Neutrals with an Allied sland means < 5 points, or neutrals that have 6 chips or more.
True neutral = 5 chips exactly.

Then you could tweak each of the neutrals to fall somewhere along the scale. An act of belligerent aggression by the Allies against one neutral might add 1 point to all the rest of the neutrals. Pushing them into the Axis camp. Similarly an act of Aggression would remove 1 chip from all the neutrals. Some might tilt just a bit, other pushed near the edge, depending on the value of chips they had at the start of play.

You could retain the idea of purchasing political favor one way or the other with IPCs, but perhaps limit this somehow. Like you can pay some set amount of ipcs, but cannot move the nation more than 1 chip in a game turn. Or something similar.

A similar scale of “sympathy” could also be adopted, but trying to maintain it on a 10 point scale instead of 100.

0 - Minor country goes to war on the side of the Allies whenever it comes.
1-2 - Is sympathetic to the Allied cause, but public opinion doesn’t want war, or they are scared to anger the Axis. They allow Allied units to pass through or fly over, but will not fight.
3-4 - Neutral leaning Allies
5 - Country is strict neutral
6-7 - Neutral leaning Axis
8-9 - Is sympathetic to the Axis cause, but public opinion doesn’t want war, or they are scared to anger the Allies. They allow Axis units to pass through or fly over, but will not fight.
10 - Minor country goes to war on the side of the Axis whenever it comes.

Something like that perhaps? Just thinking of the advantage of being able to track this stuff physically on the game board.

You could even scale the “level of provocativeness” if you want. For example, an attack on a neutral that leans to the opposing side, might not effect the neutrals that already lean towards yours. Alternatively an attack on a neutral that leans towards your own side, rather than the opponents, would have more severe consequences. And of course, an attack on a true neutral at 5, would have a global effect on, influencing how you’re perceived by all neutrals.

Then you just scale the neutrals on the game board according to their historical leanings in 1939. Maybe the nations that joined the Pact of Steel and leaned heavily Axis start out with 8 or 9 chips. Others that ultimately joined with Allies might start out with just 1 or 2. The rest of the neutrals falling somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

Yes, 100 point scale was more of an example than a reality, but you get the idea. The good thing about a scale is anyone could modify it to their own games based off of how quickly they want action. If you like the idea of a longer peace period (potentially, you never know when the other side might strike) and more political intrigue, then you make your scale bigger, thus taking longer to get minors one way or the other. If you want action from the minors ASAP, you go with a smaller scale. The biggest thing, as you pointed out, would be tracking all the minor’s. Chips on the table is definitely a good route. I completely agree that only one point could be used per country per turn, I should have been clear about that in the first post.

I’d also toyed around with the thought of other actions besides political intrigue to “tip” the scale. By that I mean, If Germany takes a capital, say Warsaw, it maybe bumps pro-Axis countries one tick closer to war because they want to jump on while the going it good, while at the same time, other “true neutrals” that border said country move a tick that way as well, fearing a similar fate. But same as when a capital is taken. As in, assuming Finland is Axis, and the USSR takes their capital at some point, perhaps all other Axis minors move a tick closer to peace, fearing the writing on the wall at some point. Historically Finland, Romania, and Bulgaria all jumped ship before the going got really tough. Could force early exits from the war that way, or Germany to use more political capital to keep them in the war longer.

Another thought along those same lines would be the views of the “home front” on the horrors of the war. By that I mean, say if an Axis minor loses more than six (or whatever number you want) units in a single battle, the citizens at home start losing their stomach for war and head a tick towards neutrality again.

One thing that would have to be figured out though would be how to deal with the USA and USSR. Both would be major powers, but also neutral. Perhaps they both automatically move a tick (chip, whatever we want to call it) towards the Allies each turn automatically, regardless of political capital being used for them, but the other Allied players can also chose to use politics to speed the process up. That way you don’t have a fixed timetable like AA 1940 currently does. You know they’ll both join eventually, but the process could be sped up or slowed down based on the active Allied and Axis participants.

Maybe getting too convoluted at this point, but just some thoughts.

Deck of cards, one for each neutral.

Start of each player turn, top card is drawn and disposition of country is determined.

Each neutral will have a scaled historical bias based on likelihood of joining each side, expressed as a number in favour of either side.

Each side places a secret bid in IPCs from their banks to influence the result, winner gets control. Money bid by both sides is considered spent. Ties are replaced in bottom of the deck.

Result could also be influenced by other factors, for example presence of units in a bordering tt.

Cards can be placed in “historical” order by number based on when they were first engaged, or shuffled for random events.

Card drawn for neutral already attacked is ignored.

OR

Cards are dealt randomly to the players (half for each side for balance or same for each power?). Maybe 5 cards per side with a draw deck. Start of every player turn, that player can play a card from hand for each side to bid upon.