Whats the point of neutrals?

[kcdzim]

@Flashman:

Iraq is a problem:

A covertly pro-Axis neutral (after march '40) which allows UK units transit and air bases, but which falls to an openly pro-Axis revolution in 1941 later overthrown by a British invasion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

Hmmmm…  could simply be not neutral, start as british with no units in it so the axis can take it quickly (revolution) and leave it to the british to overthrow.

All this neutrality mumbo jumbo probably won’t occur until after the game is heading one way or another anyway or unless Germany is hurting for cash in which case Sweden & Switzerland will be safe and secure bets.  I doubt Japan will ever bother the Mongol hordes until after they’ve pacified the Chinese.  Spain is too vulnerable to attack.  The allies probably won’t ever be so strapped that they need what little Ireland can supply.  And if there’s a way through the MidEast that doesn’t involve attacking several Neutral then it probably won’t matter there either.  If however the only way to get to Egypt to India or Egypt to the Caucusus, well…  I grant that the Axis will probably end up trying that road.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Flashman:

Iraq is a problem:

A covertly pro-Axis neutral (after march '40) which allows UK units transit and air bases, but which falls to an openly pro-Axis revolution in 1941 later overthrown by a British invasion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

Iran certainly was not pro-Allied, whatever Larry says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

yes both these situations seem to not fit very well with Larry’s rules, however it does not conclict that much with the historical accauracy of the game as a pro-axis Iraq will encourage a UK invasion and a pro-allied iran will simulate an easy takeover by the UK and the Soviets.

I am wondering what Larry is going to decide Yugoslavia is. I am guessing it will be neutral neutral, although one reason contributing the German attack was its switch from a pro-german goverment to an anti-german one.  Yugoslavia had a large army so it is rather an important question.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I don’t believe there will be a historical assessment to teurality in the game - it will just add flavor…

Spain: Franco was a clever politican -he used Germany and Italy in the SCW, but refused to take an active part in the war (allowing the Blue legion is not something considered active participation - I belive therwe were French, Dutch Belgian, Norwegian volunteers fighting for Germany/against communism). - Ingame I think Spain will be a true nutral, because it never delared war on Germany.

Same for Sweden and Switzerland

Turkey might be true neutral too, but maybe it will have some triggers to join in if Russia get bashed…

I think true neutrals might never declare war, but can be attacked by either side (attack on a neutra could cause pro-xy neutrals joining the cause of one side or another)

for example Bulgaria : pro Axis, if Germany attacks Greece then Bulgaria will become Axis…

Romania (Hungary) pro axis - will join when Germany attacks Russia

Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria are the classics ;)

Portugal sided early with the Allies IIRC
Iraq/Iran might (should)  be pro Axis, but may not become active easily and an attack ON them should be possible without penalties for the Allies

Ireland - maybe true neutral (depending on mapsize Irland could be a nice staging point for the Luftwaffe ;)

Yugoslavia might be pro Allies - can’t think of a trigger atm

South America (if its part of the game, I think the only pro Axis countries could be Argentine (rivalry with Brazil -which should be pro Allies…) an Paraguay/Uruguay. - others could be True NEutrals but easily swayed to the Allies side…

[allboxcars]

OK I’m trying to recall… but as always don’t have the rules on me… in AAP40, Mongolia doesn’t have any IPC value does it?

Maybe the ACME walls will only exist for Neutrals who’s territory lacks IPC value.

Maybe.

[Make_It_Round]

That’s right. There are no IPC values associated with the Mongolian territories, only a number indicating the amount of infantry any potential invader would have to fight.

The only reason to invade Mongolia (and other E40 neutrals, if the rules stay the same) would be to cut behind enemy forces via an unexpected route. I can see some occasions where Japan might want to do this to flank the Chinese, but with amount of firepower on Japan’s side and the rules restricting China’s movements, I think it will only rarely be utilised.

So far it seems that the possibility of invading neutrals has only been included to satisfy a very vocal minority of players who were begging for it. Time will tell if E40 does something more interesting with these rules, or whether the neutral countries on that map will actually prove to be strategically viable targets for invasion.

That being said, I’m all for having more gaming options than fewer; that includes the possibility of invading neutrals. In fact, I think that in Global '40 invading Manchuria will be a very cost-effective way for the Japanese to tie up Russian resources, as they’ll be compelled to protect their exposed frontier territories from an unchallenged invasion… however, this projection of mine is contingent on whatever political rules it turns out that Larry has got cooked up for that game.

[allboxcars]

@Make_It_Round:

So far it seems that the possibility of invading neutrals has only been included to satisfy a very vocal minority of players who were begging for it. Time will tell if E40 does something more interesting with these rules, or whether the neutral countries on that map will actually prove to be strategically viable targets for invasion.

Roger that. I think the value of the Neutral rules will only be realized with AAE40…. Spain, Turkey, Saudi…

[Guest]

Neutrals are countries that are neither Axis or Allies and don’t like either of them just passing through.

[allboxcars]

@Brain:

Neutrals are countries that are neither Axis or Allies and don’t like either of them just passing through.

hmmm OK I’m utterly wretched at citing where I got things from but I swear somebody said that some of the Neutrals would have IPC values….

[Guest]

Almost every country has some kind of resources.

[allboxcars]

@Brain:

Almost every country has some kind of resources.

OK this from Kreighund on whether or not Neutrals will be revenue-neutral  :lol: like in AAP40.

@Krieghund:

It just applies to the neutrals on the Pacific map.  Some of the ones on the Europe map will have IPC values.

[Guest]

Neutrals should have IPC value.

[Flashman]

Mongolia should not be used as an example, as its IPC value would be 0 in any case; it had no modern industry whatever.

Besides, in summer 1940 the USA, USSR and Italy are still officially “neutral”.  Every country should be treated as a potential belligerent.

[xzorn]

I think neutrals will be oversimplified, but house rules would be easy to make. The one absolutely stupid thing is that attacking one province of a nation does not mobilize the others. If one were to invade Rio de Oro, Spain would definitely join up on one’s enemy’s side. The same goes for Mongolia.

[Guest]

It means that any country could turn on you.

[Guest]

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

It means that any country could turn on you.

So how do you say “Sea Lion” in American?

I don’t think there is a language called American, but here in USA we would say, “Sea Lion.”

[Bigtiti]

perhaps if it’s pro something it gives IPC to something?
like sweden is worth 2, and is completely surrounded by germany: germany gets the 2 swedish IPC without having to take the country?

[Guest]

@Frontovik:

perhaps if it’s pro something it gives IPC to something?
like sweden is worth 2, and is completely surrounded by germany: germany gets the 2 swedish IPC without having to take the country?

I disagree with this idea. Surrounding is kind of like a blockade or a seige. This would stop the country from being able to sell their resources but it wouldn’t mean that you would collect the value of it’s resources. I could see a rule that would prevent them from collecting their IPC’s, but since were talking about a neutral country, in this case, it doesn’t matter.

[WILD BILL]

I think the countries that will be pro axis/pro allies neutrals will be countries that are typically active in AA games (belonging to one side or the other), but have not officially joined the war by the games start date (around June 10th 1940). If they are leaning to your side you don’t have to invade (fight) you just move units in and take ownership (probably in the combat phase).

If they are hostile to your side you will have to attack the units printed on the map. New countries that have been added to AA40 expansion of say The Middle East or Africa that had not yet joined the war should also follow this format.

There could be something like move into a pro your side in combat move and take ownership the IPC’s are yours, where if you come in non combat the tt remains pro your side (you only occupy it) and don’t get the IPC’s. There may be some reason that you may only want to occupy a tt (avoid some kind of consequence, like others turn on you).

There will be certain countries that have been traditionally neutral like Turkey, Saudi, Spain, Sweden, maybe Switz, parts of S America etc. Either side will have to fight there way in like you do with Mongolia for these true neutrals. I could see certain countries having alliances, that if they are attacked others will join the other side like in S America. I hope there is no link between say Spain and Turkey, and if there is you can avoid it with political pressure in the individual regions. Like say you have Turkey surrounded, and attack them it keeps Spain out. I would not like a rule that says attack one true neutral and all the others join your enemy (but it could happen). If Germany/Italy attack Turkey to open up the Black sea (to invade the Caucasus) allows the US to start putting troops on Spain that would not be cool. The axis would have to invade both at the same time to watch their back. If an attack on Turkey brought the Saudi’s to the other side or vise versa, that I could live with, at least they’re in the same region. I don’t know if they actually had a political alliance though.

Maybe NO’s will dictate if/when you can invade a true neutral (w/o consequences). If you have say a Middle East NO (control of Persia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Egypt) you can invade Saudi or Turkey (Turkey may also include another NO w/Balkans making it more difficult). If you achieve an NO with the Scandinavian tt you can now invade Sweden Etc. Control the region (NO) gain access to true neutrals. I know its a stretch, and NO’s most likely won’t have any effect on neutrals, but it was worth mentioning.