November 19, 2017, 11:35:51 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read all about what's new on the Axis & Allies .org Website Search me
  Articles  
   Home   Help Login Register AACalc  
Loading
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Mongolia and Neutrals - rules summarized here  (Read 22308 times)
calvinhobbesliker
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*******
Posts: 8857


The British Empire-the Largest one in History


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2015, 11:46:28 am »
0

Well, this version of the NAP is better than "the players can decide what the consequences of breaking the pact would be."

Although it's not really a NAP, since Russia can still help China and even attack Japanese-occupied China, as long as it doesn't border Mongolia.
Logged
Gamerman01
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 42198

G40 Rules Deputy, G40 League Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 09, 2015, 11:55:13 am »
+2

Oh my goodness Black Elk spoke eloquently for me and I love it on the rare occasion that someone does that

What was wrong with the +12 to Moscow or Tokyo when the other one breaks it?!
Logged
calvinhobbesliker
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*******
Posts: 8857


The British Empire-the Largest one in History


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2015, 12:15:21 pm »
0

Hmm, wasn't it 12 IPC's that could be spent on troops in Siberia (for Russia)? Or am I misremembering?
Logged
ghr2
A&A.org Aircraft Carrier
******
Posts: 2646



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2015, 12:36:53 pm »
0

Hmm, wasn't it 12 IPC's that could be spent on troops in Siberia (for Russia)? Or am I misremembering?


First Edition of G40, yes, not the Second Edition.
Logged
ShadowHAwk
A&A.org Battleship
******
Posts: 3309


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2015, 11:23:52 am »
+1

Man, you gotta believe there must have been an easier way to encourage the Non Agression pact, without requiring such complex Mongolia rules.  Or a way to provide disincentives for the neutral crush, or dealing with the Dutch, without requiring so many specific rules to be memorized.

The second edition would have been a nice oppertunity to step back and say "Ok let's simplify all this" down to just couple basic conditions, reducing the Mongolia weirdness, instead of tacking on even more territory specific politics rules.

Like all that Mongolia stuff just to keep the Japanese out of Amur?
Or with the Dutch, all those exceptions just to give Anzac a gamey landing spot in Sumatra?
It's just a lot of rules, for a comparitvely small payoff, in gameplay terms. There must have been an easier way to approach this.

I know it's a dead horse, but I can't help but repeat the old lament... I wish they didn't try do so much at once with Global. A bigger map, with more nations and an expanded unit roster would have been a lot in and of iself. But then they had to go and throw all the political rules and objectives on top of it. It's like, wouldn't it make more sense to test the waters first, before diving in headlong? See how sales hold up for a large combined map game, and gauge player response to that idea by itself, before setting in 1940?

Oh well, that ship has already sailed I guess. But threads like this remind me why so many people I know are intimidated by Axis and Allies 1940 haha. Its because the rulebook reads like a confusing study guide, for a poorly written standardized test, in some subject you're not very familiar with hehe. Basically you just skipped from Pre-Algebra to Calculus, without any primer. And now you're all stressed out for trick questions on Mondays exam lol!
 grin


Dont overreact the rules are pretty simple and basic as they stand, you just have to read them and not try to make more of them then what is writen.

Mongolia -> if japan attacks russia next to mongolia they side with russia, if russia attacks japan next to mongolia they become neutral.

Dutch -> dutch where allied with the UK and Anzac at the start of the war ( we even had some cruisers and destroyers there ). They are just friendly neutrals that are allied from the start of the game.

Problem is that they try to explain to much in the rulebook and that some stuff is verry strangely located in there without a decent reference guide.
Logged
Black_Elk
A&A.org Destroyer
*
*
*****
Posts: 1892



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2015, 01:15:46 pm »
0

If the rules were that simple, this thread probably wouldn't need to exist.
  grin

But the Dutch rules create a kind of separate class of "Allies" with a different treatment for taking possession of Dutch territory and landing aircraft there, which are unique to UK/Anzac.

The Mongolia rules create a third class of neutral, which behaves differently than true Neutrals or Pro-side neutrals, which is why they have to be treated as a separate "nation" in tripleA. And these cover Korea as well, which isn't a territory bordering Mongolia itself.

My point is just that the gameplay benefits/excitement introduced by having such territory and nation specific rules is rather insignificant, when compared to the confusion and need for clarification and examples that seems to attend to them.

But yeah, I was being intentionally flippant for emphasis.
Wink

I just think you could probably have achieved similar ends, with rules that were more universal and less nuanced.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 01:53:32 am by Black_Elk » Logged
calvinhobbesliker
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*******
Posts: 8857


The British Empire-the Largest one in History


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2015, 06:57:37 pm »
0

Quote
3) You CAN'T fly over neutrals

Interestingly, during Operation Torch, planes from the UK flew over Spain on their way to Algeria.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2015, 07:15:36 pm by calvinhobbesliker » Logged
ShadowHAwk
A&A.org Battleship
******
Posts: 3309


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2015, 08:35:14 am »
0

Quote
3) You CAN'T fly over neutrals

Interestingly, during Operation Torch, planes from the UK flew over Spain on their way to Algeria.

Then again attacking neutral countries did not set the rest of the neutrals against the side that did it.

Sweden and spain did not care when the low countries where attacked and occupied.
They also did not care much when iran was invaded.

Neutrals normaly take the side of the winner not the loser so the rules for neutrals are just for gameplay reasons.

And imo they are pretty simple and straight forward, on the pacific there are a few zones with special rules but then again the suez canal and the straights of gibraltar have special rules, yet nobody is complaining about those Smiley
Logged
Black_Elk
A&A.org Destroyer
*
*
*****
Posts: 1892



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2015, 11:24:31 am »
0

Well I'd complain about those too, if the "special case" rules didn't go back to Classic, and if I thought anyone would pay attention to my views.
 grin

The two canals that limit naval movement in A&A, could have both been handled the same way, (control of a single territory) with the canal feature clearly denoted graphically on the gamemap so you know which territory is relevant. In other words, movement through the Suez Canal could have just been through Egypt instead of between Egypt and Jordan, so it worked exactly like Panama does, which would have been simpler. Wink

 Straits are straightforward enough, the key difference between those types of rules and the ones I was grumbling about, is that they are the same for all player nations. The way they work doesn't change from nation to nation, or as a result of the political situation. They are universal.

The Dutch rules are bizarre. If the rules for French territory worked the same way (after the fall of Paris) at least it would be consistent. Wouldn't the same "special relationship" to the British/Anzac hold as much for free French territory as it does for the Dutch? But the UK cant take control of such spaces until they are first occupied by Axis. This puts limitations on air base and naval base locations, that might otherwise provide some gameplay interest.

And anyway, why make it UK/Anzac exclusive? It's as if the American-British-Dutch-Australian Command never even existed heheh! I mean who hasn't heard of ABDA Com? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-British-Dutch-Australian_Command
 Salt in the wounds, as always.
grin
Logged
calvinhobbesliker
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*******
Posts: 8857


The British Empire-the Largest one in History


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2015, 11:47:18 am »
+1

Haha, in real life, after mainland France fell, the colonies would become pro-Axis neutrals that were never activated.
Logged
CWO Marc
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 5129


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2015, 11:48:28 am »
+1

The Dutch rules are bizarre. If the rules for French territory worked the same way (after the fall of Paris) at least it would be consistent. Wouldn't the same "special relationship" to the British/Anzac hold as much for free French territory as it does for the Dutch? But the UK cant take control of such spaces until they are first occupied by Axis. This puts limitations on air base and naval base locations, that might otherwise provide some gameplay interest.

The OOB rules don't actually replicate the historical Vichy/Free French situation; they treat France as though it had continued to fight alongside the British as a government-in-exile after the loss of its homeland territory -- so there are actually no Free French territories on the map.  But your point is a good one because, under the OOB non-historical rules, France and the Netherlands are both governments-in-exile who own foreign colonial territories, and who are thus technically on an equal footing. 

The real explanation for the difference in treatment between the DEI and the French colonial empire is probably therefore due to two things.  First: France is a player power in the game, whereas Holland is not.  The French player would be understandably torqued off if the rules allowed other Allied players to simply walk into his territories and take them over, but in Holland's case no player-power feelings need to be considered.  Second: the DEI situation is in essence a special variation of the game's "pro-Allied neutral" mechanism, hidden from view by the fact that the DEI territories have a Dutch roundel rather than diagonal shading bars.  And that mechanism is probably there because the DEI played such a crucial role in the outbreak of the war in the Pacific in the first place.  You'll note that no such special rules apply to Suriname, Holland's colony in South America, because Suriname -- unlike the DEI -- had no significant role in WWII.
Logged
calvinhobbesliker
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*******
Posts: 8857


The British Empire-the Largest one in History


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2015, 12:22:32 pm »
0

Wait, but the British Empire troops can take control of Suriname, right?
Logged
Gamerman01
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 42198

G40 Rules Deputy, G40 League Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2015, 12:30:12 pm »
0

Yes, Calvin
Logged
CWO Marc
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 5129


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2015, 01:19:28 pm »
0

Yes, Calvin

Perhaps I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but the rules say:

   "These two powers [meaning the United Kingdom and ANZAC] have an arrangement with the Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch territories in the Pacific. As a result, they are free to move units into these territories as a noncombat movement at any time, as long as they have not yet been captured by Japan. They may actually take control of them (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into them. Additionally, the United Kingdom and ANZAC consider attacks against any Dutch territories to be acts of war against them directly. Once a Dutch territory has been captured by Japan, however, it may be captured and controlled by any power."

Because these rules are specifically referring to "the Dutch territories in the Pacific", I'm assuming that the part which says that the UK and ANZAC "are free to move units into these territories" only applies to the DEI.  Suriname is in South America, on the continent's Atlantic side, not its Pacific side, so it's not a "Dutch territory in the Pacific."  The later part which refers to "attacks against any Dutch territories" certainly seems broad enough in scope to cover Suriname, but it concerns what the UK and ANZAC consider to be an act of war, not what territories they can occupy by special arrangement with the Dutch government.

Logged
Gamerman01
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 42198

G40 Rules Deputy, G40 League Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2015, 01:39:55 pm »
+2

It's written like that because it's written in the Pacific rulebook only
Which brings up another gripe.  There should be a complete rulebook that is designed for the global game.  This hodgepodge of putting 2 different games together...
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

2017 Support Drive

Read about this support drive.
Support Level
Forum Username
Note: payee will appear as Livid Labs, LLC.
Buy Axis & Allies
  • Axis & Allies 1942 [Amazon]
  • A&A Pacific 1940 [Amazon]
  • A&A Europe 1940 [FMG]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • A&A D-Day [Amazon]
  • A&A Battle of the Bulge [Amazon]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • WWII Themed Combat Dice [FMG]



Axis and Allies.org Official Gold Sponsor: Historical Board Gaming

Axis & Allies.org Official Silver Sponsor: Field Marchal Games
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © 2015 Livid Labs, LLC. All rights reserved.
Axis & Allies is registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, a division of Hasbro, Inc.
Note: the copyright below is for the forum software only.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!