• Ok, I pretty much understand the rules involved around the whole Violating Neutrality issue, but my question is, does this ever happen?  Is there a country that normally is taken that helps out in the long scheme of things?  3 IPC is a bit steep since it can be used for Inf and I have never played a game where someone took over a neutral country.  Any examples of someone doing this and then that move caused headaches for their opponents somewhere down the line?


  • I personally dont see an advantage in taking over a neutral country and forking over 3 ipc. I work around them. If there is something to be gained by that, then it’s beyond me.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Spain is one that is taken often.  It allows the US and Brition to stock troops in Gibraltar and then move through spain, thus saving them money on transports.

    Mongolia is also one that is taken often by Japan allowing them to side step a Russian wall in the eastern side of their borders.

    Argentina is one that sometimes goes as it allows the Japanese to take Brazil - an act that infuriates almost every American player into either moving their fleet to retake or invating Venezuella.

    So, to answer your question, yes.  There are times neutrals fall, even at the cost of 3 IPCs and stop movement on all movement.

    You can also violate neutrals to side step AA guns.  Never seen it happen, but the rules exist for it.

    Personally, I’d like to see some kind of monetary award for neutrals.  Maybe give them small armies to defend themselves with if attacked and then make them worth something.


  • I think I took Spain in a recent game I played, but I’m actually not sure if it was on these forums or not.

    I also took Mongolia in my Axis game against DM a little bit ago, but then stepped into Nov too early immediately afterwards. Had I taken Mongolia earlier in that game I think I would have been better off.


  • Avin, you took Spain in onje of our games, and I had to take it back (stranding 2 German INF there the reast of the game).

    Then there is also the Swedish Lurch, or something to that effect that has been discussed on some older threads on these boards.  I don;t know it well enough to describe it, but it is an apparently viable German move.

    Also, not sure if the clarified online rules allow for this or not, but I ahve also seen the US sacrifice bombers to bomb Germany and land in Switzerland (they can reach Germany from the Eastern US that way).

    The ONLY Neutral I have NEVER seen vioalted is Saudi.


  • Spend 3 ipc for a neutral against me and I’ll shove a neutral up your ass. I see no good reason to go for a neutral!!!

  • Moderator

    There are 3 that I’ve seen somewhat commonly:

    1)  Spain - This can be used to try and spread out the Germans even more.  They have 2 alternatives, to attack Spain when the Allies land or to basically concede WE.  Either way not really good for the Germans.

    2)  Sweden - This can be done on G2, if Russia didn’t attack Fin on R2.  The theory is that the 3 inf and 1 arm there are toast anyway and most of the time on defense you’ll get 1 hit maybe 2 on defense.  But if you retreat to Sweden (pay the 3 ipc), then attack with 3 inf, 1 arm, 4-5 planes when the Allies land you and can do more damage.  You can probabaly get 3-4 hits in 1 rd of battle and may be able to get a second rd before you retreat your planes to safety.
    In our game for example I took Fin, wol, on UK 2.  If you retreated to Sweden you could turn around and attack my UK and US inf and certainly get more out of your initial Fin troops when you combine them with the attacking power of your planes.

    3)  Mongolia - This can be used by Japan to combine your Asian army and try and force the Russians out of Novo.  On J1 you attack Chi, and Non-Com all units to Man, then on J2 you invade Mon and if you had a bid of 2 inf you could be moving about 9-11 inf to Mon on J2.  This could be troubling for the Russians.
    I’ve also seen a Germany fly over of Mon on G2 and they pay the 3 IPC and then Japan can land ftrs in Mon to help defend and make sure they can secure it.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @DarthMaximus:

    3)  Mongolia - This can be used by Japan to combine your Asian army and try and force the Russians out of Novo.  On J1 you attack Chi, and Non-Com all units to Man, then on J2 you invade Mon and if you had a bid of 2 inf you could be moving about 9-11 inf to Mon on J2.  This could be troubling for the Russians.
    I’ve also seen a Germany fly over of Mon on G2 and they pay the 3 IPC and then Japan can land ftrs in Mon to help defend and make sure they can secure it.

    Is that legal?  I seem to remember (and this could have been a house rule) that flying over a neutral does not conquer it, but you still have to pay the 3 IPCs for violating its airspace.  That would mean that the Axis would NOT have built air bases there in time for Japan to land planes.

    Also, on a RR, can Russia invade Mongolia?


  • Under this thread we are talking only about 2nd edition rules ( milton bradley)

    Under that neutrals have a definite purpose in the game especially turkey, which allows germany to send tanks to Africa on G1

    secondly, the Spainish option is a standard trick to stage the second front on germany.


  • Oh turkey smurkey. How would that allow ger to send tanks to africa?  Tanks would have to be shipped or go through caucasus. I see no use in spain either! 8-)


  • Thanks for all of the examples.  I guess I might have to try it every now and then.  Altho I do see viable options in taking a neutral now, it doesn’t necessarily seem like it comes up every game… only when the opportunity presents itself.


  • Oh turkey smurkey. How would that allow ger to send tanks to africa?  Tanks would have to be shipped or go through caucasus. I see no use in spain either!

    Look my good chap of course you would need to clear the Caucasus. that goes without saying but it allows Germany a free shipment to africa so as not to waste planes for that and knowing you only have one armor unit. plus it allows you to tetake caucasus w/o having to land troops.

    Spain is a very old concept and it works. It forces the germans to attack all the infantry instead of invading france yourself against all those twos on defense. What make that not viable?


  • OK I’ve been coming on too strong I think. I’ll try to soften it a bit.
    IL- when playing good players, you will not be rolling tanks through the caucasus on the way to africa. And certainly not early on!! And if you did, why not go through persia instead of turkey? I think taking spain sucks too, but I don’t really have an argument handy. I’ll put it to you bluntly…taking turkey by ger is ludicrous against very good players.


  • why not go through persia instead of turkey?

    its a first turn thing only. You do it in NCM… persia is occupied by G1. I used to do it back under the CD game by hasblo


  • Well I personally don’t get the thing with Turkey either. Is the proposed move UKR-CAU-TUR? I can’t understand how a Russian player would ever leave a situation with which Germany could execute that move. Russia will either attack UKR, strafe it (quite possibly eliminating all armor), or at very least not leave CAU undefended, therefore not allowing Germany to blitz through it. Am I completely misunderstanding?


  • NO your not. The idea works only is specific situations:

    1. russians leave Cau light or empty and
    2. Germany was able to do well on her turn
    3. Russia is going after Japan with her armor ( also basically any direction other than against germany)

    thats it. its the only time to consider such a plan. lets keep the idea in context. Now the spain idea is much more common in games.

    it does not matter whether the player is good or poor it can work against either depending on the correct circumstances.


  • I think you need to scrap that turkey idea son!! :-D


  • I’m still not seeing it. I get that theoretically there is a use for turkey in avoiding going through Persia, but I just can’t see how that could practically be of any use through the course of a game, even given the bizarre circumstances you describe. Could you please list the exact move that is in question, and possibly the followup move(s) on the next turn?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I agree.  It’s not like that area of the world is overly defended in most circumstances, ESPECIALLY around G1-G3!

    Spain, on the other hand, is much better.  It allows USA and UK to dump infantry into undefended land.  Best is if UK takes it so USA and USSR can dump fighters into it before Germany can go, thus making it a real B*TCH to take for the Germans and allowing the allies to start moving armored and infantry units in, instead of cannon-foddering France in the hopes of winning a war of attrician against the Germans.


  • Here’s a nifty trick using neutrals….

    In my old group there arose the opinion that Brazil was somehow of value to the Japanese and that it could not be defended because it is on an island more or less.  Often the Japanese moving into Argentina or Chile would force the US to build new and unnecessary transports in EUSSZ in order to counter such an action, and this itself was much of the point of the move because from Argentina Japan can hit Austrailia, Nz, or even Africa depending on where in Argentina they are.  My counter to any potential Brazil move is actually quite simple which is move armor into Panama and violate Columbia.  It is true that if the 2arm must attack 2inf the US will still lose more Ipcs than they kill and protect but the benefit of this is that 2arm in Panama is such a noncomittal that should the Japanese try to use Argentina as a feint before going to Africa or Austrailia they will find they have only wasted time.  Should they committ to it they will lose 14ipcs of units(because I will try to kill with air the boat) while I should lose only 8ipcs of my own units(-3 Brazil and -5 for 1 tank).  This is basically the cheapest, easiest way to defend Brazil, and at the same time should Japan decide its not worth it those tanks can easily slide back into the supply chain in WUS towards Europe without losing much time.

    Because of this I would say avoid going for Brazil as the Axis since it should cost you more to possess it than it will for the US.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts