Oh…
I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???
:disappointed:
Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.
[Global 1940] New turn order
-
Some of your neutrals doesn’t really reflect actual WWII status. Yugo is a hard one to do because of how the government ended up being divided and they had a coup over which side they joined but Germany DID invade them so them being pro allies is technically true. Spain is pro axis without a doubt, obviously they are not in this game due to making Germany more powerful however that is reality of WWII. Portugal has a defensive alliance with London so if London falls, they should join UK with their colonies. Turkey would be pro allies by politics but the allies wanted them to stay neutral for strategic reasons. Iraq was an Axis power so was Iran. Mongolia should already be part of USSR by the game rules, as Mongolia already was attacked before G40. Sweden is neural, was threatened by both sides at some point. Argentina should be the only South America pro Germany state as they were supplied and had open relations with Germany, not sure if that’s enough to make them pro Axis but enough it would be an interesting idea to work with. I always found the idea that if a country like Argentina were attack, suddenly Afganistan cares about the war when three nations tried to get them to join them and they wanted nothing to do with the war.
-
Also back to the Dutch army, I forgot this is G40 so the Dutch may have some units on Paris and for sure on Normandy.
-
This set up…makes me want an alternate rules map…I wish I had the skills to make a new map
-
I would too. I wanted to put together a 1937 rules and a world map based on that.
-
I think Caesar Seriona’s last post gets at some of the big difficulties in making realistic neutrals – how do you model fear? How do you model indifference? Portugal’s sympathies were fully with Britain, but they were afraid of Spain and Italy. Spain’s sympathies were fully with Germany, but they were exhausted by their civil war and in no mood to fight anyone. Sweden probably didn’t like either side very much, but they might have been preferred being peacefully absorbed into a British, Russian, or German empire rather than fighting a bloody and doomed war of self-defense. E.g., if Finland had already gone Soviet, how long would Sweden have held out against the Red Army? If London had already gone German, how long would Sweden have held out against the Nazis, etc.
And all of that ambiguity is before you even get into stuff like game balance.
I think if you’re looking for a scripted political game where countries do X if and only if trigger Y happens, then you might be better off with a card-driven game like Twilight Struggle, A Fire Upon the Lake, Labrynith: The War on Terror, and so on.
There might be a fix for the neutral rules in Axis & Allies, but it would have to be something simpler and more symmetrical than a laundry list of triggers.
-
I think Caesar Seriona’s last post gets at some of the big difficulties in making realistic neutrals – how do you model fear? How do you model indifference? Portugal’s sympathies were fully with Britain, but they were afraid of Spain and Italy. Spain’s sympathies were fully with Germany, but they were exhausted by their civil war and in no mood to fight anyone. Sweden probably didn’t like either side very much, but they might have been preferred being peacefully absorbed into a British, Russian, or German empire rather than fighting a bloody and doomed war of self-defense. E.g., if Finland had already gone Soviet, how long would Sweden have held out against the Red Army? If London had already gone German, how long would Sweden have held out against the Nazis, etc.
And all of that ambiguity is before you even get into stuff like game balance.
I think if you’re looking for a scripted political game where countries do X if and only if trigger Y happens, then you might be better off with a card-driven game like Twilight Struggle, A Fire Upon the Lake, Labrynith: The War on Terror, and so on.
There might be a fix for the neutral rules in Axis & Allies, but it would have to be something simpler and more symmetrical than a laundry list of triggers.
My idea is still better than all neutrals join the other side.
-
Argothair….yes, When I went to HBG to help play test a WW l game, there was a game that was also driven by event cards so to speak, Some where…hmmmm ok and some where…Blink Whaaaaaaaaaa holy smokes. They were very fun and obviously would make games unique. I do think looking at the Balkans as an example, the events there substantially effected the war. Germany was vastly affected by this in a negative way.
So how I see neutrals effecting the game is in the Med, Mid East (Oil Wars) and Balkans, alignments of Sweden, Turkey and Spain With 2 potential victory tokens being available in this theater.
I also forgot to add Militia to the land unit build of Neutrals
Militia A0 D1 C1 M0Oil Wars for me used to be very complicated in my house rules games but since I have refined it.
Add a refinery to these territories:
Germany: Romania
Russia: Caucauses
Japan: Manchuria
US: Alaska
China: Suiynan
UKE: Persia (Must align)
UKP: Borneo ( Supports both UK economies turn 1)
Dutch: Sumatra
Italy: ( Turkey, pays 1 IPC to Turkey per turn)
Turkey: Turkey but prefer 2 territories in Turkey { Istanbul and Kars and place refinery in Kars}
ANZAC: Queensland
France: MoroccoIraq, IndoChina, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia produce oil and can sell oil to any nation that needs it. This is a 3 IPC event during the purchase units phase. If you don’t have an oil token, -1 to movement of all units
So if you have a refinery you are considered in supply and make normal moves. Refineries are subject to SBR damage equal to max 10 damage. No damage is allowed to keep you in supply. Refinery has an airbase and AA…so planes may intercept. Treat a refinery the same way you would a factory…damage repair and all that good stuff…Oil war is a victory token
Victory Token condition: Maintain your original oil producing territory and align or capture 4 additional territories and hold for 1 full turn of your turn sequence…(ie Italy ends turn 5 through Italy ends turn 6)
-
I also want cities to be a separate territory so as an example the UK attacks Germany it doesn’t capture Berlin or Germany attacks United Kingdom it doesn’t capture London and etc…
-
That would be a very easy house rule to work in.
-
@Caesar:
My idea is still better than all neutrals join the other side.
We often use a house rule for the strict neutrals where they are all divided into geographic blocks:
South America = all South American neutrals
Africa = all neutral countries in Africa
Europe = Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Sweden
Middle-East = Turkey, Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan
Mongolia = all Mongolian territoriesWe figured that made a little better sense because it’s like you said, why would Argentina or Afghanistan care what was happening in Sweden. However, Argentina might care more if Chile or Venezuela were invaded.
-
@Caesar:
My idea is still better than all neutrals join the other side.
We often use a house rule for the strict neutrals where they are all divided into geographic blocks:
South America = all South American neutrals
Africa = all neutral countries in Africa
Europe = Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Sweden
Middle-East = Turkey, Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan
Mongolia = all Mongolian territoriesWe figured that made a little better sense because it’s like you said, why would Argentina or Afghanistan care what was happening in Sweden. However, Argentina might care more if Chile or Venezuela were invaded.
Yeah I agree that certain nations will flinch if there partners are under attack. South America was basically pro US with the exception of Argentina as it was really on the fence about Germany. Portugal has a defensive alliance with UK. Switzerland for example would be the only true STRICT neutral in the game, it wanted NOTHING to do with WWII and proved that as its airforce had combat experience.
-
Trick with neutral nations of any faction, should they be allowed to turn and align to a power or attack each other. so if Axis did this and that x,y or z would align with Allies and vice versa
Example: Morocco is French and Gibraltar is British Spain remains strict Neutral
Morocco, Gibraltar, Southern France and Normandy are Axis Controlled, Spain Aligns to the Axis
Morocco, Portugal, Southern France and Greece are Allied Controlled, Spain aligns to the AlliesChange: Portugal switches to Allied Minor at the start of the game
and
Example: Sweden is Strict Neutral starting the game
Norway, London, Finland, Novgorad and Archangel are Axis controlled, Sweden aligns to the Axis
Norway, Denmark, Finland, Novgorad, Archangel are Allied controlled, Sweden aligns to the Alliesand
Example: Turkey is Strict Neutral starting the game
Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Iraq and Syria are Axis controlled, Turkey aligns to the Axis
Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Persia and Albania are Allied controlled, Turkey aligns to the Allies -
Very interesting. What does your rule offer that can’t be achieved just by saying: “If you control all territories within 2 moves of a neutral, it aligns toward you?”
Also, it seems like the effect of this type of rule would be to help players “win more,” i.e., you’re already doing quite well in a theater, and now you get even more income there. How do you feel about that?
-
Those your system for neutrals is fair and balanced, I still like the idea better of neutrals joining based on their actual stipulations in WWII. Technically in G40, all of South America should join the allies after US enters the war (for example)
-
Example: Morocco is French and Gibraltar is British Spain remains strict Neutral
Morocco, Gibraltar, Southern France and Normandy are Axis Controlled, Spain Aligns to the Axis
Morocco, Portugal, Southern France and Greece are Allied Controlled, Spain aligns to the AlliesChange: Portugal switches to Allied Minor at the start of the game
and
Example: Sweden is Strict Neutral starting the game
Norway, London, Finland, Novgorad and Archangel are Axis controlled, Sweden aligns to the Axis
Norway, Denmark, Finland, Novgorad, Archangel are Allied controlled, Sweden aligns to the Alliesand
Example: Turkey is Strict Neutral starting the game
Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Iraq and Syria are Axis controlled, Turkey aligns to the Axis
Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Persia and Albania are Allied controlled, Turkey aligns to the Alliesand
Example: South American territories are Strict Neutral While US is not at war
Once US enters the war all South American Neutral countries become Pro Allied except Argentina. Argentina remains strict NeutralArgothair, can you give an example of your concept? I am assuming right now and I would much rather interpret your scenario.
-
Nuetral thoughts wanted
Should the neutrals be
Strict Neutral
Allied Neutral
Allied Minor
Axis Neutral
Axis MinorShould they be able to declare war on each other or a major power?
-
War on each other would be interesting, we’d get to see The War of 41 in AnA. lol
-
Yeah….It would
Greece in conflict with Turkey over Cyprus
Turkey in conflict with France over Syria
Yugoslavia split into 2 territories (Slovenia and Croatia) Croatia Pro Axis and Slovenia Pro Allied and these two fighting each other
Spain in conflict with France over Rio De OroShould Baltic States be split up?
This scenario then must bring into the picture Partisan warfare
-
A lot of those have nations that are part of the powers that be. Example of neutral Turkey vs French Syria. So lets say you have some kind of rules already in place. Because Turkey is beefing with Syria, you would have to have some kind of conclusion to make Turkey in this case, pro-axis. Maybe work some kind of rule that allows the powers to support a neutral in their own conflicts and have the dice say which side joins who.
-
That’s why I stated conflict and not at war
Political situations need to be defined
Suggested Topics
