If you’re using 2nd edition, you don’t need anything from Alpha 3, as it’s all been incorporated into the 2nd edition. Use the 2nd edition setups, which can be found here.
True Neutrals question
-
With Germany’s permission they may.
-
@SAS:
With Germany’s permission they may.
Can they do so while at war if the Germans give permission?
-
Krieg didn’t say anything about that, though I suppose it might be in Germany’s favor to get the Russians out of the Baltic and not let them back in… Though I imagine the reason the Russians want out in the first place might be an issue…
-
I’m somewhat disappointed by this oversimplified grand unified solidarity of true neutrals. Having them all act in unison is unrealistic and ahistoric.
-
I’d suggest modifying this by breaking the TNs down into 8 regional or colonial factions, which are only provoked to war by an attack on another member of their own group:
1. South America (10 countries)
2. Spain & Rio de Oro
3. Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola & Mozambique
4. Switzerland
5. Sweden
6. Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan
7. Mongolian tts
8. Liberia & Sierra Leone (SL should of course be a UK tt, and Liberia was virtually an unofficial US colony, but it’s convenient to group them together)
We might put Sweden and the Swiss together, but these 2 were so independent I doubt anyone else would put out for them.
To balance this some of these countries can have their defence forces beefed up, for example some armour in Sweden or a small Spanish fleet.
-
I’d suggest modifying this by breaking the TNs down into 8 regional or colonial factions, which are only provoked to war by an attack on another member of their own group:
1. South America (10 countries)
2. Spain & Rio de Oro
3. Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola & Mozambique
4. Switzerland
5. Sweden
6. Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan
7. Mongolian tts
8. Liberia & Sierra Leone (SL should of course be a UK tt, and Liberia was virtually an unofficial US colony, but it’s convenient to group them together)
We might put Sweden and the Swiss together, but these 2 were so independent I doubt anyone else would put out for them.
To balance this some of these countries can have their defence forces beefed up, for example some armour in Sweden or a small Spanish fleet.
Then the axis will invade spain without having to worry about the allies getting the 8 Turk inf.
-
I’d suggest modifying this by breaking the TNs down into 8 regional or colonial factions, which are only provoked to war by an attack on another member of their own group:
1. South America (10 countries)
2. Spain & Rio de Oro
3. Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola & Mozambique
4. Switzerland
5. Sweden
6. Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan
7. Mongolian tts
8. Liberia & Sierra Leone (SL should of course be a UK tt, and Liberia was virtually an unofficial US colony, but it’s convenient to group them together)
We might put Sweden and the Swiss together, but these 2 were so independent I doubt anyone else would put out for them.
To balance this some of these countries can have their defence forces beefed up, for example some armour in Sweden or a small Spanish fleet.
Then the axis will invade spain without having to worry about the allies getting the 8 Turk inf.
I quite like the rule as is. It keeps the game as a better reflection of the war. There were very good reasons that the “true neutrals” were not invaded by one side or the other. This mechanic is the easiest way to reflect that.
-
With Hitler and Stalin around, could anyone expect to be a neutral forever?
These countries are just those lucky enough not to be attacked; it shouldn’t mean that they are effectively immune from invasion. Why didn’t they all join the war when Poland was carved up? Or Norway? Or the Low Countries?
Yes, Spain could be attacked without activating Turkey; that’s why I suggest that Spain should have more defences to make the players think twice about going in.
-
With Hitler and Stalin around, could anyone expect to be a neutral forever?
These countries are just those lucky enough not to be attacked; it shouldn’t mean that they are effectively immune from invasion. Why didn’t they all join the war when Poland was carved up? Or Norway? Or the Low Countries?
Yes, Spain could be attacked without activating Turkey; that’s why I suggest that Spain should have more defences to make the players think twice about going in.
Political activation through IPCs might be neat. Luring Spain towards ones own side for example. The IPCs could be cumulative towards die roll attempts with other powers trying to negate your work on their turn (I stole this from 3R’s Vichy Activation rules).
-
If I were to invade a true neutral, I would go for them all or at least most of them. Hit Turkey, Spain, Saudi, Switzerland, even Mongolia. If you got to take the penalty, you might as well get your “money’s” worth. Plus as previously mentioned, it kills potential allied units too.
-
If I were to invade a true neutral, I would go for them all or at least most of them. Hit Turkey, Spain, Saudi, Switzerland, even Mongolia. If you got to take the penalty, you might as well get your “money’s” worth. Plus as previously mentioned, it kills potential allied units too.
If you’re able to invade all of those on the same turn, you’re already winning.
-
You don’t need to hit Switzerland. If the allies get there, you lose. I say Spain, Sweden and Turkey. If its just a Europe game, no one suffers from Mongolia.
-
You don’t need to hit Switzerland. If the allies get there, you lose. I say Spain, Sweden and Turkey. If its just a Europe game, no one suffers from Mongolia.
I agree wholeheartedly, attacking Switzerland as the Germans gains you nothing. Spain, Sweden, and Turkey are the ones that it is almost worth it for the Axis to attack. If Germany can hit Sweden, Spain, and Turkey in the same turn it might work, and then Italy can blitz through to Gibraltar and move their fleet up to attack the Russians. It’s still a pretty big gamble though as the Allies can get the rest of the neutrals for extra gains and it distracts Italy from Africa for one thing. You have to attack at least Spain and Turkey in the same turn though, Sweden might be able to wait with the Baltic being closed off, but if you don’t take Spain and Turkey in the same turn you’re going to have issues with the Britts taking Spain or the Russians taking Turkey and having extra infantry right there for you to deal with.
-
@SAS:
You don’t need to hit Switzerland. If the allies get there, you lose. I say Spain, Sweden and Turkey. If its just a Europe game, no one suffers from Mongolia.
I agree wholeheartedly, attacking Switzerland as the Germans gains you nothing. Spain, Sweden, and Turkey are the ones that it is almost worth it for the Axis to attack. If Germany can hit Sweden, Spain, and Turkey in the same turn it might work, and then Italy can blitz through to Gibraltar and move their fleet up to attack the Russians. It’s still a pretty big gamble though as the Allies can get the rest of the neutrals for extra gains and it distracts Italy from Africa for one thing. You have to attack at least Spain and Turkey in the same turn though, Sweden might be able to wait with the Baltic being closed off, but if you don’t take Spain and Turkey in the same turn you’re going to have issues with the Britts taking Spain or the Russians taking Turkey and having extra infantry right there for you to deal with.
If you have enough forces to defeat 8 inf, why not move them to Russia instead of Turkey?
-
Exactly. I’m not saying that you should attack the neutrals, just laying out what you would need to do. Sacrificing the units needed to take out 8 infantry in order for Italy to divert itself from Africa to drop a few units into Russia doesn’t seem worth it in most cases.
I think we’ll see that in most cases there isn’t a good reason for invading strict neutrals, unless you’ve got your back to the wall for some reason and it becomes absolutely necessary strategically.
-
@SAS:
Exactly. I’m not saying that you should attack the neutrals, just laying out what you would need to do. Sacrificing the units needed to take out 8 infantry in order for Italy to divert itself from Africa to drop a few units into Russia doesn’t seem worth it in most cases.
I think we’ll see that in most cases there isn’t a good reason for invading strict neutrals, unless you’ve got your back to the wall for some reason and it becomes absolutely necessary strategically.
Which is a good thing.
-
Exactly, it leaves the option open to you, but makes it enough of a pain-in-the-butt for it to still be uncommon.
-
There was a pact between Salazar and General Franco (Portugal and Spain) to somehow protect both countries from a possible german invasion. So if Spain was attacked Portugal was supposed to join Spain and vice-versa.
Something very important:
To avoid a german invasion the trains from europe could not enter Spain because the rails had different measures in Portugal and Spain.
To represent this light infantry in aa could not move 2 spaces when moving from south france to spain.
-
There was a pact between Salazar and General Franco (Portugal and Spain) to somehow protect both countries from a possible german invasion. So if Spain was attacked Portugal was supposed to join Spain and vice-versa.
Something very important:
To avoid a german invasion the trains from europe could not enter Spain because the rails had different measures in Portugal and Spain.
To represent this light infantry in aa could not move 2 spaces when moving from south france to spain.
I don’t think they redid their entire rail system to prevent a german invasion. :wink: Russia also used a different rail gauge from the rest of Europe. This meant as the Germans advanced they were continually converting the track in Russia. Fortunately for the retreating Germans in the later war, the Russians were slowed by having to switch it all back.
-
During the civil war the North and South used different track widths also, because front lines moved back and forth so much, there were special units dedicated to changing trackwiths as ground was gained.
Suggested Topics
