• @Gargantua:

    Croesus?

    So you present an Idea you like,  people decide they want to try it because it sounds fun, so then you slander and berate them, calling them whiners.

    I don’t get it.

    GOOD THREAD by the way,  maybe throw it in House Rules, but certainly don’t lock or delete.

    I berate only those who berate the developers, but I guess I’ll leave the thread open. Sorry, Sgt. Blitz I didn’t understand the Irony, but otherwise I apologize for none of my made comments.
    Onto the game, thank you for appreciating this thread, whether or not I actually started the discussion/Idea of it


  • LOL, I post on two stupid game forums, AA.org and Darkfallonline.com, and that’s about it.  Funny that I manage to get flamed on both.  It’s okay, Croesus, no harm done.  I’m just trying to have a good time here.


  • For those of you who are still considering this option, I made some Roundels
    If you have an Asian Bloc, use the ASEAN roundels (homemade)(Grain)(not accurate, but there isn’t a unified logo)
    If you have a Spanish Bloc, use the Nationalist roundels (White X on black disc)
    If you have a Portuguese Bloc, Use Portuguese Roundels (red cross)
    If you have a Mongolian Bloc, use Modified Mongolian Roundels (Modified to be circular, have a star)
    If you have a European Bloc, Use EU roundels (homemade) (gold stars on blue field)
    If you have a African Bloc, Use African Union roundels (Gold with little Africa inside)
    If you have an Arab Bloc, use Arab league Roundels (Has Arabic writing in it)
    If you have a South American Bloc, Use UNASUR roundels (Tornadoes)
    These can be used to
    A) Keep track of the Monetary Value of taking a Bloc (or loss of giving up rest of bloc)
    B) Keep track Of each Bloc’s alignment (needs a chart-anyone want to make one?)
    C)Place on the Countries of a Bloc as a reminder
    Oops, does anyone know how to put a file on the blog?


  • @Gargantua:

    That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…

    From a strictly historical point of view: Argentina’s government at that time (a Military dictatorship) had pro-German bias. That was specifically about cultural/institutional reasons since most Argentine Army officers had received training from Prussian military institutions.

    However, the economic ruling elite (rich cattle & grains producer landowners) were strongly pro-British. And that was because of both cultural but above all economic reasons: Argentina was a huge exporter of cattle&grains to the United Kingdom (that the UK especially needed during war time), and a buyer for UK’s industrial goods.

    Most of the people (not that anyone cared) had pro-allied feelings.

    So, even if the governing Military Dictatorship had a taste for fascism, Argentine economy (and the economic well being of the landowners whose economic interest the Military were defending) relied on trade with the Great Britain.

    All that resulted in an odd situation where the Military Government liked Germany… but Argentine foreign policy was leading to maintain neutrality… and maintaining neutrality was the best option for, well, for the United Kingdom! That was because as long as Argentine were neutral German U-Boats couldn’t torpedo Argentine cargo-ships carrying grains to the UK.

    Too sum up: Argentina’s neutrality was a de facto support of Great Britain’s war time economy.

    A different matter was the relationship with the USA. The Americans wanted all South American countries to declare war against the Axis powers. That idea was resisted by both the Argentine Military Goverment (both because of their pro-fascist ideology and because of the economic interest of the landowning elite), and by London (because of the reasons explained above).

    The Argentine Military Government’s fascist ideology would have taken as far as allowing the German pocket-battleship Graff-Spee to seek safe heaven Buenos Aires’ port (if she had managed to scape from Montevideo and reach the Argentine Capital)… but it’s un-clear how much help the Argentine government would have given to the German ship after all – breaking with the UK would have been like killing the Golden Laying Eggs Chicken for the Argentine economy.

    So from an historical point of view anything but a stric neutral Argentina doesn’t makes sence.


  • @Croesus:

    Oops, does anyone know how to put a file on the blog?

    Click additional options and then attach, there’s a limit to files sizes though.


  • @Gallo:

    @Gargantua:

    That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…

    From a strictly historical point of view: Argentina’s government at that time (a Military dictatorship) had pro-German bias. That was specifically about cultural/institutional reasons since most Argentine Army officers had received training from Prussian military institutions.

    However, the economic ruling elite (rich cattle & grains producer landowners) were strongly pro-British. And that was because of both cultural but above all economic reasons: Argentina was a huge exporter of cattle&grains to the United Kingdom (that the UK especially needed during war time), and a buyer for UK’s industrial goods.

    Most of the people (not that anyone cared) had pro-allied feelings.

    So, even if the governing Military Dictatorship had a taste for fascism, Argentine economy (and the economic well being of the landowners whose economic interest the Military were defending) relied on trade with the Great Britain.

    All that resulted in an odd situation where the Military Government liked Germany… but Argentine foreign policy was leading to maintain neutrality… and maintaining neutrality was the best option for, well, for the United Kingdom! That was because as long as Argentine were neutral German U-Boats couldn’t torpedo Argentine cargo-ships carrying grains to the UK.

    Too sum up: Argentina’s neutrality was a de facto support of Great Britain’s war time economy.

    A different matter was the relationship with the USA. The Americans wanted all South American countries to declare war against the Axis powers. That idea was resisted by both the Argentine Military Goverment (both because of their pro-fascist ideology and because of the economic interest of the landowning elite), and by London (because of the reasons explained above).

    The Argentine Military Government’s fascist ideology would have taken as far as allowing the German pocket-battleship Graff-Spee to seek safe heaven Buenos Aires’ port (if she had managed to scape from Montevideo and reach the Argentine Capital)… but it’s un-clear how much help the Argentine government would have given to the German ship after all – breaking with the UK would have been like killing the Golden Laying Eggs Chicken for the Argentine economy.

    So from an historical point of view anything but a stric neutral Argentina doesn’t makes sence.

    Thanks for the clarification, Gallo Rojo.  I always wondered about the True Neutral status of Argentina depicted in 1940 when you see movies like Evita and there’s a fascist takeover of the state half way through (happened in the fifties tho, right?)  But that’s what I get for having a pro-Western media-driven ignorant shallow mindset about it, right?  It is funny that NONE of the so-called True Neutral countries was really neutral in real life, however, they were making as much money as possible off the war as they could (and for ALL the IPCs the Allies technically “make” during the course of the war, ALL of the Allied powers ended the war in DEBT up to their ears… (Can I borrow an extra 20 IPCs this round?  I promise I’ll pay it back by the time the war is over.))

    I guess the True Neutrals “balances” itself out by there being equal amounts of neutral IPCs in range of the Axis and Allied powers on the Europe map.  The only problem is that the US ALSO gets a bunch of free infantry for free from S. America and they’re already raking in enough cash as it is.  If the S. American T.N.s didn’t come with the free infantry or the money was forced to be split between the Allied powers it’d probably be all right.


  • Hey guys loving this thread this is what my group has been using for the last month      ( This is not for historical purpaces only for extra options during game play ). These rules come out of our houserule book.

    24. Strict Neutral Convertion- You can try to have a strict neutral sway your way by rolling a 6 on a 1D6 and a cost of 5 IPC’s per IPC that country generates. This happens after the purchase unit phase and before the conduct combat phase. Tell all players which country(s) you wish to try to sway to your side, you have to have at least 1 infantry unit capable of landing in said country(s) on the combat movement phase on the same turn as a negotiator, this unit only moves into the country if you are successful in swaying it to your side. If successful claim the countries infantry and IPC output.

    25. Attacking a Strict Neutral- If you attack a strict neutral all remaining strict neutrals in that block become Pro(your enemy)
                                                                BLOCKS
    South America                  Europe                              Middle East
    Venezuela- 2ipc’s, 2inf        Sweden- 3ipc’s, 6inf            Turkey- 2ipc’s, 8inf
    Argentina- 2ipc’s, 4inf        Switzerland- 2inf                  Saudi Arabia- 2ipc’s, 2inf
    Chile- 2ipc’s, 2inf              Portugal-1ipc’s, 2inf              Afganistan- 2inf
    Equador                          Spain- 2ipc’s, 6inf                                 
    Peru                                                                          Africa
    Bolivia                                Asia                                Angola- 1ipc’s, 2inf
    Paraguay                        Olgiy- 2inf                          Mozambique- 1ipc’s, 2inf
    Uruguay                          Dzauhan- 1inf                      Rio-De-Oro
    Columbia                        Ulaanbaatar- 1inf                  Portugese Guinea
                                          Byant Uhaa- 1inf                Sierra Leone
                                          Tsagaan Olom                    Liberia

    Note Only countries at war mat use the above rules.


  • @Detuite:

    Hey guys loving this thread this is what my group has been using for the last month       ( This is not for historical purpaces only for extra options during game play ). These rules come out of our houserule book.

    24. Strict Neutral Convertion- You can try to have a strict neutral sway your way by rolling a 6 on a 1D6 and a cost of 5 IPC’s per IPC that country generates. This happens after the purchase unit phase and before the conduct combat phase. Tell all players which country(s) you wish to try to sway to your side, you have to have at least 1 infantry unit capable of landing in said country(s) on the combat movement phase on the same turn as a negotiator, this unit only moves into the country if you are successful in swaying it to your side. If successful claim the countries infantry and IPC output.

    25. Attacking a Strict Neutral- If you attack a strict neutral all remaining strict neutrals in that block become Pro(your enemy)
                                                                 BLOCKS
    South America                   Europe                               Middle East
    Venezuela- 2ipc’s, 2inf        Sweden- 3ipc’s, 6inf             Turkey- 2ipc’s, 8inf
    Argentina- 2ipc’s, 4inf         Switzerland- 2inf                  Saudi Arabia- 2ipc’s, 2inf
    Chile- 2ipc’s, 2inf               Portugal-1ipc’s, 2inf              Afganistan- 2inf
    Equador                           Spain- 2ipc’s, 6inf                                   
    Peru                                                                          Africa
    Bolivia                                Asia                                 Angola- 1ipc’s, 2inf
    Paraguay                         Olgiy- 2inf                           Mozambique- 1ipc’s, 2inf
    Uruguay                           Dzauhan- 1inf                      Rio-De-Oro
    Columbia                         Ulaanbaatar- 1inf                  Portugese Guinea
                                          Byant Uhaa- 1inf                 Sierra Leone
                                          Tsagaan Olom                    Liberia

    Note Only countries at war mat use the above rules.

    24.  Yeah, uh, no.  Maybe if you cheapened the die roll cost to the IPCs being generated by the territory, and had the territory convert on a 50% (1-3 or 4-6) roll, it’d be feasible.  If you have tech in the game, it’d be a better investment than going after the true neutrals with the cost of 5 IPCs PER TERRITORY IPC VALUE FOR ONLY A 1/6 CHANCE OF CONVERSION.  (Imagine spending 15 IPCs a turn to convert Sweden diplomatically for the next 3 turns, you’d STILL of had only a 50% chance of converting it to your side.  Sweden generates what, 3 IPCs…  You have to hold that territory for 15 turns to get your money back (I guess the free infantry would offset this somewhat)).  How would you convert territories that aren’t worth any IPC value, do you get those for free (Mongolia and Switzerland)?  You could also have like a “critical failure”, where if you roll a 6 when you needed a 1-3 for success, the country turns Pro-Allies due to diplomatic international incidents.

    With the reduced conversion rates, have either ALL the other true neutral territories convert to Pro-Allies based on a DIE ROLL (50%?  Roll for each one) or perhaps all the other countries in that BLOCK roll to see if they turn pro-Allies due to international pressure.

    Otherwise, yeah, along the lines we’ve been thinking.  Adding a conversion rule wouldn’t hurt.


  • @SgtBlitz:

    Thanks for the clarification, Gallo Rojo.  I always wondered about the True Neutral status of Argentina depicted in 1940 when you see movies like Evita and there’s a fascist takeover of the state half way through (happened in the fifties tho, right?)

    Juan Perón governed (Evita was Juan Peron’s firtsh wife)  from 1946 to 1955, when was overthrown in a military coup.
    In the film Evita he is depicted as a quasi-fascist and a wanna-be dictator. The point there is that the film takes the point of view of Peron’s political adversaries (mostly the land-owning economic elite). Althought there was an element of authoritarianism in his government, Peron was not a fascist – actually he was a democratically elected leader.
    The ‘fascist’ element in Peron’s goverment was more a matter of aestetics than of policies.
    Serious historians and political-scientist agree about characterizing Peronism as one of the three classic examples of 1950’s Latin-American Populism (Gertulio Vargas in Brazil and Cardenas in Mexico are the two other). An similar lider outside Latin-America would be Mosadeq in Iran.


  • Hey Sarge. This is a one time investment, if you miss on your first turn then you can still rule every following turn until you get your hit. I like the 1 on a 1d6 because multable countries can all try for the same country. In our last game both US and Germany paid for Spain, Germany succeeded and claimed spain and america lost it IPC’s it had invested into it. My group uses it’s own set of tech’s and one of them is diplomacy Lv1 through Lv3 Each lv adds a +1 to your chance of success.
    5) Diplomacy
    Lv 1- Local Aid- 7 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
    Lv 2- Silver Tounge- 10 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
    Lv 3- Golden Tounge- 13 ICP’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.


  • I think you guys can still make home rules if you feel this neutral blocks thing so important.

    Let’s remember that this is already a very long game and adding rules and rules may make it longer and longer!

    I love playing Axis, and I think attacking true neutrals can bring nice advantages.

    1. You can invade gibriltar from Spain, without any ship.
    2. You can place an airport in Spain, and if you have 3 fighters in Spain with an airpot, 3 fighters in Gibriltar and the Italian Fleet in sea zone 91, the Allies will have a very hard time entering the med. So you can focus your land defences in Spain, France and Germany. (I usually leave Normandy and Belgium empty).
    3. Japan can attack South America True Neutrals and annoy the US.

  • Okay here we go:
    THOMAS HOUSE RULE #1
    STRICT NEUTRAL BLOCS
    Strict neutral territories are divided into blocs
    South American-This bloc incorporates all nations in South America, with the Exception of Brazil, Suriname, British Guiana, and French Guiana-The Value/Loss of invading the South American Bloc Starts at 6 IPCs and 8 Infantry (UNASUR tornado on blue backround)
    Portuguese-This Bloc incorporates the WWII remnants of the Portuguese Empire-Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Mozambique, and Angola-The Value/loss of invading the Portuguese Bloc starts at 3 IPCs and 6 Infantry (Portuguese Airforce Roundel)
    Middle Eastern-This bloc incorporates the Neutral Nations of the Middle East, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan the value/loss of invading this Bloc Starts at 4 IPCs and 14 Infantry (Arab League Emblem)
    Mongolian-This Bloc incorporates the WWII territories of Mongolia, including UlaanBaatar, Central Mongolia, Olgiy, Dzavhan, Buyant Uhaa, and Tsagaan Olom (Mongolian Airforce roundel in red circle) Loss/value: 6 infantry
    European-This Bloc represents the European WWII nations and their colonies, including Sweden,  Switzerland, Sierra Leone and Spain/Rio De Oro Special Rule: If Spain is Attacked, and taken, the Rio De Oro immediately joins the attacking country, If Rio De Oro is attacked and taken, Spain Immediately joins with the British Player. (European Union Roundel-yes I know they are not Europe, but what would be a better roundel) Loss/Value 5 IPCs, 14 Infantry
    Liberia-Pro Allies when US goes to war

    Roundels.png


  • @Detuite:

    Hey Sarge. This is a one time investment, if you miss on your first turn then you can still rule every following turn until you get your hit. I like the 1 on a 1d6 because multable countries can all try for the same country. In our last game both US and Germany paid for Spain, Germany succeeded and claimed spain and america lost it IPC’s it had invested into it. My group uses it’s own set of tech’s and one of them is diplomacy Lv1 through Lv3 Each lv adds a +1 to your chance of success.
    5) Diplomacy
    Lv 1- Local Aid- 7 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
    Lv 2- Silver Tounge- 10 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
    Lv 3- Golden Tounge- 13 ICP’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.

    Ha, yeah, that makes a lot more sense.  Send lazy old worthless von Ribbentrop to work!  You think your work is OVER after negotiating the Mutual Non Aggression pact with Russia?

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Argentina and England HATE each other.  Clearly you have never been to Argentina.

    This hatred, stemming from multiple reason culminated into the Falklands war in the 80’s.

    Argentina had many OTHER trade partners who were larger - like the United States.  Great Britian was not at the top of their friends list.

    And what the people think DOESN’T matter - especially in regards to the game we are playing…  look at Russia, Italy, or Nazi Germany, were all the people there Pro Comintern or Pro Fascist? No.  They were just tightly controlled by a militant government.

    Falklands aside, Argentina had nothing to really gain from the war, so they never joined in.  HOWEVER,  if Nazi Germany had a South American Invasion plan, and was stomping all over the world in a blood-lust of conquest.  And had the Germany army ARRIVED there, Bent on total S.A. Domination. Argentina surely would have joined the side of the Axis.

    That, or, if the allies felt that the Government of Argentina was going to join the Axis effort immenently, as a pro axis nuetral, it is possible the allies may have attacked to depose them.

    It makes PERFECT game sense to have Argentina Pro-Axis.  And it add’s an EXCITING element to the game.


  • Guys I understand but the game can’t be 100% historical, sometimes you need the to put the game before history. I think the game is as close to being historicaly correct as it needs to be, thats larry and crew’s job. Ours is to enjoy it.


  • @Detuite:

    Guys I understand but the game can’t be 100% historical, sometimes you need the to put the game before history. I think the game is as close to being historicaly correct as it needs to be, thats larry and crew’s job. Ours is to enjoy it.

    NEVER!!!  The second you admit to this is the moment you cease to exist as a individual person!  Look at all the forum threads on Larry’s website contributing to the Alpha + .1 and .2 development process.  If people can chime in on those and make suggestions that ultimately change the way the game is played, I don’t see why we can’t do the same.  Knowledge is a two way process, my friend, and if we make enough noise it should be Larry’s duty to hear us out.


  • Ive been watching the build up of Alpha+2 since the day it started, and i have to say us as a whole playtesting and giving advice made these games 100 times better. I’m just saying that i believe these games are now as close to perfect as their gonna get and if we keep pushing for a more historical feel were going to start going backwards instead of forward. The first time I played Pacific i was completely disapointed, We had a game of Pacific Alpha+1 last night and the word disapointment never crossed my mind. All im saying is im happy when the Axis wins even if im the allies because it’s a game and should be 50 50 or 60 40 if you like a challenge but no more than that. And once again i have to say i love these forums.


  • @Gargantua:

    Argentina and England HATE each other.

    I have two basic problems with your statement regarding Argentina and England hating each other:

    First one is about verb tense: you are using present tense, so are you meaning Argentina and England hate each other when? Now? Always? During WW2? During Falklands war? During 1982 Soccer World Cup when Diego Maradona scored two (one famous and one infamous) goals that kicked the English team out of the tournament?

    The only relevant question  is what feelings Buenos Aires and London had for each other during WW2.

    Which leads me to my second problem:  as I’m sure you are aware, Countries are not like individuals; they just don’t hate each other. What we’ve come to name Nation States are sovereign political organizations are made of different interest groups, various ruling elites and subaltern group), government institutions and bureaucracies, etc. And what we call National Interests, are actually the interest of ruling elites.
    Those ruling elites (and subaltern groups too of course) may have what we could call ‘feelings’ (although I would use different words, like ‘interest’ and ‘cultural visions’) about ruling elites in other Nation States.

    In the case of ‘Buenos Aires-London’  during WW2, I already gave a brief summary about what the ‘feelings’ the two Argentine’s most relevant political actors (the Military and the land-owning economic elite) had towards London, Berlin, and the War. The tension between those two major political actors explains Buenos Aires’ ‘ambivalence’ during WW2.

    Regarding London:  they wanted Argentina to remain neutral. Period. (remember Brazil entered in the war under the excuses that Germany had sunk Brazilian merchant ships delivering stuff to Great Britain – but part of Brazil’s government at that time did want to enter in the War and build an hemispheric alliance with the US).

    @Gargantua:

    Clearly you have never been to Argentina.

    Actually, I am from Argentina (funny, isn’t it?)  :-D

    I was born and raised in Buenos Aires :-)

    (And I’m a political science college professor, so I happen to know a little about Argentine politics and history :-)).

    @Gargantua:

    This hatred, stemming from multiple reason culminated into the Falklands war in the 80’s.

    No, I’m sorry; I couldn’t disagree more with you about this. :-)

    1982 Falkland’s War had its own dynamics and had nothing to do with some multiple and deep antagonism or dislike between the two Nations – actually the Falklands conflict is the biggest (maybe the only) reason for antagonism between London and Buenos Aires in the field of foreign relationships and, especially from the Argentine point of view of resentfulness against the UK. No offence, but I’m afraid you are placing the cart before the horse here :-)

    The invasion of the Falklands by Argentina In April 1982 was because of two main reasons: Firstly, an internal struggle for power within the Argentine Military Junta (basically Admiral Anaya, who was a hawkish Falkland-cause fanatic, traded his support for General Galtieri’s internal cup-de-eat against General Viola in exchange for Galtieri’s promise about ‘doing something about the Falklands; rumor has it that General Galtieri, who was an alcoholic, was drunk when he agreed with Admiral Anaya’s plan). Secondly, an opportunistic attempt by the very discredited Military Dictatorship to rally popular support around a national-cause, and hence preventing the Military Government to probably fall-down or have to tall for democratic elections. There wasn’t deep hatred for the British boiling there – those feelings were fuelled later during the war by the Military Junta.

    You see: a sector within the Argentine dictatorship was looking for an international ‘clean’ war to wash the ‘dirty war’ they’ve fighting internally against political opposition (what included gross human right violations). Those sectors had been seeking a war against Chile three years before – which fortunately didn’t happened. Now, with Chile you can argue that there were multiple heating-lines seaming that could have culminated with a war. That that wasn’t the case with the UK and the Falklands: all that was there was plain opportunism, and lots of stupidity from the Argie side.

    Hey! We are Argentines, not Irish, we’re not THAT pissed with the Englishmen :wink:

    @Gargantua:

    Argentina had many OTHER trade partners who were larger - like the United States.  Great Britian was not at the top of their friends list.

    Firstly, even if you were right, I don’t see how this helps your position about making Argentina pro-axis (shouldn’t make it strongly pro-American?).

    It is true that US-Argentine trade had expanded in years previous to WW2, BUT you have to see this within the perspective of the relevant political actors.

    Argentine’s economy was (and still is) about agriculture (cattle and grains), as you know. USA is also a big exporter of grains and beef.  Argentine Land-owners couldn’t sell much to the USA (actually, USA was a strong competitor). So, from the perspective of Argentine Land-owners, USA was a problem: it wasn’t buying their stuff, and was competing with them for European market.
    Trade with the USA caused deficits for the Argie side: USA was selling industrial goods but wasn’t buying Argentine products (unlike the British, who were buying grains).

    There was a small industrialist elite in Argentina that liked the Americans but they represented a much smaller part of Argentine economy at that time, and lacked political power.

    The land-owners (not the industrialist) were running the show, and their economic interested tied them with the British. As a matter of fact, Buenos Aires and London had signed a bilateral treaty in 1933 known as the Roca-Runciman Treaty, by which UK agreed to keep buying Argentine’s beef in exchange for Argentine to keep buying British industrial goods – that were more expensive than American ones (there were other things, I’m keeping it short). That was basically a deal tailored by and for Argentine Land-owners and British industrialist at expenses of both Argentine and American industrialist (who wanted to trade with each other). So you can see who had the political upper hand there. After signing the treaty, Julio Roca, who was the argentine signatory, Nation’s Vice-President, and member of the land-owning elite, joyfully expressed “It can (now) be said that Argentina is an integral economic part of the British Empire”.  And he was quite happy about that – so you can see how much he loved (not hated) the British.

    @Gargantua:

    And what the people think DOESN’T matter - especially in regards to the game we are playing

    Perhaps you missed the parenthesis I inserted there:

    @Gallo:

    Most of the people   (not that anyone cared) had pro-allied feelings.

    By that I meant not that anyone in the Argentine government really cared about what most of the people liked or not (it was a dictatorship for a reason: not to play attention to democratic will).

    @Gargantua:

    look at Russia, Italy, or Nazi Germany, were all the people there Pro Comintern or Pro Fascist? No.  They were just tightly controlled by a militant government.

    Precisely.

    @Gargantua:

    Falklands aside, Argentina had nothing to really gain from the war, so they never joined in.

    Falklands were not even such a big deal. :-)

    @Gargantua:

    HOWEVER,  if Nazi Germany had a South American Invasion plan, and was stomping all over the world in a blood-lust of conquest.  And had the Germany army ARRIVED there, Bent on total S.A. Domination. Argentina surely would have joined the side of the Axis.

    A big “If” :-) … not to mention that the Germans had a much bigger fish to fry… however, when a German submarine (U-73) sunk an Argentine ship in 1940 and the Nazis started operating in nearby Uruguay, Argentina sent troops to the border with Uruguay as a show of force just in case of a German infiltration occurred … so I don’t see Buenos Aires jumping happily on the German boat (or U-boat).

    (There had been stories about possible plans from German residents in Uruguay, supported by the German embassy there to launch a cup and take control of Uruguay prior and during WW2, but it’s mostly hearsay and exaggerations about the capabilities of what best case scenario were a bunch of lunatics you could count with your fingers).
    Guys in Buenos Aires wanted to remain neutral. So they did :-)

    @Gargantua:

    That, or, if the allies felt that the Government of Argentina was going to join the Axis effort immenently, as a pro axis nuetral, it is possible the allies may have attacked to depose them.

    Sorry, lots of speculation :-)

    @Gargantua:

    It makes PERFECT game sense to have Argentina Pro-Axis.  And it add’s an EXCITING element to the game.

    Notice I started my first post in this thread saying that from a Historical point of view Argentina was neutral, not pro-axis (except from its Military sympathies for Prussian traditions), and its “National Interest” (aka ruling elite’s interest) was to remain that way.
    For game sense… well, it may be cool to try a German invasion of Argentina & Brazil maybe (I saw you suggested that in another tread), could be a lot of fun :-)

    But if you want to support a pro-axis status of Argentina in the game based on historical facts  then no, I’m sorry, it doesn’t make sense :-)


  • A last comment: if we are venture into not strictly historical events, and start thinking in terms of likes/dislikes/and sympathies, it would make much more sense a pro-Axis Spain than a pro-axis Argentina.
    Except that, again, although Franco sent troops to fight against the USSR (the División Azul), he also made clear to Hitler that the Spanish army was going to resist any advance from the German Army against Spain, if that ever happened.
    It seems to me that countries are pro-allied or pro-axis in the game depending on whether they actually joined one side or the other after 1940, and not depending on whether the some generals in Argentina or Franco in Spain had sympathy for Hitler and Mussolini. I think that keeping it historical was a good decision.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Well I can’t argue against what is likely the truth.  :)  I give up!

    Countries are not like individuals; they just don’t hate each other

    However, I will argue my point that national groups  CAN and DO hate each other - as if individuals.  Israel/Palenstine, China/Japan, Honduras/Ecuador, and comically Canada/America when it comes to hockey.  Even North and South Korea will do as a FIT example of unified hatred at a national level.

    The only other point I can hold valid, is that despite the differences over the 1940 mechant ship sinking, The relationship between Germany and Argentina was strong.  Several German subs at the end of the war, Didn’t surface for MONTHS (I think one voyage was approx 102 days - no surfacing) - heading in a direct line to ARGENTINA to surrender.   This emphasises my point that the two countries had a strong link, and that it could be represented.

    mostly though, for gameplay, it’s EXCITING!  And FUN, to have a pro-axis Argentina, I mean, who EVER goes there game-wise? and when was the last time South America actually mattered in a game that you played?

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

27

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts