Mongolia and Neutrals - rules summarized here

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

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.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Wait, but the British Empire troops can take control of Suriname, right?

[gamerman01]

Yes, Calvin

[CWO Marc]

@Gamerman01:

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.

[gamerman01]

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…

[Krieghund]

@Gamerman01:

It’s written like that because it’s written in the Pacific rulebook only

Nope, it means what it says - Pacific only.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Well, I guess TripleA is wrong then…not that it matters much.

[1krad]

thanks this was helpful

[gamerman01]

Thank you for the feedback

[Cadwaladr]

Refresh my memory on neutrals…

say an ally attacks a neutral, but not myself. does it then mean my whole alliance is at war with all neutrals or just that player who attacked the neutral?

[gamerman01]

Yeah, it doesn’t matter that it’s an ally -
If your ally attacks a strict neutral, all other strict neutrals go pro-the other side

[Odonis]

Question: Can an ANZAC FTR land in Dutch New Guinea even though it has yet to be taken by an Allied force? i.e. Still Orange in colour

[gamerman01]

Yes
They’re friendly allied territories when Dutch controlled - they’re not like neutrals or anything
Think of them as French territories - the difference being that France has a capital that could be liberated, and the other difference being the “special relationship” ability of UK/ANZ ground units to claim them in non-combat

Please see also the 2nd post of this thread, reply #1

[8thGuards]

If Japan attacks a Mongolian territory (but not a Soviet territory bordering Mongolia) then all strict neutrals (or neutral neutrals as I like to call them) become pro-allied, including the rest of Mongolia, correct? Does the rest of Mongolia then directly join the Soviet Union?

@Gamerman01:

Neutrals:

1. You can’t move a tank through a friendly neutral that you just activated
    a) You CAN blitz strict neutrals and unfriendly neutrals
    b) You also can’t non-com mech or tanks through the friendly neutral that you just took control of.

Rule 1 b) the mention of tanks seems redundant, as the initial line already says you can’t move a tank through a friendly neutral.

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

Mongolia:

1. If Japan attacks a Russian controlled territory bordering Mongolia, all of Mongolia is immediately Russian
     a) If Japan attacks Mongolia in the same combat move (as attacking a Russian controlled territory bordering Mongolia), they break neutrality of all strict neutrals
     b) This is the ONLY way all of Mongolia will immediately turn Russian without territories needing to be activated.

Re-read 1)b) for the answer to your second question

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

Mongolia:

If neither of the above takes place, Mongolia continues on as a strict neutral, but

1. Will NOT go pro-Axis if the Allies break neutrality elsewhere
    a) Mongolia ONLY goes pro-Axis if Russia directly attacks Mongolia.  This would break neutrality around the world (all strict neutrals go pro-the other side).
       i) Any OTHER Ally can attack Mongolia directly and this will break neutrality around the world, but the rest of Mongolia will stay neutral
    b) Mongolia WILL go pro-Allied if the Axis break strict neutrality anywhere, including Mongolia

Re-read this 1)b) for the answer to your first question  :-)

[gamerman01]

@8thGuards:

Rule 1 b) the mention of tanks seems redundant, as the initial line already says you can’t move a tank through a friendly neutral.

Yeah I see what you’re saying, but it’s not redundant and I’ll explain why it’s not.

1. is saying you can’t take over a friendly neutral by blitzing a tank through it in noncom

1)b) makes it clear that you can’t take control of a friendly neutral with one tank, and then move others through it.

My summaries were written in April of 2013 if you look, and back then that was a common question or misconception, so it makes total sense to word it that way.

[Stonewall Jackson]

Quick question…

Here is a situation that is confusing: Britain lands a mech inf in French West Africa, can it “blitz” through French Central Africa and French Equatorial Africa and take ownership of both? Assuming France is Axis controlled? I know that mechs can move 2 spaces through friendly territories but may not blitz through enemy terrs and take them over. Can they blitz through friendly terrs and take them over?

[gamerman01]

Stonewall, there’s something you’re missing there -

You can’t take control of French territories just because Paris is Axis-controlled.  Germany, Italy, or Japan would have to take control of the originally French territory first (e.g. French Central Africa), in order for one of the Allies to take control of an originally French territory (e.g. French Central Africa).  So then it would be enemy territory

[Stonewall Jackson]

Ok, yes I did miss that, thank you Gamerman01!