The Germans had soooo many chances, but like Canaris says, they were NAZI’s. Once you get above the Fieldmarshall level, they were idiots and criminals with a few exceptions. Thats why its a lot of fun to play WWII games…you dont have to make the same dumb mistakes…instead you get to make new ones;-) As for Greece, they never should have been attacked by the Axis. Even though the Brits lost Crete, they made the Germans pay a high price for it, and later, Hitler was too shy to use his Fallschrimjager again. They should have been used on Malta instead.
We do all agree. But if you play AAE40 the way Germany should - neutralizing UK first - and then take on the Russian bear you will win the war in 1943, thats why I think “Fuhrer directives” is a crucial part of being the C-in-C in this game. You must obey to the nazi idea of lebensraum and concentrate on occupying Ukraine and Caucasus before you take Moscow, otherwise it´s to easy.
I must say I find it a wee bit strange that an entire country does not activate when you attack it. Would not Spain or Portugal go to war if one of their colonies were attacked? Would not Greece go to war I Crete was attacked? I’m not familiar with the political situation in Mongolia at the time so I can’t say much about them (except they have a way to big army, no one would ever enter it anyway as it would mobilise all the other true neutrals for the opposing side).
Entering a friendly ally to get it to join is not the same thing necessarily; maybe Persia can accept Russians and Britons walking around in their country with out immediately wanting to join forces with them.
I feel this might be an area where there are a few different house rules to try out.
Another question on the same topic where someone might have some information is what is meant by ”move into” a friendly neutral? Does it have to be a land unit or can it be a plane? Can the UK activate Persia by landing with a plane from India there? Can the US just take a little detour with a bomber to activate Brazil? I think a land unit should be needed to activate them but that planes should be allowed to land in Friendly neutrals (maybe as long as it’s a non combat move (and maybe they should not be allowed to combat moves from that country).
The above question arose from the quote below in the rules preview
”Friendly Neutrals. These territories are listed as either Pro-Axis or Pro-Allies. A Pro-Axis neutral is friendly to Axis powers and a Pro-Allies neutral is friendly to Allied powers. You may not attack, move through, or fly over a friendly neutral. During the non-combat movement phase, a power may move into a friendly neutral. This action places control with the friendly power that moved in, production moves up the amount of the territory, and the army is activated by placing the number of units specified on the territory in the territory using the friendly powers pieces.”
Ok here is a better way to look at it. Lets say the german’s occupy crete. So the greeks are still a pro allied neutral, and if germany moves into there they will defend themselves. However, they will not try to retake crete, which on one hand seems odd, but on the other hand, they do not have the capacity to retake crete and defend greece so they choose to defend greece. In addition, they will not help the allies by attacking bulgaria, which also makes sense as they need to defend there land, not invade germany’s land. On the other hand, if the allies move units into greece, they join-up and will help them to attack bulgaria with the assumption there new allies will help them defend there homes in greece.
Also, mongolia does not count with the neutral rules, they are an exception.
And lastly, as far as the neutrals switching sides if you invade a true neutral, its not like they all declare war on you, it just means if your enemy makes an effort to help them defend against your insane aggression, that they will support your enemy in the war against you.
This is an abstract game, if you want a truely detailed WW2 game play hearts of iron.
Ok here is a better way to look at it. Lets say the german’s occupy crete. So the greeks are still a pro allied neutral, and if germany moves into there they will defend themselves. However, they will not try to retake crete, which on one hand seems odd, but on the other hand, they do not have the capacity to retake crete and defend greece so they choose to defend greece. In addition, they will not help the allies by attacking bulgaria, which also makes sense as they need to defend there land, not invade germany’s land. On the other hand, if the allies move units into greece, they join-up and will help them to attack bulgaria with the assumption there new allies will help them defend there homes in greece.
This is an abstract game, if you want a truely detailed WW2 game play hearts of iron.
It is a plasible explination even tho I do not think it is a perfect one. If the greeks are ready to join the allies in their fight against the axis as a full ally as soon as a allied unit arrives in Athens they should also join them if there territory is being attacked. What is more important tho is that altering the rule will not change the mechanics of the game that much, it means that the germans cant take crete w/o having to fight the greeks and that the axis cant walk around in persia and mongolia but that is about it.
And I do play hearts of iron, world in flames and quite a few other very detailed ww2 games. What im after in a game is not a simulation. I want it to be a fun game, a balanced game and a game i can believe in. I just do not play Axis and Allies just because its well balanced and have good game mechanics, in that case i would play chess. I also play it because i am interesed in the history of the war and the politics behind it. If a small modification can give me more of one thing with out me having to give up something else i think that is a good modification.
Also, mongolia does not count with the neutral rules, they are an exception.
Why dont they count? I must have missed this. In what way are they an exception?
And lastly, as far as the neutrals switching sides if you invade a true neutral, its not like they all declare war on you, it just means if your enemy makes an effort to help them defend against your insane aggression, that they will support your enemy in the war against you.
I should not have used the word mobilise. What i meant is that, if it is indeed true that all the true neutral become friendly towards your enemys if you attack a true neutral, a attack on mongolia would not be very likely even if it had no army.
That’s the thing though, them “going to war” is already accounted for in the game! I don’t understand why everyone is getting bent out of shape about this when it doesn’t affect much in the actual game…
Yes, Spain or Portugal “go to war” when one of their colonies are attacked since all strict neutrals become pro-the-other-side when attacked. So if Italy attacks Rio Del Oro, Spain “goes to war” and becomes pro-Allies. The issue with Greece and Crete are they are already “at war” (in essence) by being pro-Allies, so whether they are invaded by Italy or occupied by the UK, the effect is still the same gameplay-wise. The only way to make it more “active” than it already is would be to have Greece and Spain and Portugal be separate powers and have all kinds of extra pieces and complicating stuff just in case someone decides to attack them and bring them into the war… Larry is trying to Keep It Stupidly Simple (or Simple, Stupid; whatever you prefer) in the way he has set it up.
The only effect “activating” (i.e. taking control of) Greece when Crete is occupied would be for the UK to get the IPCs and extra infantry on their side without actually landing one of their own units in the territory mentioned (Greece), which is completely against every other mechanic in this game! If you have it the other way (invading Greece with UK gives UK control of Crete), then you let UK build an airbase on Crete before actually taking control of it. Even taking over a capital in this game doesn’t give you control of all the territories of that power!
Haha, I would not say that I am getting bent out of shape. I said I considered it a little strange and that I might houserule it as it makes the game more believable and does not affect the balance much. And I agree that in the rules that you get in the box should be as simple as possible and I think that is one of the big virtures of the axis and allies games. But I also think that it is the players responsebilety to alter things they find silly or things that are unbalanced. In the end its that the players enjoy the game that counts, not whats in the original rulebook.
Anyhow. the relevant part of my post was the second part where I asked what was meant by “moving into”.
I wasn’t referring specifically to you, Dany, I just don’t understand why everyone thinks this is such a big mistake. Someone earlier referred to Crete being part of Greece just like Hawaii is part of the US. However, if Japan invades Hawaii, they don’t receive control of the Eastern US; and even if they invade the Eastern US and take the capital but don’t invade Hawaii, they don’t automatically get control of Hawaii. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to make Crete a separate territory from Greece because it is geographically completely separate, as was pointed out by the fact that the separate invasions by the Axis of Crete and Greece occurred months apart too. The current game mechanics represent this perfectly as the Axis invading Greece does not immediately give them control of Crete and vice versa. By the same token, Greece doesn’t have to give the UK control of their mainland because they let them use Crete as an airbase… So I don’t see how there’s anything all that wrong with the way it works now without making it much more complicated or changing rules.
During your non combat move you may move a land unit into a pro-you neutral. You then gain control of the territory, its income, and its units. Air units cannot activate a neutral.
@SAS:
I wasn’t referring specifically to you, Dany, I just don’t understand why everyone thinks this is such a big mistake. Someone earlier referred to Crete being part of Greece just like Hawaii is part of the US. However, if Japan invades Hawaii, they don’t receive control of the Eastern US; and even if they invade the Eastern US and take the capital but don’t invade Hawaii, they don’t automatically get control of Hawaii.
That was my quote - but again - I wasnt referring to issues regarding “control” or occupation, merely when and where related forces are activated. For sake of clarification, I was looking at the issue from the perspective of an Axis attack on Crete - not from the perspective of an Allied player sending forces to Crete in order to bring Greece into the war.
The analogy was simply intended to illustrate that when Japan attacks Hawaii on J1,2, or 3 - Japan and the US (i.e. ALL territories of the US) are at war. In my mind it seems to follow that if the Axis attack a portion of Greece (be it Greece proper or Crete) then all territories part of the Greek state are at war - and so any troops so designated on the board are activated. I certainly wasn’t getting “bent out of shape” - I was simply offering what I thought was a plausible explanation of what happens - understanding official clarifications will eventually come from those positioned to do so.
But I also understand (based on the earlier poster’s Mongolia clarification offered by Krieg) the idea that Crete and Greece are treated as separate and distinct tt - and not part of the same greek nation-state so to speak.
