Revised Global 1940: Rules of Neutrality


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The justification of this rule is simple. It is quite unfathomable to assume that if Italy attacks Switzerland for example, that Ecuador is now at war with Japan. These rules are bogus.

    Suspend all OOB rules for neutrals and replace with these:

    The game features three types of neutrals:

    1) Strict Neutrals
    These may include areas that have IPC value or not. No player may fly over or move into these unless you want war. These consist of all nations with not listed in items #2 or #3

    2) Pro-Allied Neutrals
    You may fly over and may enter only in NCM.

    Consisting of:
    Venezuela
    Brazil
    Greece
    Crete
    Persia
    Yugoslavia

    3) Pro-Axis Neutral
    You may fly over and may enter only in NCM.

    Consisting of:
    Spain
    Bulgaria
    Sweden
    Iraq
    Argentina
    Finland

    Conversion:
    Players may attempt to convert a pro neutral by paying 5 IPC for each IPC value of the neutral and rolling one D6 at the start of each turn. Like Technology you get one roll per turn per regional block, but you can only buy one roll. For example: Germany can buy a conversion for Argentina, Bulgaria, and Iraq paying 25 IPC ( they total 5 IPC in value) and getting one roll for each. It cannot on the other hand buy two dice for say both Spain and Sweden because that would be more than one per region.

    Success takes place on a roll of 6. Players may never convert either strict neutrals or neutrals that are pro the other side ( either pro axis or allies).

    Successful conversion allows the player to collect income and use their military forces as they see fit. They may move their own forces into or fly over. However they may not build a factory.
    Attacking strict Neutrals:
    Either player attacking a strict neutral nation does not activate all the other neutrals. However, strict neutrals are grouped into political blocks representing various regions on the map as follows:

    South American Block
    ( examples: Chile, Venezuela )

    African/ Middle East Block
    ( examples: Angola, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia)

    European Block
    (examples: Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey)

    If any strict neutral in any of these blocks in attacked by either side, they immediately become pro neutrals to the opposition. In other words, you may then make attempts to convert them just as you would your pro neutrals.

    Also, the listed forces may or may change pending outcome of more research on their armed forces.

    note: made some changes

    let me know if you have questions…


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    @Imperious:

    It is quite unfathomable to assume that if Italy attacks Switzerland for example, that Ecuador is now at war with Japan. These rules are bogus.

    😛 Once again we’re expected to sacrifice any semblance of realism on the altar of “simplicity”.  :x



  • I definitely like these neutral rules at least ten times more. Thank you very much, I may just have to incorporate it into my games.

    Which political block does Mongolia fit into?



  • Neutral rules much more realistic and balanced. I will definitley use these.
    The way this is going you will have the whole rulebook rewritten before the game hits the streets. Keep going!


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    @lnmajor:

    The way this is going you will have the whole rulebook rewritten before the game hits the streets.

    Yeah, and I think that’s cool and hilarious at the same time….  😄

    Unfortunately, I’ll have to play with the OOB rules because that’s what everyone else plays…  We gotta get some of those OOB rules/setup changed like we are right now with P40!

    Attack one true neutral and every true neutral in the world turns against your side?  Whaaaaaat???


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Which political block does Mongolia fit into?

    Neutrals that can be converted are only ones that feature an IPC value. All others and the impassible areas of Himalayan and Afghanistan don’t follow any rules. You just invade them if you like and cannot enter the impassible areas as per OOB.

    My goal is to make a new global setup, new techs, new Victory cities, new victory conditions, new rules on ports and air bases,oil centers, and rules on neutrals.

    All before AAE40 comes out.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Ok made some changes after playtesting.



  • Some thoughts I had on this topic.

    A) I don’t think you should be able to move land units through a neutral country of any kind. This isn’t realistic, I’m not aware of any time when combatant troops were allowed to move through any neutral nation in WWII. I believe sweden allowed supplies to be moved through their territory to the finns during the winter war, but that’s all I’m aware of. Also it just plain messes up the game. Should germany be able to move troops through spain to attack gibraltar? I don’t think so. Hitler tried to get Franco to bite off on that, but he wouldn’t.

    B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.

    C) I think that a KISS answer to invading strict neutrals would be that any other neutrals on the same continent (as taught in every elementary geography class), become hostile. There are few places where this matters anyway.

    D) I think a better and still KISS answer to swaying friendly neutrals to join the war is to simply spend an IC bribe equal to double their IC value, +1 (or 2) for each unit they bring to the fight, and then move a unit in to activate them. This is the way it really worked too, most nations had to have receive some sort of “contribution to the cause” in addition to protection, before they would officially join up.

    Thanks for listening. 🙂


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    @denbushisan:

    B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.

    I don’t understand what your point is, because Sweden and Venezuela are true neutrals in the game.



  • @gamerman01:

    @denbushisan:

    B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.

    I don’t understand what your point is, because Sweden and Venezuela are true neutrals in the game.

    Imperious Leader had suggested making them pro axis and pro allies respectively.


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    @denbushisan:

    @gamerman01:

    @denbushisan:

    B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.

    I don’t understand what your point is, because Sweden and Venezuela are true neutrals in the game.

    Imperious Leader had suggested making them pro axis and pro allies respectively.

    Oh, I see.  Thanks for the reply.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    A) I don’t think you should be able to move land units through a neutral country of any kind. This isn’t realistic, I’m not aware of any time when combatant troops were allowed to move through any neutral nation in WWII. I believe sweden allowed supplies to be moved through their territory to the finns during the winter war, but that’s all I’m aware of. Also it just plain messes up the game. Should germany be able to move troops through spain to attack gibraltar? I don’t think so. Hitler tried to get Franco to bite off on that, but he wouldn’t.

    Quite right!

    Consisting of:
    Spain
    Bulgaria  ( allied to Germany turn 3)
    Sweden
    Iraq
    Argentina
    Finland ( allied to Germany turn 3)

    The revised idea is you can fly over them only. This can be a modification of sorts. Bulgaria should automatically be allied to Germany on Turn 3, as well as Sweden. Hitler was granted passage to Finland from Norway, which means he had to cross Sweden.

    B) I’m satisfied with the political leanings of the neutrals as they are, with the exception of Spain, which should be pro axis. Franco would have joined the axis if Hitler had provided sufficient financial and industrial aid. I don’t think that Sweden could have ever been convinced to join the axis, nor would I expect to see Venezuela lining up to fight for the allies.

    Right Franco demanded both aid and control of some of the former French areas around Spanish Morocco. Venezuela would allow US troops to cross

    C) I think that a KISS answer to invading strict neutrals would be that any other neutrals on the same continent (as taught in every elementary geography class), become hostile. There are few places where this matters anyway.

    D) I think a better and still KISS answer to swaying friendly neutrals to join the war is to simply spend an IC bribe equal to double their IC value, +1 (or 2) for each unit they bring to the fight, and then move a unit in to activate them. This is the way it really worked too, most nations had to have receive some sort of “contribution to the cause” in addition to protection, before they would officially join up.

    This seems like an old idea, regarding strict neutrals id keep my system as it is stated. The reason for this is the listed forces are not accurate at all. They didn’t just have “infantry” and no other units. It should go by the value of the nation and an adjusted cost based on this. Under what i propose its random which people seem to prefer. Sometimes you pay alot for this aid and other times you get off cheap.

    Conversion:
    Players may attempt to convert a pro neutral by paying 5 IPC for each IPC value of the neutral and rolling one D6 at the start of each turn. Like Technology you get one roll per turn per regional block, but you can only buy one roll. For example: Germany can buy a conversion for Argentina, Bulgaria, and Iraq paying 25 IPC ( they total 5 IPC in value) and getting one roll for each. It cannot on the other hand buy two dice for say both Spain and Sweden because that would be more than one per region.

    Success takes place on a roll of 6. Players may never convert either strict neutrals or neutrals that are pro the other side ( either pro axis or allies).

    Successful conversion allows the player to collect income and use their military forces as they see fit. They may move their own forces into or fly over. However they may not build a factory.

    Attacking strict Neutrals:
    Either player attacking a strict neutral nation does not activate all the other neutrals. However, strict neutrals are grouped into political blocks representing various regions on the map as follows:

    South American Block
    ( examples: Chile, Venezuela )

    African/ Middle East Block
    ( examples: Angola, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia)

    European Block
    (examples: Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey)

    If any strict neutral in any of these blocks in attacked by either side, they immediately become pro neutrals to the opposition. In other words, you may then make attempts to convert them just as you would your pro neutrals.

    Also, the listed forces may or may change pending outcome of more research on their armed forces.



  • This would probably end the allies use for spain so i think it shoul be strict neutral otherwise it will just be anothe rpart of the Atlantic Wall.

    This also simplifies the G3 Strict neutral crush see: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20028.0


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well the OOB rules say if you attack a strict neutral your at war with every strict neutral.

    My system at least makes it into political blocks, they don’t effect the entire world.

    Spain is still viable except now it has real forces, so perhaps your right.



  • my group does a neutral auction on turn three where each major power has to put a bid on each neutral nation the winner of the bid gets to spend the ipcs that they and other players bid along with the value of the territory and one (or two) ipcs per infantry the territory is supposed to get, if everyone bids zero on a territory it becomes a super neutral and can no longer enter the war at any point in the game.


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    @Imperious:

    Well the OOB rules say if you attack a strict neutral your at war with every strict neutral.

    Not true.  A playable power is NEVER “at war” with any neutral.  What happens, is as soon as you attack a true neutral, that true neutral and all others on the map become pro-Allies (if attacked by Axis) or pro-Axis (if attacked by Allies).  This just means that your enemies can walk into true neutrals, gaining the income (if any) and standing army (if any) on their turn.  But they have to get there, first.

    This is not the same as being “at war” with all the neutrals, and at times during the game, is probably worth the invasion.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well semantics.

    At war to me means i got to deal with their infantry at some point. To me thats “at war”

    You attack one and all the others can get plucked for infantry to can harm me. To me thats being at war.



  • @Imperious:

    Attacking strict Neutrals:
    Either player attacking a strict neutral nation does not activate all the other neutrals. However, strict neutrals are grouped into political blocks representing various regions on the map as follows:

    South American Block
    ( examples: Chile, Venezuela )

    African/ Middle East Block
    ( examples: Angola, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia)

    European Block
    (examples: Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey)

    Some of those make sense, like the South America block (an outside power intervening on Latin America’s affairs) but regarding Portugal/Angola/Mozambique/Portuguese Guinea and Spain/Rio de Oro the regional division makes no sense because all of those territories were still under colonial empires. To attack any of those territories would be to trigger a reaction across the whole empire.



  • Well the OOB rules say if you attack a strict neutral your at war with every strict neutral.

    wait…I try to understand…in your game…if I attack a neutral country, other neutral country
    in the same block will be at war againt me?


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well they first need the opposition to land in NCM in these nations. He can eventually bring the infantry and use them as if they were his own. SO yes eventually you will be fighting them in battle, even if it takes some work on the part of the enemy to get this done.



  • The blocks are good because for Germany attacking Turkey they shouldn’t be at war with south american neutrals I think this should have been implemented in G’40 and i will use this set of neutral rules.


  • Customizer

    I think the main reason for the strict neutral rule was to discourage attacks on nations that did not historically get involved in the war.  Far better to give each of these countries more representative defences, including air and sea units; but this makes things more complicated…

    I’m not so keen on paying for neutrals; mostly they were bullied into alliances by the threat of naked military force.  Where bribery was used it proved largely ineffective, e.g. Hitler offering Franco French colonies he’d already promised to Mussolini…

    Another idea of mine for neutrals is a card draw: Each neutral country (counting for example Portugal, Angola, Mozambique & PG as one country) has a card. Each side draws a card secretly at the start of a full game turn.  You can reveal a card at the end of any full turn, converting a neutral to a “Pro” your side, but you still have to move a unit in to take control. 
    I’d add a couple of joker “Military Coup” cards, allowing a side to trump a neutral reveal by converting the Pro to their own alliance. 
    Players can still attack/take over neutrals in the usual way.
    This is certainly a way of adding variety to the starting set up.

    To recap my suggested revision of neutrality from the Global forum:

    Setting aside my quibbles with the geography, I propose the following changes to make the neutral counties set up of the Global game more historically accurate:

    This assumes the deletion of the “all strict neutrals go to war” rule.

    MEXICO, CENTRAL AMERICA & WEST INDIES should be pro-Allied

    EIRE should be SN

    GREENLAND should have the same status as the Dutch colonies, i.e. a de facto pro-allied neutral.  With a Danish roundel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland_during_World_War_II

    ITALY should be neutral until Paris falls as described elsewhere under the “Italy Fix” suggestion.  But what happens if Paris doesn’t fall? (The Allies should not be allowed to declare war on Italy first).

    YUGOSLAVIA should be Pro-Axis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Yugoslavia

    HUNGARY should be pro-Axis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_during_the_Second_World_War

    ROMANIA is a problem in that it should still be in control of Bessarabia.  It was the grabbing of this province by Stalin in July that propelled Romania into the Axis camp.
    Suggestion: Romania pro-Axis, Bessarabia pro-Allied? 
    OR
    Romania combined is neutral, but invasion of one part by a power makes the other part pro the other alliance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_World_War_II

    BALTIC STATES should be SN. The “friendly occupation” by Soviet troops in June was hardly welcome…though a German R1 invasion would breech the terms of the Nazi-Soviet pact, which could be considered an act of war in Moscow.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_and_annexation_of_the_Baltic_states_by_the_Soviet_Union_(1940)

    Perhaps this Pact can be more definitive, assigning

    Finland, Vyborg, Baltic States, Eastern Poland (1939) & Bessarabia to the Soviet sphere;

    Western Poland (1939), Hungary, Romania, Balkan states to Germany.

    An invasion of any of the tts assigned to the other signatory is considered a breach of the Pact and therefore an act of WAR.  This includes, for example, Germany occupying pro-Axis Finland, which is still considered part of the Soviet sphere.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler-Stalin_Pact#The_Molotov.E2.80.93Ribbentrop_Pact_and_its_secret_protocol

    GREECE & CRETE should be politically identical, i.e. an attack on one brings the other to war

    similarly with

    SPAIN (SN) & Rio de Oro

    PORTUGAL & P. Guinea, Mozambique & Angola

    SIERRA LEONE should be UK territory

    BELGIAN CONGO should be similar to Dutch & Danish colonies, i.e. pro-Allied. With a Belgian roundel.

    LIBERIA should be pro-Allied

    SIAM should be pro-Axis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Thailand

    PERSIA should be pro-Axis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

    IRAQ should be pro-Allied

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Iraq

    There is a case for making ARGENTINA pro-Axis to balance Brazil, but not a convincing one.

    Also, all the SN South American countries should be considered as politically aligned; i.e. attack one and you’re at war with them all.

    This proposal at least creates an interesting variant, particularly in regard to opening strategies.



  • Ah…way better flashman.
    More realistic.

    But Iraq must be pro axis at the beginning and should be annexed and or Attack by UK.
    Persia = 2 TT. North and south.
    North side should be annexed by USSR.
    South side by UK.
    All Yougoslavia was not pro axis. The Serbian and the Russians were friends
    So Yougoslavia = 2 TT.
    Croatia and Serbia.

    ROMANIA is a problem in that it should still be in control of Bessarabia.  It was the grabbing of this province by Stalin in July that propelled Romania into the Axis camp.
    Suggestion: Romania pro-Axis, Bessarabia pro-Allied? 
    OR Romania combined is neutral, but invasion of one part by a power makes the other part pro the other alliance.

    2 TT:  Romania and Bessarabie. If USSR attack or annexe Bessarabia, this will not declare war against Germany.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 5
  • 11
  • 22
  • 5
  • 9
  • 2
  • 61
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

61
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts