The US & UK Lend-Lease rule will be included in the the 4th Northern Europe Axis & Allies Wiking-Con which will be held in Denmark in Early 2024.
Game Reports will soon after be posted at the Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Report Thread
Revised Global 1940: Rules of Neutrality
-
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
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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? -
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
Suggested Topics
