Revised Global 1940: Rules of Neutrality

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

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.

@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?

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.

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.