Strict neutrals?

@Caesar-Seriona said in Dutch Neutrality Question:

Because the creators thought it was enough to put their colonies in but not count it as an independent faction hence why you can’t liberate their homeland because it’s marked as German Grey and how it lacks units, income, and turn. So they make it under this stupid exile in govern status.

Sorry, I don’t get that in the context of an argumentation for your previous statement:

@Caesar-Seriona said in Dutch Neutrality Question:

The game actually treats Japan already at war with the Dutch on turn 0.

As clearly stated by the rules Japan starts the game being at war with China only.
There is no state of war between Japan and the Netherlands.

In order to attack Dutch colonies Japan needs to establish a state of war with UK/ANZAC instead.

Rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 37:

Japan may attack Dutch territories only if a state of war exists between it and the United Kingdom and ANZAC.

@Navymule:

I stand corrected.  However, they (USSR) could declare war upon Japan and then attack a neutral such as Turkey, right?

No again, sorry:

@rulebook:

Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the
Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions
of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map, and Axis powers on
the other map are also still under those restrictions regarding the Soviet Union on both maps. For example, a state of
war with only Japan lifts the neutrality restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and allows Japanese
units to attack or fly over Soviet-controlled territories on either map. However, the Soviet Union is still restricted on
the Europe map, …

#houserules

what about from an allied POV though?

Allied POV might work if Germany is on the defencive (not very common), but Japan has outgrown US economy but not taken India. (happends alot, especialy with kgf or balance)

Allies need to keep Germany from activating Sweden (might be the easiest to isolate), Spain (easiest to attack) and Turkey (big UK army from 2IC in Egypt and Persia?). Goes without saying that allies attack land in africa and south america to boost their economy.

Im not saying its usualy a good idea, but it might be a plausible strategy to get that little extra IPC that stops Japan from winning pacific side. (Japan gains nothing if allied DOW neutrals, unless they pick up Afgahnistan.)

Now Cow sure is comming to trollpost me, no dubt :P
Trow in your best comment.

For clarity -

A Blitz is defined as a combat movement where a tank or mech/tank pairing enters an unoccupied enemy territory, captures it, and moves to a second territory as a single combat move.

Any other movement of two spaces, whether during combat or noncombat, is NOT a Blitz and should not be called a Blitz.  It’s either a combat move or a noncombat move, but not a Blitz.

This is important because Mech Inf can always move two spaces as a combat or noncombat move, provided it’s not a Blitz. Calling such moves “Blitzes” implies that Mech can only move two spaces with a tank under every circumstance, and that is NOT the case.

With some simple house rules attacking the true neutrals does not need to be insane.

In our group we are remove 1 inf in each of the mongolian territories and in angola and mozambique. This makes attacking an European true neutral less devastating for the asian land war and makes it less severe for the Italians. Its also more true to history which is a bonus.

We are also thinking of making Argentina as a pro-axis minor. This would be partly to make south america a possible theatre of operations and also to reduce the extreme impact on the american economy and manpower from attacking a true neutral. Not very true to history but we just regard that as a potential bonus.

I just want to say, that in real life in 1944 the US produced 3x more planes than all other world powers combined. If you make it historical, you have to give the US an income of 200/turn. The idea is that it be an entertaining game and that it jog your memory of history class.

@Flashman:

If both sides are all killed in the battle, you have to improvise some sort of “pro-Axis” marker for Sweden until it is occupied.

No, you don’t, because all strict neutrals are now pro-Axis.  However, until a power claims the territory, you do need to indicate somehow that the Swedish army has been used up.  An upside down control marker works well.