Neutrals for Axis and Allies 1940 Global 2nd Edition
iwugrad last edited by
I’d like to make some new neutral rules for Axis and Allies 1940 Global 2nd edition both to make it more realistic and also to encourage more neutral country invasions since I think this could add a new strategic element and also would be fun. I found an old thread on this topic that had some suggestions by Flashman that’s closest to what I’d be looking for (quoted below). Basically, I’d like to have a sheet that outlines consequences for invading each neutral. This would be a big research project for me to figure out, but perhaps there is a history buff on here that may enjoy whipping out some quick and historically verifiable answers. For instance, you invade:
Spain: You are also at war with Portugal (they had a pact that they would both go to war if the other was invaded) as well as Mozambique and Angola (colonies of Portugal). All of the units from these countries are activated and the opposing side (allies if axis invades and vice versa) may take command and use those units as their own. If Portugal is conquered on the first turn it’s attacked, Mozambique and Angola become pro-opposing side but are not activated and available for use and follow standard aligned neutral rules. There may be other nations here that would ally with Portugal (Flashman mentions P. Guinea).
Portugal: You are also at war with Spain (see above) as well as Mozambique and Angola (colonies of Portugal). If Portugal is conquered on this turn, Mozambique and Angola simply remain pro-opposing side. If the attack fails, Portuguese, Angola, and Mozambique soldiers are instantly activated and available for use by the opposing side. There may be other nations here that would ally with Portugal.
Mozambique: You are at war with Portugal and Angola (but not Spain, since the agreement was only for either country being invaded. If Portugal is invaded later, then Spain is also at war with you). Portuguese and Angola troops (as well as Mozambique soldiers, if they survive) are immediately activated and available for use by the opposing side.
Angola: Same as Mozambique.
I’m not familiar enough with the historical situation of the various neutral countries to venture guesses on the others. Even the ones I’ve outlined above may need revision.
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 like this idea, but I don’t suppose anyone knows where to find data in an easily accessible format outlining the relative strength of each nations military relative to the main nations as of May 1940 in order to create an accurate picture. I imagine this project would take a significant amount of time to calculate relative strength. For instance (making this up) if Sweden had an army 1/5 the size of Germany, they would get 1/5 of the soldiers (that would be a large stack). If they had 1/2 the amount of fighters as Russia, they would get 1 fighter. Ideally, you would also calculate relative Battleship, Cruiser, submarine strength, etc. Aligned neutrals would also be accordingly beefed up and it would be much more of an incentive to activate these nations. Another thing to consider is that many of the neutrals would have a factory that could pump out units each round.
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.
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
HUNGARY should be pro-Axis
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?
Romania combined is neutral, but invasion of one part by a power makes the other part pro the other alliance.
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
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
PERSIA should be pro-Axis
IRAQ should be pro-Allied
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.
I don’t know enough to comment on these suggestions other than I disagree with Iraq being pro-allied. I think that was a typo though because Flashman linked to a Wikipedia page that lists axis aligned nations and includes Iraq. I believe they would be pro Axis considering they tried to fight against the UK in the war and were supported by Axis weapons and aircraft. Click here to learn about the Anglo-Iraqi War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War.
Narvik last edited by
The problem is that the designer made a scripted game, and he force the players to follow the historical correct path. Any diverge from this will be punished by strange rules.
Let me tell you how it should have been, and trust me, even Flash is wrong.
Neutrals should be, just neutrals. No pro this or pro that or true this. Just plain f…. neutrals. When you attack a neutral territory, the other territories belonging to this neutral immediately becomes pro the other side. Nothing happens with the other true neutrals what so ever. The world in 1939 was not like if Germany attacked neutral Turkey then suddenly neutral Sweden would go to war against Germany. If anything it was the opposite, when a Great Power occupied a minor neutral, the other minors in that neighborhood would submit and get subordinated to the stronger power. Neutral minors would rarely make a suicidal declaration of war against a Great Power to support other neutrals, because then they would no longer be neutrals. A neutral is just that, they are neutral, they don’t take part of the war.
So basically, when Russia attacked neutral Finland, it became pro Axis.
Russia attacked neutral Romania, and it became pro Axis.
Germany attacked neutral Norway, and it became pro Allies.
Germany attacked neutral Greece, and it became pro Allies.
If anyone had attacked neutral Sweden, you can bet it would have been pro the other side. And no other true neutral would have gone to war, for sure.
Its as simple as that
Narvik last edited by
With that said, USA, Russia and Italy were not neutrals, they were non belligerent players just waiting for the entry.
When the game start, Italy had already attacked Etiophia and Albania so I guess they were fair game for the Brits.
Russia was far from being neutral, since they at that time occupied East Poland, Baltic States, and parts of Finland and Romania, not to mention the clash with Japan and the support to China. In the real war nothing would stop Stalin from attacking anything. The reason they cant in this game, is because this game is scripted.
Same with USA, far from being neutral they gave Lend Lease support to UK, occupied Greenland and Iceland, put a blockade on Japan and sank German subs. USA did not make any big scale attacks in 1940 simply because they at that time dint got any units, and needed time to build up military forces. In this game however they must follow rules, to make the game balanced and fun to play.
Again, its as simple as that
iwugrad last edited by
I’m not a big fan of scripting, but there is no player that plays the neutral countries and would decide, so I can’t think of a better way to decide than by looking at how the nations actually were interconnected historically.
There may be certain nations that when attacked would be the only nation you’re battling. There are other nations where you would attack them and be at war with others. What I’m looking for is which nations were connected by treaty or otherwise and which nations stood alone. For instance, Spain and Portugal had a treaty during the war that if one of them was attacked, the other would stand with them. With this in mind, if you attack one, you’re also at war with the other. Also, Portugal had colonies.
Invade Spain: You fight Portugal, Mozambique, and Angola.
Invade Portugal: You fight Spain, Mozambique, and Angola.
Invade Mozambique: You fight Angola and Portugal.
Invade Angola: You fight Mozambique and Portugal.
Any other nations aligned with these powers that I missed? What other alliances existed? Any in South America? Turkey/Saudi Arabia? I imagine there might be ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ situations since I think there was a war between some of the South American nations at or around the time of WW2. I could research this myself, but I won’t have time for a few days/weeks and perhaps someone already knows of the existing alliances at the time.
The11HP20 last edited by
There were a few wars fought in South America in the early 30’s. I don’t know who had who’s backing in those conflicts. There was the Guerra del 41 between Equador and Peru. I know the US supported Peru and Japan supported Equador, but I’m pretty sure that support was from the bleachers. The only equipment I can tell you for sure that was used was the Czech LTP (Panzer 38t). These were used by Peru.
Peru had all the gear. They actually prepared for war. This lead to Peru having a 3-4 to 1 advantage in men and equipment. Except for tanks. Equador had none. Peru had around 25. Take a wild guess at who won.
If you're having problems, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org