Should we make better rules for invadable neutrals? (1940)

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    @Charles:

    While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

    Ya but historically there were plans for both territories to be attacked. The game becomes to generic after so many games. Thats why you see guys now adding stuff to the G40oob game ( Still a great game ). I got 5  39 games that I play and most stuff thats been coming out that HBG and others have put in games now was in these games since 1997.

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    @Charles:

    While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

    After playing game Saturday , Allies never went to Spain. But realized now that I’ll probably put in your suggestion for Spain troops because the allies could build a IC in Spain. I know you dont like but got to change game up so it aint always the same routes. If Germany sees it coming, Italy and Germany can counter it and probably take back. Will see.


  • @SS:

    @Charles:

    While deplpying minimal forces in the neutrals might look attractive, it sort of ruins the game when the Axis invade Turkey every time as does the US invade Spain.  The strategic advantage is too great to be missed.  I have found it necessary to dissuade the great powers by making them pay considerably for these assaults.

    After playing game Saturday , Allies never went to Spain. But realized now that I’ll probably put in your suggestion for Spain troops because the allies could build a IC in Spain. I know you dont like but got to change game up so it aint always the same routes. If Germany sees it coming, Italy and Germany can counter it and probably take back. Will see.

    If you take the basic numbers, France has a total factory strength of 9 (usually in German hands) with Italy having 13 right in direct naval and air distance to Spain. Hence why I don’t like the idea of US landing in Spain because you need a good size force to take Spain and hold on to it and then factory it and now worry about defending a factory worth of 3 against a total of 22 from the Axis and on top of that, you just turned the neutrals pro-Axis and thus US and UK have to reinforce it (which normally would be easy for US as they usually have naval dominance right from the get go). However, you can argue it is worth it even if Germany or Italy takes Spain because it just drained Axis resources away from USSR.


  • 1. Get rid of the “attack one, fight all” rule on strict neutrals. 
    2. Allied powers (except Russia) cannot attack strict neutrals.
    3. Strict neutrals must always be occupied, otherwise they become friendly neutrals for other side.
    4. Strict neutrals always get 1 infantry beginning each turn that must be attacked (represents partisans).


  • @Carolina:

    1. Get rid of the “attack one, fight all” rule on strict neutrals. 
    2. Allied powers (except Russia) cannot attack strict neutrals.
    3. Strict neutrals must always be occupied, otherwise they become friendly neutrals for other side.
    4. Strict neutrals always get 1 infantry beginning each turn that must be attacked (represents partisans).

    In the scale of G40, there isn’t any nations that USSR invaded that were neutral.


  • I think every neutral needs a more varied army- the neutral nations of WWII were not all a handful of infantry divisions. Turkey, for example, should have the 8 infantry, plus a fighter, an artillery, and maybe even a tank. They should also have a destroyer or two. Much more intimidating than just 8 infantry. And who’s to say that game events can’t influence neutrals? For example: if Moscow falls, roll one die. On a roll of 6, Sweden joins Germany (just as an example). I also like the Global War idea of ‘aligning’ neutrals a lot more than just moving units in. For example, if Axis powers control both Yugoslavia and Greece, Bulgaria aligns to Germany (just as an example).


  • @AxisAndAllies1940:

    I think every neutral needs a more varied army- the neutral nations of WWII were not all a handful of infantry divisions. Turkey, for example, should have the 8 infantry, plus a fighter, an artillery, and maybe even a tank. They should also have a destroyer or two. Much more intimidating than just 8 infantry. And who’s to say that game events can’t influence neutrals? For example: if Moscow falls, roll one die. On a roll of 6, Sweden joins Germany (just as an example). I also like the Global War idea of ‘aligning’ neutrals a lot more than just moving units in. For example, if Axis powers control both Yugoslavia and Greece, Bulgaria aligns to Germany (just as an example).

    As I said time and time again, in terms of real firepower and numbers, Swizerland and Turkey should have the largest military for neutrals.

  • '17 Customizer

    I combine these neutral rules with the CDG 1939 v3 setup (which is really great btw).

    My questions are in regards to the Islamic alliance.

    1)  What is the house rule for the fortification mentioned in the Turkey setup?
    2)  The rule states Islamic Alliance is worth 5 IPCs (2 Turkey, 2 Saudi Arable, 1 Bosporus) but that is Allies only.  Axis would get 7 if Saudi Arabia NO is included?

    Thank you…

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    So are people still seriously considering having ‘groups’ of strict neutrals that support each other? If so, how would you group them?

    I could imagine Sweden and Switzerland supporting each other. Both are industrialized central European countries with strong militaries, a history of neutrality, and vaguely Christian Social Democrat kind of ideology.

    It’s not clear whether Spain and Portugal would support or oppose each other – if you invade Portugal, does that flip Spain to the enemy side? Or to your side? South America seems like it should mostly follow Spain…except there were rivalries within South America. I think Ecuador and Peru even fought a war in the 1940s against each other.

    Same problem with Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia…sure, they’re all Muslim, but they’re also rivals.

    I still think the politics/diplomacy in G40 are too thin to support anything more nuanced than the current neutrality system, but I’m open to practical, concrete arguments to the contrary. It’s not enough to just say “the current system is totally unrealistic” – you have to specify some specific alternative that is more realistic and still playable.


  • I don’t like the idea of neutral alliances because my idea of neutrals having more firepower is based off history which there is a reason why in G40, they’re neutral because they want nothing to do with WWII. Some countries like Sweden were threaten with invasion by both USSR, Germany, and UK. Switzerland should be the most neutral of neutrals in the game. Portugal has a defensive alliance with UK and that should play a role somehow. But the idea of the Muslim Alliance is foolish and those nations were mostly pro-Allies because they wanted to make money off their oil. Afganistan for example had talks with Germany, USSR, and UK to try to get them to join their side.

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    @Caesar:

    I don’t like the idea of neutral alliances because my idea of neutrals having more firepower is based off history which there is a reason why in G40, they’re neutral because they want nothing to do with WWII. Some countries like Sweden were threaten with invasion by both USSR, Germany, and UK. Switzerland should be the most neutral of neutrals in the game. Portugal has a defensive alliance with UK and that should play a role somehow. But the idea of the Muslim Alliance is foolish and those nations were mostly pro-Allies because they wanted to make money off their oil. Afganistan for example had talks with Germany, USSR, and UK to try to get them to join their side.

    I agree.


  • The only real neutral alliance was the fact that the US has Sphere of Influence over the Americas has every single American nations basically joined the Allies with Argentina being the only possible Pro-Axis during WWII and they decided in the end not to join the Axis.

  • '17 '16

    Maybe some of you did not see this new forum below.
    Here is how YG and team try to solve this issue:

    @Young:

    NEUTRAL BLOCKS

    BLOCK #1 - SOUTH AMERICA

    If an Allied power attacks any strict neutral territory in South America, all remaining standing armies in South America and the territories they’re on, become German.

    If an Axis power attacks any strict neutral territory in South America, all remaining standing armies in South America and the territories they’re on, become American.

    BLOCK #2 - EUROPE, AFRICA, & THE MIDDLE EAST

    If an Allied power attacks any strict neutral territory in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East, all remaining standing armies in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East and the territories they’re on, become German.

    If an Axis power attacks any strict neutral territory in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East, all remaining standing armies in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East and the territories they’re on, become British.

    BLOCK #3 - MONGOLIA

    If an Allied power attacks any strict neutral territory in Mongolia, all remaining standing armies in Mongolia and the territories they’re on, become Japanese.

    If an Axis power attacks any strict neutral territory in Mongolia, all remaining standing armies in Mongolia and the territories they’re on, become Russian.


  • While that is a good idea, it’s far from historical truth.


  • As Ceasar said, while it is a good idea for the playability and balance, its far from historical truth.

    According to International Law for that period, and that is the Haag convention of 1905 and 1907, a country that declare neutrality at the start of a world war, can not take part in any kind of warfare or let other partys use their territory. The Law says the neutral state must have a strong military force to protect and defend its neutral territories.

    Based on the International Law, all neutrals should have strong Infantry/Fighter defense for self protection, stronger than the OOB set up, and even maybe let them grow with one additional unit every second turn, if that dont make it too complicated.

    The OOB rules for neutrals dont model the historical truth, it models the collective safety mechanic that the League of Nations tried to implement after WWI, but was abandoned in 1938, when every neutral minor country in Europe reverted back to the Haag convention from 1905/07. Attack one member, and you attack them all. I love that idea, and maybe it would have worked, but no matter how beautiful the idea is, it was in fact abandoned in 1938 because UK and France denied the League of Nations to punish Italy and Japan after the attacks on true neutrals Ethiopia, Albania and Manchuria. PM Chamberlain said in his speach that the collective safety mechanic was dead, and that each neutral minor had to depend on their own military defense, or join the Western Allies.

    Still, the idea of collective safety for neutrals is not dead in A&A. Attack neutral Spain, and all the neutrals of the world will attack you. Sorry but its not the historical truth, not for the first years when strict neutral Ethiopia, Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland, Romania, The Baltic States, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium and Netherlands all were attacked, and all this were strict and true neutrals, its not like they were pro something that would have justified the attacks, but the truth is that the rest of the true neutrals did nothing, strict neutral Sweden did nothing when its brothers Finland, Norway and Denmark were attacked, why would neutral Sweden do something if true neutral Bolivia in South America, or true neutral Zimbabwe in Africa, or true neutral Mongolia in Asia got attacked ? I just cant see the reason. A neutral is a neutral, when your brother get stabbed you turn your back to it, you dont suddenly join any fight, because then you are not neutral.

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    I go the Historical way as much as I can in my games. All strict neutrals on there own with armys and a few destroyers.
    The only strict neutral that can be activated is my 2 Mongolia territories by Russia. They can activate 1 territory per turn. They receive 1 icp and 1 inf per territory. Japan attacks Russia then Mongolia goes to Russia automatically. Thats it.
    The rest you need to attack and conquer for your future plans.

    Narvick we do have in another game where you add 1 inf per 2 turns but pro neutrals only.
    I may go with add 1 inf every 2 turns to all strict neutrals.


  • Mongolia is the only neutral in G40 that has tried to do unique rules but it’s clear Mongolia rules are only in place to try to get the USSR-Japanese non aggression pact in play. Iran is by far the most annoying neutral, it’s pro allies which makes me laugh every time I say it.

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    USSR and Mongolia had a agreement that said USSR and Mongolia would be allowed to be in each others territories and mesh units together for as long as needed.
    Aug 31 1939 they did another attack on Japan troops with a Barrage of Art and air bombings.
    Then signed USSR-Japan pact Sept. 15 1939. Plus Mongolia provided millions of horses and 1 in 4 Great Coats for winters for Russia.

    So what im saying is that Russia should get to move into ea Mongolia territory, control it and get the icp values towards income. But the Mongolia ground troops cannot leave Mongolia territories (but can move inside there territories only) ever unless Japan breaks the Pact and now they can attack with Russian troops.
    This would help Russia in income for that extra need back in Moscow defense.

  • '17 '16 '15

    Good idea for a Russia boost

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Caesar:

    Iran is by far the most annoying neutral, it’s pro allies which makes me laugh every time I say it.

    I imagine that Iran, a.k.a. Persia, is designated as pro-Allies in the game to reflect the fact that in real life the UK and the USSR jointly invaded it in 1941 to carry out what today is called “regime change”.  In A&A Global 1940, “pro-X” status is basically an invitation to X to walk into the country and place it under X’s direct control, which is what happened in 1941 when the British and the Soviets began to worry that Reza Shah, the ruler of oil-rich Iran, was a little too friendly with the Axis powers for their taste.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Here’s one thought for re-organizing the neutral activation rules: each team can automatically activate one favorable neutral per full round, but you cannot move troops into a country to activate it. Persia, Argentina, and Siam would all be considered pro-Axis neutrals under this rule.

    So, on each round, the Axis team could activate Finland, or Bulgaria, or Iraq, or Argentina, or Siam, or perhaps a French colony after Paris has fallen. But not more than one per round – if the Germans activate Finland on G1, that means the Japanese can’t activate Siam until J2.

    Likewise, on each round, the Allied team could activate Brazil, or Greece, or Yugoslavia, or Mongolia – but not more than one per round. If the British activate Greece on UK1, that means the Americans can’t activate Brazil until US2.

    If you invade any true neutral country, all other true neutral countries become favorable to your opponent…but this is not as bad as it normally would be, because your opponent can only activate one neutral country per round. So if Germany invades Turkey, then, yes, Sweden might join the Allies that round, and Saudi Arabia might join the Allies the next round – but it’s not like the Allies suddenly pick up 12 IPCs of income from massive worldwide defections to the Allied cause. It feels a little more plausible and a little more balanced, to me. You could still beef/bulk up true neutral defensive armies if you want.

    For a little extra fun, you could add a rule that if the Axis occupy Paris and Normandy (but not Marseilles) ala the Vichy rule from Balanced Mod, then all French colonies that have no non-French Allied or Axis land units in them drop out of the war and become favorable to both sides at once. If it’s your turn, and your faction hasn’t used its “activate a neutral ability yet” you can activate one French colony and gain its income and any French units that were stationed there when Paris fell. So, maybe the Allies activate Morocco to use it as a landing ground; maybe the Axis grab French West Africa and start marching east through central Africa to be a nuisance…or, maybe it’s the other way around! Or maybe one or both teams are too busy grabbing other neutrals to bother with the French colonies for a few turns. It adds a bit more strategic depth.


  • @CWO:

    @Caesar:

    Iran is by far the most annoying neutral, it’s pro allies which makes me laugh every time I say it.

    I imagine that Iran, a.k.a. Persia, is designated as pro-Allies in the game to reflect the fact that in real life the UK and the USSR jointly invaded it in 1941 to carry out what today is called “regime change”.  In A&A Global 1940, “pro-X” status is basically an invitation to X to walk into the country and place it under X’s direct control, which is what happened in 1941 when the British and the Soviets began to worry that Reza Shah, the ruler of oil-rich Iran, was a little too friendly with the Axis powers for their taste.

    I would buy into that if every Pro-Allies territory in G40 actually reflected that. Every pro-Allies were allies backed but didn’t pull the trigger for whatever reason, each nation differs there for it is insulting for Iran to be placed under this same idea.


  • The idea of pro- neutrals at the start of a game is silly. All neutrals should start the game as true neutrals, and only after being attacked, they change status to anti-the attacker, or pro- anyone who can help.

    Finland start as true neutral in 1939, but after Russia attack it and capture Viborg, Finland now turns anti Russia, and will join the first power that is anti-Russia and able to get there. UK wants to  help, but are not allowed freedom of movement through neutral Norway and neutral Sweden. Germany is able to get a unit to Finland, but can only do it after they attack Russia and prove they are anti-Russia too.

    Romania start as a true neutral in 1939, but after Russia attack it and capture Bessarabia, Romania now turns anti-Russia, and will join the first power that is anti-Russia and able to get there. UK cant reach, but Germany can after they attack Russia.

    Greece start as a true neutral in 1939, but after Italy attacks it, Greece now turns anti-Axis, and join the first power that are able to move units there. Look at the order, UK did not move into Greece before the Italian attack. Italy had to attack Greece and force it to join the war. Only when no longer a neutral, its friends can move into it.

    Persia was a neutral too. Russia and UK had to attack it. Persia only have 2 infantry so it should be easy, but because of playability and the designers effort to make the game scripted, he obviously want you to attack Iraq too, and then you need the Persian infantry. If you ask me, Iraq and Persia should be true neutrals and have 1 inf each. Only if somebody attack part of it, then it will join the other side.

    This is the pattern, and this should be the neutrals rule


  • Narvik, that’s spot on man.  I’m definitely going to suggest this next game.

  • '17 Customizer

    We play these neutral rules along with CDG 1939 set up.  It seems to work pretty well.  Playing a game where Germany has invaded Turkey (at some cost) but now has direct access to the Caucasus and a 3 IPC factory and took Saudi Arabia for 2 IPC bonus.

    The CDG 1939 v3 setup is pretty fun and has become our standard.  As mentioned before, a Vichy option would be fun too.

    @piscolar:

    Here’s what I did. While it’s pretty much inconceivable all neutral countries would go to war if one of them was invaded, it’s NOT inconceivable some would have alliances, regional in nature and among countries with shared interests. Excluding Mongolia (whose rules I left the same), I created 4 alliances among the remaining neutrals. No, not everything in these alliances make sense (Switzerland and Afghanistan would never go to war unless they were invaded), but it adds a new dimension to the game. Also, invaded neutral countries have an impact on geopolitics, so countries need to think carefully before attacking. It is risky and costly, however, in some cases there is value in doing it - unlike in the actual game.

    Here’s the way it works: each alliance has one country that is the center of it all. This is the real gem - it either has the most IPC value or strategic value. The four countries are Sweden, Turkey, Argentina, and Spain. These countries each have a minor IPC and a proper military. This was easy to pick out, as these countries all had at least 2IPCs in value and 4+ call-ups. So I took their initial call-ups, and added 40IPCs worth of soldiers/bases for Argentina (4), 50 to Sweden and Spain (6), and 60 to Turkey (8). I based the units on what such a country would reasonably have. Sweden had advanced industry and an effective navy but hardly any air force in 1940; Spain was along the lines of Italy in land power, Turkey was mostly struggling to modernize but had fortifications and a small but professional british-trained air force (insignificant navy), Argentina had a small army and navy (though far better than its neighbors) and a great port.

    Here are the official rules and set up:

    If you attack a single neutral country, not all of them will become hostile - only ones they have a mutual defense pact with. There are four alliances on the map; an attack against one of these members is an attack on all.

    Mongolia is unaffected by these changes.

    If a territory/alliance is attacked, it will immediately join a specified member of the opposite side.

    Note: Each South American neutral “country” for our purposes has been combined. For example, Venezuela is now a part of Ecuador and Colombia. “Greater Venezuela” does not receive an IPC bonus for this, however it does receive an additional infantry unit per added territory. So instead of spawning +2 infantry when attacked, it will create +4. Same rules apply for Greater Argentina (Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay) and Greater Chile (Chile, Bolivia, Peru).

    Finally, note that Sierra Leone is UK territory and Liberia becomes a US territory once it enters the war. They are not neutral territories.

    Starting Neutral Territory Units:

    South American Alliance:
    Greater Venezuela: 4 Infantry
    Greater Chile: 4 Infantry
    Greater Argentina: 6 Infantry + 3 Artillery +  1 AAA + Naval Base + Destroyer (Sea Zone 85) + Minor IPC

    If attacked by the Allies, the South American Alliance joins Germany. If attacked by the Axis, the South American Alliance joins the US. All of the South American Alliance’s units and factories immediately become controlled by that player. An Axis attack on the South American Alliance is considered a declaration of war against the US. The US may not attack the South American Alliance until war against Axis has been declared.

    Total Alliance IPC Value: 6

    Iberian Alliance:
    Spain: 8 Infantry + 3 Artillery + 2 Tanks + 2 AAA + 1 Fighter + Minor IPC
    Portugal: 2 Infantry
    Mozambique: 2 Infantry
    Angola: 2 Infantry
    Rio de Oro
    Portuguese Guinea

    If attacked by the Allies, the Iberian Alliance joins Germany or Italy. If attacked by the Axis, the Iberian Alliance joins the UK (European Economy) or France. All of its units and factories immediately become controlled by that player. An Axis attack against Spain is considered a declaration of war against the US.

    Total Alliance IPC Value: 5

    Swedish-Swiss Alliance:
    Sweden: 6 Infantry + 4 Artillery + 2 Tanks + 1 Mech Infantry + 2 AAA + Destroyer (Sea Zone 113) + Minor IPC
    Switzerland: 2 Infantry

    If attacked by the Allies, Sweden joins Germany and Switzerland joins Germany or Italy. If attacked by the Axis, Sweden joins the UK (European Economy) and Switzerland joins France. All of their units and factories immediately become controlled by those players. An Axis attack against Sweden or Switzerland is considered a declaration of War against Russia and the US.

    Total IPC Value: 3

    Islamic Alliance:
    Turkey: 9 Infantry + 4 Artillery + 1 Tank + 1 Fighter + 2 AAA + Fortification + Minor IPC
    Saudi Arabia: 2 Infantry
    Afghanistan: 4 Infantry

    If attacked by the Allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia join Germany or Italy, and Afghanistan joins Germany. If attacked by the Axis, Turkey and Afghanistan join Russia or UK (European Economy), and Saudi Arabia joins the UK (European Economy). All of the Islamic Alliance’s units and factories immediately become controlled by that player. An Axis attack on the Islamic Alliance is the equivalent of a declaration of war on Russia, the UK, ANZAC, and France. Russia may not attack the Islamic Alliance until war against Germany has been declared.

    Additionally, the Bosporus Straight is considered a universal national objective worth an additional +1 IPC to the player controlling it.

    Note: Italian and German national objectives include Saudi Arabia in their quest for Strategic Oil Reserves. If controlled, they gain an additional +2 IPCs such as in Northwest Persia, Iraq, and Persia.

    Total Alliance IPC Value: 5

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

24
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts