New Neutral Rules

@The:

In AAR you couldn’t attack neutrals

Yes, and there’s a good reason for that. There’s no simple way to do the neutral situation without it being abused, so the OOB version tends towards making attacking true neutrals a rare option

@Baron:

Do you mean there won’t have any Destroyer to buy, only the Classic units?

No artillery?

No, sorry, I mean use the Anniversary rule-set in the Classic game version (where appropriate). Just an idea really, and I was wondering if anyone has done something like that in order to make the transition from Classic to Anniversary easier.

OH MY GOD! It’s a whole family of GIANTS! RUN everybody, RUN!

Exactly, especially if you’re trying out Strategic Movement rules in the game. France can take Spain, and then immediately bring it’s troops to the front the next turn. Keep 4 IPCS that will never be contested for the remainder of the war? Why wouldn’t you do that?

I’d rather see further clarifications on certain territories that historically were aligned or owned by one of the alliances, like Greece, like Persia, just like Belgium, Albania, Bulgaria and Romania currently are, but still have stricter rules for invading the remaining True Neutrals. France takes Spain = Germany building a single transport and moving infantry over to claim Norway and Sweden for a free 8 IPCS and 16 additional units. It would keep the countries that were traditional out of the war to remaining there like it does in G40.

I prefer simplicity. I prefer to have them operate like minor ICs except their bonus is one research die per turn instead of producing units. (when not damaged). I’m okay with a cap of 1 tech per turn. I’ll pass on the captured technology raid rule. I think having your enemy capture your research facility (and the free roll each turn after that) is reward enough.

Having them operate like minor ICs let’s you build them on 2 iPc territories, which is necessary if someone like Anzac hopes to ever acquire any technology.

Overall it’s a great concept.

@USA8:

5. Soviet-Japanese Non-aggression Pact
Neither the Soviet Union nor Japan may attack territories controlled by the other until Germany or Russia has been captured by an enemy power.
(Is this a rule now anyway?)

No, it has been discarded.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27888.msg1294087#msg1294087

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

All 3 Iranian tts are pro-Axis.