Neutrals

@timerover51:

Does that include the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus being impassable, preventing any traffic from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea?

Why ? Why should this strait be impasssable ? Just because it is so narrow that there are two bridges crossing it ? Or just because this river runs through a big city ? Or just because the british navy was sunk by mine-fields and coastal defence when they tryed to sail up the straits during WW I ? Or because the strait is so shallow that subs must surface ? Should this be reasons enough to treat this narrow strait like Suez-canal or Panama-canal, where you need to hold the land territory in order to cross the canal ?

No, I think not.

Look at it from a playability wiev. How fun is it if you can’t sail your navy into Black Sea and shore bombard Caucasus ? See, got my point, right.

@Krieghund:

@timerover51:

@Krieghund:

Neutrals are treated in exactly the same way as in Revised.  They are impassable.

Does that include the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus being impassable, preventing any traffic from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea?

No.

Interesting, you cannot overfly Turkey, but you can sail through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus without hinderance despite the fact that they are surrounded by Turkish territory on both sides, traffic is governed by the Montreux Convention, and no warships of any nation were allowed to pass in WW2.

@Perry:

Being a Swede, I love it  :-D
Sweden will stand strong, while Norway will be conquered over and over again, folding like a sheet of paper
Just lovely, don’t you think Adlertag  :-P :-D 8-)

In Larry’s first game, the Nova edition, Sweden was a pro-neutral on the German side. In that game, Germany got IPC income from Sweden, but could not move units there, not until the allies had attacked and occupied it. But then MB come and messed things up, they made neutrals impassabel, a bad habit that WOTC continued. I love the Nova ed.

Anyway, Norway got war-heroes, Sweden got bad reputation as backstabbers, fair enough to me  :-)

@timerover51:

Interesting, you cannot overfly Turkey, but you can sail through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus without hinderance despite the fact that they are surrounded by Turkish territory on both sides, traffic is governed by the Montreux Convention, and no warships of any nation were allowed to pass in WW2.

Look at the map, timerover51, look at the MAP ! In this map the strait is NOT surroundet by Turkey on both sides, actually it is adjacent to Turkey on one side, and adjacent to Germany controlled Balkan on the other side, and it is this German controlle side that the navy use to sail through. Anf wtf is this Nontreux Convention, another house rule of yours ?

I think timeover’s argument is valid. If airfleet cannot fly over Turkey, Bosforus should be impassable for fleets. True, in the game map Istambul is included in Balkans territory, but it’s ahistorical.

I think the straits should be represented. Is annoying as Germany, having both Denmark and Norway, and still getting assaults from English Channel to Leningrad  :-P

Anyway, other games, as the great Hearts of Iron saga, represent Gibraltor strait, Bosforus, etc.

In response to Aldertag question, the Montreux Convention is NOT one of my house rules, but the current treaty governing the use of the Straits.  I am simply questioning the game so totally ignoring it with respect to Turkey as a neutral.

The Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits was a 1936 agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates military activity in the region. Signed on 20 July 1936, it permitted Turkey to remilitarise the Straits and imposed new restrictions on the passage of combatant vessels. It is still in force today, with some amendments.
The Convention gives Turkey full control over the Straits and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It severely restricts the passage of non-Turkish military vessels and prohibits some types of warships, such as aircraft carriers, from passing through the Straits. The terms of the convention have been the source of controversy over the years, most notably concerning the Soviet Union’s military access to the Mediterranean Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention

As for British amphibious assaults in the Baltic, Churchill in his series on WW2 discusses the problem of the shallow straits between Denmark and Sweden making it difficult to get large ships into the Baltic.  Probably those should not be allowed on the basis that they would be impossible to execute.

It would be more realistic if nations were allowed to violate neutrals, at least I think.

@shermantank:

It would be more realistic if nations were allowed to violate neutrals, at least I think.

I view it the other way.  If an nation stayed neutral in WW2 despite the enormous pressure applied by both sides to join one side or the other, and was not invaded by either side during the war, then allowing them to be invaded in the game is more unrealistic.  There were generally highly compelling reasons why neutrals stayed neutral in WW2.

@timerover51:

@shermantank:

It would be more realistic if nations were allowed to violate neutrals, at least I think.

I view it the other way.  If an nation stayed neutral in WW2 despite the enormous pressure applied by both sides to join one side or the other, and was not invaded by either side during the war, then allowing them to be invaded in the game is more unrealistic.  There were generally highly compelling reasons why neutrals stayed neutral in WW2.

Turkey wasn’t neutral in WWII, in 1945 it joint the allied side and attacked Germany. And both axis and allies had plans to attack Sweden, Turkey and Spain. But they choose to attack someone else instead, by coinsidence. Shermantank has a valid point, it should be allowed to attack any neutrals and other active powers. Now it is a scripted game, how fun is that ?

In A&AE, the Bosborus strait is impassable.

@Adlertag:

@timerover51:

@shermantank:

It would be more realistic if nations were allowed to violate neutrals, at least I think.

I view it the other way.  If an nation stayed neutral in WW2 despite the enormous pressure applied by both sides to join one side or the other, and was not invaded by either side during the war, then allowing them to be invaded in the game is more unrealistic.  There were generally highly compelling reasons why neutrals stayed neutral in WW2.

Turkey wasn’t neutral in WWII, in 1945 it joint the allied side and attacked Germany. And both axis and allies had plans to attack Sweden, Turkey and Spain. But they choose to attack someone else instead, by coinsidence. Shermantank has a valid point, it should be allowed to attack any neutrals and other active powers. Now it is a scripted game, how fun is that ?

There is a constant tension that any game designer faces when dealing with an historical game of balancing historical accuracy, playability, and game balance.  Some players, like me, desire a lot of historical accuracy at the expense of playability and game balance, some would put playability first, i.e. having very slight limits on what a player might do, and behind both extremes lies the issue of game balance.  If you are striving for an accurate simulation of history, then the game becomes scripted to a greater or lessor degree.  If you focus on playability, normally the farther the game strays from history.  For the sake of game balance, you often find yourself determining trade offs, balancing something for historical accuracy with something for playability.  And then, after all that, you have to have a game that will sell.  It is not easy.

A designer does the best he can in designing the game and convincing a company to produce it, the company that is going to produce the game makes any changes that it feels is needed to improve the marketability of the game, and once it is released, the players decide what, if anything, is needed to make the game fit how they think that it should be played.  A properly designed game has the flexibility to allow for house rules, and Axis and Allies is a properly designed game.

You will treat neutrals the way that you think they should be treated, and I will treat neutrals the way that I think they should be treated.  Obviously, the treatment will not be the same.

If you want neutrals be attacked, you must give them a great army for defending, or they will be attacked all games. Some territories (as Sahara and Himalayas) should be totally impassable even if you let attack neutrals. So, you could have:

• Sahara, Mongolia (Gobi desert) and Himalayas as impassable

• All other neutrals can be attacked, each one has a IPC cost and a defending army. Per example, Spain could be 2 IPCs and have, say, a defending army of 4 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig and a dd at z12. If you attack, you must beat that army. Any neutral army and territory survived after the attack becomes enemy controled. Say, in this example, Germany attacks Spain and they fail, surviving the dd and the fig. Allies gets Spain’s control and both the fig and dd. For more fun, roll a die: with 1-4, Franco won SCW and Spain get’s controled by USA (Franco hated England and soviets very much). With 5-6, republicans won the SCW and USSR controls Spain. Also Angola, Mozambique and Rio de Oro gets allied controled, because they were colonies of Spain and Portugal

• Sweden would go for Germany or UK, Tibet for Japan or USA, and such. And Switzerland should be also impassable or have a fricking great army, simulating the great resources Germans should use to invade it

Just ideas …

@Admiral_Yamamoto:

In A&AE, the Bosborus strait is impassable.

True, good catch  :-)

As for British amphibious assaults in the Baltic, Churchill in his series on WW2 discusses the problem of the shallow straits between Denmark and Sweden making it difficult to get large ships into the Baltic.  Probably those should not be allowed on the basis that they would be impossible to execute.

The problem wasn’t the depth of the sea at Öresund, Stora & Lilla Bält, it was the short distance to the shore (Öresund has 10meters depth, but Stora Bält is at 60meters, with a width of 4km at Öresund and 12km at Stora Bält). It was easy to put artillery and mines at to hinder any access by major surface ships. I actually think that it should be impassible if you don’t control Denmark (Northwest Europe), along with Gibraltar Straits for that matter.

The dardanelles is something else in the game, since making them impassable would include some kind of attacking-neutrals rule that Larry probably was firmly against so as not to complicate the game. I wouldn’t be against total impassability since there weren’t any major naval actions in the Black Sea in the war, but that would be a bit unfair to the Russians with none of their naval units never being able to get to the beautiful Mediterranean Sea…

This is intriguing.

So consider this:

Assign an IPC value to each neutral.  Factories??
Assign a military starting set up to each neutral i.e. Spain, Sweden, Turkey, …. etc ( I’d like to see some hypthetical values expressed here, Turkey’s the same as the suggested units for Spain?)

Set the units up at the beginning of the game.

Then IPC bids by each nation to control that neutral. Any nation may compete to deny that neutral to that bidder.

Or if there are no bids then the game begins as normal, but invasions of neutrals may take place and the winner takes control of that neutral country, it’s colonies if any, and it’s IPC’s and it’s remaining units.

I like this!

I’d say no bids. We have enough of them with the axis bid. The neutral army is for preventing a easy and gamey conquer of the territory, as in classic. If you have to kill, say, 10 inf at Switzerland, maybe Germany will not take all the games, even if it gives you 1 ipc, same for Spain and allies, etc.

Maybe Switzerland should be totally impassable, as in Diplomacy …

Maybe so, but anyway the speculation is fun.

Anyone, far more versed in this era and military knowledge, have any suggestions for the values of the several neutrals?

@Constantinople:

Maybe so, but anyway the speculation is fun.

Anyone, far more versed in this era and military knowledge, have any suggestions for the values of the several neutrals?

Considering that Spain had just been devastated by the Spanish Civil War, and was in no shape to do anything, a Zero IPC rating is probably appropriate, along with an immediate outbreak of a second Spanish Civil War.  A repeat of what happened when the French tried to take over Spain in 1808 seems likely.  All out, no quarter guerilla war, with the British happily supplying anyone who is fighting the Germans, which actually was likely to be everyone.  Then, of course, you have this minor matter of feeding everyone.  The US was shipping 700,000 tons of grain a year to Spain, simply to feed the populace.  Germany could not match that.  Hungry people tend to be very nasty.  Probably the best thing for this would be continually put two infantry in Spain every turn someone is occupying it, and force them to continually keeping fighting to keep it in control.

If Portugal is attacked, then both the UK and the US had contingency plans to immediately occupy the Azores, which would have been of enormous help in combating the U-boat attacks in the Mid-Atlantic.  Overall, the net gain would be for the Allies, big time.  And at best, 1 IPC to the occupier.  Angola and Mozambique would be the real prizes.

With respect to Turkey, the British were in staff discussions even before the war with the Turks, and were supplying them with military equipment as much as possible.  When the US entered the war, the US started supplying equipment as well.  The Turks had backed the Germans in WW1 to their great loss, and were not really interested in getting used again. Probably figure 4 infantry, an artillery, probably one fighter, and a naval ship, with the infantry defending at 3.  Require a transport to get troops across the Straits, so for any attack at good odds, you are going to need more than one transport.

Switzerland, forget it. No one is going to attack Switzerland. If for some really bizarre reason, someone wanted to, figure 10 infantry in Switzerland, and the attacking force cannot use aircraft, artillery, or armor to attack with.  And since the Swiss will be thoroughly dug in, they defend at 3.  Enjoy.

As for Sweden, why?  Again, it has to be an amphibious attack. Do not think about attacking from Norway over the mountains.  They had a good army, navy, and air force, and you are not going to pull off the surprise like in Norway.  Give them 3 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 armor, a fighter, a bomber, a cruiser, and some form of pre-emptive fire against any amphibious attempt.

@timerover51:

Considering that Spain had just been devastated by the Spanish Civil War, and was in no shape to do anything, a Zero IPC rating is probably appropriate, along with an immediate outbreak of a second Spanish Civil War.  A repeat of what happened when the French tried to take over Spain in 1808 seems likely.  All out, no quarter guerilla war, with the British happily supplying anyone who is fighting the Germans, which actually was likely to be everyone.  Then, of course, you have this minor matter of feeding everyone.  The US was shipping 700,000 tons of grain a year to Spain, simply to feed the populace.  Germany could not match that.  Hungry people tend to be very nasty.  Probably the best thing for this would be continually put two infantry in Spain every turn someone is occupying it, and force them to continually keeping fighting to keep it in control.

Interesting ideas here. I would not say Spain couldn’t produce anything. Few, but something. Franco sold wolframe to Germany, per example. 1 IPC is proper for Spain itself and 1 IPC for Portugal. 2 IPCs is good. Agreed with portuguese colonies stuff.

The guerrilla idea is cool, but it should work only for a Spain invaded by Germany. I don’t think many spanish would fight for Germany against an allied liberation force. Some falangists and such, maybe, but the bulk of the spanish people was tired of war. As much, a guerrilla against a invading Germany

This is turning into house rules AGAIN…. :roll:

For god sakes Timerover please stop turning every thread into History lesson– followed by your house rules proposal. AA50 neutrals are void and considered just like AAR, where you don’t enter or fight in them. That’s it!

If you want to talk about Spain in 1808 and such make a thread in the History section and not AA50.