Some of us still seem to not understand the point of pro-side neutrals.  They are not meant to represent countries that slightly favored one side or another but never joined the war.  They are in place rather for historical reasons to represent countries that were not yet involved in the war by the start date in 1940, but joined later on.  For example, Greece would be pro-allied neutral because they joined the war at the end of 1940, after the game starts.  Spain, on the other hand, would not be pro-axis neutral because while the government may have favored the Nazis, they at no point had serious plans to enter the war.  If the Nazis moved large scale military forces into Spain, Spain would have fought back.  Greece on the other hand welcomed British troops into the country to help defend it and would not have fought back against them.

To show an in game example from Pacific, up until turn three, the United States actually functions as a pro-allied neutral power.  They are neutral until attacked, but only if attacked by the axis.  Because the US is also a power, they have some special rules which apply to them, such as the ability to build and move around units before entering on the side of the allies.  However, it would be impossible for them to join the war on the side of the axis, even if they wanted to.

Anyway though, it wouldn’t make sense for Argentina to be pro-Axis because at no point in the war did they welcome Axis forces into the country (at least that I’m aware of).

@idk_iam_swiss:

why should you get a bonus for owning your own capital?

Why should an occupying power generate more wealth from a territory than it would if it were independent, unless they turned the population into slaves…

India was horribly designed in this Axis and Allies.  In both historical accuracy and playability.  Let’s start first with historical accuracy.  India was known as the Crown Jewel of the British Empire.  It conducted much trade, and thus gave the British Empire a large income.  This is not represented whatsoever on the game board.  India is left at a value of three IPCs.  That’s not even a third of the ten IPCs that Australia, a much less economically important British colony, is worth in this game.

Secondly, playability.  If Japan takes all of India’s territories, India is reduced to an income of three IPCs per turn.  That’s a single infantry per turn, which can in no way compete with the 6-10 total units Japan will be sending into the area each turn.  And that’s not taking into account the fact that just a sub and a destroyer will reduce India’s income to zero, so India will be forever doomed to get defeated by even a somewhat small Japanese force in almost every game.

Let’s go back to history now.  Is it really possible that India would stop recruiting men to fight the Japanese because of a small blockade off the coast?  India is the second most populous country in the world, and was not willing to give up to the Japanese easily.  Sure, the Hindus may have been protesting British rule, but they weren’t exactly ready to submit to Japan.  Then there’s the vast Muslim population, who more willingly fought for the British due to the fact that the British rule kept democracy out of India, which the Muslims feared would lead to Hindu domination of the government and thus the persecution of Muslims.

For these reasons, the territory of India in my opinion should be worth at least twelve IPCs.  I would argue that it should be divided into East India and North India, with East India containing Calcutta and the factory, AA gun, port, and airbase, and worth eight IPCs.  North India would have no sea border, and only border East India and the Himalayas, and would be worth six IPCs, meaning that India could continue to produce at least two infantry per turn even in case of a full Japanese blockade.  This would help balance the game, which many say is unbalanced, by reducing the success rate of the India crush, thus possibly causing Japan to lead a more balanced approach by attacking Australia and China more evenly to gain IPCs to attack India with.  A fourteen IPC India would also be much more historical, more realistically representing the size of the Indian economy.

While I am at it, I’ll also say that Major ICs should be in a territories with a value of five minimum.  Three minimum is way too low by allowing mass production of units in relatively minor territories.

Anyway though, what do you think?  Would this tip the scales too much in favor of the allies?  Maybe the Japanese home isle should get an IPC boost as well.

@idk_iam_swiss:

lol…no need BD. just saying the sahara wasnt crossed by planes for the same reason you pointed out. its way to farfetchd (yes thats a pokemon deal with it)

side note BD looks like an emoticon doesnt it? just saw that now…ha

Egypt was also never taken in the real war.  Here’s a scenario.  Italy takes Egypt, and the South African forces are left all alone and need air support, and the only way the UK can get aircraft there quick enough is to fly them across the Sahara.  I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t just let their planes sit around in the UK and do nothing.

@idk_iam_swiss:

Exactly! you CAN fly them down south to French and UK parts of Africa. but why would you do that? those territories are out of the way, and not strategic for either side.  Which sounds smarter 5 fighters in France? or five fighters in a territory south of Algeriea?

Which sounds smarter 5 mech infantry in Manchuria? or five mech infantry in the Solomon Islands?  Since mech infantry don’t get any advantages on islands, should we ban them from landing on islands?

Allweneedislove:
Good point, but I think it’s simple to remember no ground units, only air units.  It would work like sea zones except with no building ships allowed.  You wouldn’t need a bunch of different terrain types, just sea zones, land territories, and flight-only zones.

Everyone, your points about the Himalayas are taken.  So we could have four different terrains.  Land, sea, air only, and impassable.  My points about the Sahara still stand though.

@bennyboyg:

Maybe the Saharas, but I highly doubt planes would ever be able to fly over the himalayas

Most WW2 fighters could reach altitudes of just over 30,000 feet.  Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain in the Himalayas, is just over 29,000 feet.  And planes travelling over the Himalayas would most likely choose a path that takes them over valleys, not over the tallest mountain in the world.

“By whatever name, the route was critical, an aerial highway over some of the world’s highest mountains, a path flown by hundreds of U.S. aircraft ferrying supplies to the Chinese Army so it could stay in the fight against Japan.”

• http://chinaburmaindiatheatre.blogspot.com/2010/01/over-himalayas-and-internet-lost.html

Why shouldn’t planes be able to move over the Sahara?  I don’t see how a desert would block flight, as it does in all the other AA games.  Same goes for the Himalayas.

Well let me be the first to say that I do not play any war games, have never played any war games, and do not plan on playing a war game of any kind at any point in the future.

No, that’s just stupid.  Get out of here with your crazy ideas.

This is an interesting question, but I believe I have a solution.

Player 1 - England
Player 2 - Australia
Player 3 - India
Player 4 - Canada
Player 5 - Egypt
Player 6 - New Zealand
Player 7 - Scotland
Player 8 - South Africa
Player 9 - Germany, Japan, France, USSR, Italy, US, China

This is optimal set up for a nine player game.  We should divide up the British Empire, since they are way too powerful.  World War 2 was mostly about breaking up the British Empire, so it would make sense to break it up between players to show the arguing within the empire, while the other powers, controlled by only one player since they are unimportant, fight each other.