@Panther Thanks Panther for this edit and clarification!
Matt
Violate a true neutrals?
-
Is this ever actually a good idea?
Would it ever make sense for USA to capture Spain in order to invade Europe via Gibraltar; needing only one defensive fleet instead of two?
The money saved on navy, plus the expediency, could possibly be worth the consequent boon for the Axis?
Particularly if Mongolia had already turned Russian?Sorry that I’m sure it’s been discussed before. Dug back a bit but didn’t find anything.
-
@zooooma said in Violate a true neutrals?:
Is this ever actually a good idea?
Would it ever make sense for USA to capture Spain in order to invade Europe via Gibraltar; needing only one defensive fleet instead of two?
The money saved on navy, plus the expediency, could possibly be worth the consequent boon for the Axis?
Particularly if Mongolia had already turned Russian?Sorry that I’m sure it’s been discussed before. Dug back a bit but didn’t find anything.
If, or when to, activate the Neutrals, is a very big part of any OOB Global 1940 game. While it does not happen in every game it certainly happens enough to prove that it is an important dynamic to the game.
Both sides should be consistently paying careful attention to “Should I go for the Neutrals?” as the game progresses. Looking for the key indicators that show the Player that “Yes, now is the time to attack the Neutrals.”
Typically, there are three reasons to go for the Neutrals:
- Axis #1: The Allies have left their SZ91 fleet exposed if the Neutrals are attacked by Italy, specifically Spain, and that allows the Germans to annihilate a large Allied fleet on the cheap.
- Allies #1: The game has come to a standstill and neither side may improve their position as the board is deadlocked. By accepting a short-term disadvantage, the Allies will gain a long-term advantage that may swing the game in the Allied favor.
- Allies #2: As you mentioned, the Allies are not making sufficient progress in landings on the European coast so they revert to the simpler strategy of landing in Spain.
Normally, it is the Allies who are attacking the Neutrals and typically they will set up such an attack by being prepared to hit Spain (USA), Portugal (USA), Venezuela (USA), Saudi Arabia (UK) and Turkey (UK) all on the same Turn. In later Turns Chile plus Argentina (USA) and Angola plus Mozambique (UK) are taken. Typically, killing these 28 infantries results in about 11-13 Allied losses or about $36 worth of troops.
The gain in income for the Allies is $15 a Turn. The Axis will usually gain 8 infantries from Switzerland and Sweden, or $24 worth of troops, and $3 a Turn in income from Sweden. That means the total initial loss for the Allies is 60 TUV. (36 troops killed plus 24 infantries gained Axis). Compare this to the $12 swing in income and you can see it take about 5 Turns for the Allies to recoup their initial losses and start making gains from their strategic decision.
As long as the Allies can last those 5 Turns then making the attack makes sense.
BTW, you will notice I did not include Afghanistan as usually the Axis are not able to gain those 4 troops because either they can never liberate them or the Allies kill them at a loss of usually 1 ground unit.
So to specifically answer your question… YES it makes sense depending on the circumstances.
Finally, I did not include Mongolia as per Krieghund’s ruling below, unless Mongolia is directly attacked by Russia any other attacks on the Strict Neutrals do not effect the Mongolian status.
@Krieghund said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
As Mongolia only becomes pro-Axis when attacked by the Soviet Union, in the case where another Strict Neutral is attacked by another Allied power, Mongolia remains a Strict Neutral. This means that an attack on a Strict Neutral other than Mongolia by an Allied power other than the Soviet Union has no effect whatsoever on the relationship between Mongolia, the Soviet Union, and Japan. As a result, the answers to your questions under those circumstances are the same as they would be if no Strict Neutrals had been attacked at all.
(Thank you to @surfer for pointing me to Krieghund’s ruling that I included above.)
-
@AndrewAAGamer thanks for the answer!
We are long time A&A vets, but fairly new to G40 2nd edition. So much to explore in this version! 😁😁😁
-
-
S SuperbattleshipYamato referenced this topic
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Violate a true neutrals?:
This should be part of your principles thread.
That is a good idea! I have added it as Addendum #1
-
Feeling a bit slow, but I’m struggling to understand how invading Spain can facilitate an attack on SZ 91.
It’s four spaces from West Germany to 91, whether you fly over Spain or through the Atlantic.
You could land the planes in Spain, but it works just as well for Italy to take Morocco or Gibraltar to make a landing strip.What’s the actual benefit that I am missing?
-
It’s easier to capture Spain than Morroco or Gibraltar, as the last 2 would usually require naval landings while Spain can be done overland.
And West Germany and Paris have air bases, so fighters and tactical bombers can hit sea zone 91.
-
@zooooma said in Violate a true neutrals?:
What’s the actual benefit that I am missing?
@SuperbattleshipYamato Is correct.
Normally the Italian fleet would be sunk and the Allies have the Mediterranean under their control before the circumstances might occur that it makes sense for the Axis to hit an under guarded Allied fleet off of SZ91. Therefore, it is impossible to take anything by sea leaving Spain as the only possibility.
-
@AndrewAAGamer
@SuperbattleshipYamatoCheers! I’ll keep an eye out for opportunities to try that!
Suggested Topics
