Thanks for the input!
The Dutch actually ruled much of Brazil from 1630 to 1654, prior to the Portuguese invasion. It was called “Dutch Brazil” or “New Holland” during this time. Also the proximity to Dutch-owned Suriname (modern times) played a part and the Netherlands has traditionally had a presence in the region. Ultimately, however, the connection is loose but necessary to establish a faction with the ability to generate IPCs and become a regional force.
wikipedia: Dutch Brazil
Also, I didn’t use French pieces because of the very real possibility of french pieces meeting with Dutch pieces in Africa and possibly in the Atlantic.
Alright, I understand your piece choice, I forgot about Angola. But if the Dutch would only have to control Suriname, Brazil could still be treated as a Pro-Axis neutral and with an infantry in Suriname, the Dutch could get the Infantry and IPC boost of Brazil. I dont know that’s just my opinion I guess. Im really not trying to offend or critisize your work, just giving input.
Yes, I thought about making Brazil and Angola “pro-ally” neutrals, but it would put the Dutch at least 1 round, perhaps 2 behind as they would have to buy and deploy a manufacturing complex, making them effectively useless. Also, Suriname has no IPC value (not good for a capital) and I decided beforehand that I wouldn’t add any IPC value to the board.
No offense taken, I appreciate the feedback.
I don’t. Why does Italy aquire all of those territories. If the Dutch part of your rule is historically accurate then everything else should to. The rule I have made simply makes the Dutch as a fourth Allied power in the Pacific (Dutch East Indies).
One thing I like about this idea is that it brings South America into the action. As big a board as A&A Global is, it can be easy to have too many powers in too small a space.
I don’t. Why does Italy aquire all of those territories. If the Dutch part of your rule is historically accurate then everything else should to. The rule I have made simply makes the Dutch as a fourth Allied power in the Pacific (Dutch East Indies).
You’re right, there is no real historical foundation for the Italian invasion of Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria other than the fact that Italy probably wanted to take those territories (is anyone aware of the situation?). I decided to include them for balance purposes (one could simply award the 5 extra IPCs to Japan for their first move, but keep additional Italian units) because the number of infantry on those territories just so happened to equal the amount of Dutch infantry on the board. Also, I was concerned that Italy couldn’t acquire additional reoccurring income, while the Dutch probably won’t ever loose any S. American territories. The benefits of a S. American Dutch force are the involvement of a stagnant continent, the creation of an extra faction, the ability of ANZAC and UK Pacific to acquire additional Pacific territories and IPCs since their prospects are extremely limited, an addition to the African theater and to some extent the hilarity of it all. I don’t think the Italian rule takes too much from the historicity of the situation. I think that a little imagination can be good for a game (or rule.)
Thanks for your input, what would you change to the rule? How do you play the Pacific Dutch?
Your concept is interesting, eroxors. I do think that it’s a bit of stretch to assume that Brazil, which achieved independence from its Portuguese colonial rulers in 1821-1823, would “enter the war under the control of the Dutch”, a modest colonial power which had ruled just a few small bits and pieces of Brazil for a mere couple of decades (1630-1654) three hundred years before the Second World War, and whose own national territory had been overrun and occupied by the Nazis in five days. Brazil dilly-dallied until August 1942 before declaring war on the Axis (as an independent country, not as a nation controlled by someone else), despite the fact that it was in the geographic sphere of influence of the United States – a large, powerful country that wasn’t under Nazi occupation, that was geographically closer to Brazil than Holland, and which did not carry the stigma of having ever been a colonial ruler of any part of Brazil.
One subject you didn’t mention in your posts, and which could be interesting for you to investigate, is ADBACOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABDACOM). The Battle of the Java Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Java_Sea) should also interest you, since the ABDA fleet in that engagement was under the command of a Dutch Admiral, Karel Doorman.
@CWO:
Your concept is interesting, eroxors. I do think that it’s a bit of stretch to assume that Brazil, which achieved independence from its Portuguese colonial rulers in 1821-1823, would “enter the war under the control of the Dutch”, a modest colonial power which had ruled just a few small bits and pieces of Brazil for a mere couple of decades (1630-1654) three hundred years before the Second World War, and whose own national territory had been overrun and occupied by the Nazis in five days. Brazil dilly-dallied until August 1942 before declaring war on the Axis (as an independent country, not as a nation controlled by someone else), despite the fact that it was in the geographic sphere of influence of the United States – a large, powerful country that wasn’t under Nazi occupation, that was geographically closer to Brazil than Holland, and which did not carry the stigma of having ever been a colonial ruler of any part of Brazil.
One subject you didn’t mention in your posts, and which could be interesting for you to investigate, is ADBACOM (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABDACOM). The Battle of the Java Sea (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Java_Sea) should also interest you, since the ABDA fleet in that engagement was under the command of a Dutch Admiral, Karel Doorman.
Thanks for the input. I agree that the whole scenario is a historical stretch. I worded the phrase “under Dutch control” as an indication of the game controller, not the political reality, which would probably be some type of cooperative agreement with the large nation of Brazil and the small remnant of a smaller “guest” nation of the Netherlands. The Dutch Brazil wikipedia page mentions that the Dutch controlled nearly half of Brazil, I haven’t been able to verify this. However, there have been several waves of Dutch settlement of the area in addition to those that remained after the Portuguese took over including many in the state of Holanda, which was settled between 1858 and 1862. A second wave from Netherlands brought more than 3500 Dutch to Brazil from 1906 to 1913. Also, the post-war connection between the Dutch and Brazil was demonstrated with several dutch settlements including Holambra I and II, Nao-Me-Toque, Monte Alegre, Castrolandia, and a half dozen more. Of course, post-war settlements don’t really matter, but there is a Netherlands-Brazil connection that could be imaginatively used as a host for this type of arrangement.
I will be changing the wording from “under Dutch control” to something else.
As for ADBA, I was aware that the Dutch had a significant presence in the Pacific, perhaps more so than “ANZAC,” which gets playable nation status. Perhaps ADBA should replace ANZAC in the game, since it was formed two months earlier. Regardless, I did add a submarine in the Pacific to demonstrate the presence of the Dutch and their submarines:
“Some Dutch ships were also based in Australia and Ceylon, and continued to operate in the Indian and Pacific oceans. Due to the high number of submarines present in the Netherlands East Indies (the major part of the defensive plans of the Dutch government), the Dutch were called, in the Asian Campaign, the Fourth Ally. The total number of submarines operating in the Eastern Theater was seventeen.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Netherlands_during_World_War_II
I also added infantry to the E. Indies to demonstrate the massive amount of native manpower that could have been brought to bear if the Dutch had been more popular with the local population. Now that I think about it, I may change this (perhaps add another submarine)… the Indonesians seem to have welcomed the Japanese as liberators. Just thinking out loud here.
Do you have any thoughts or knowledge of the E. Europe situation?
Thanks again for the help.
the Indonesians seem to have welcomed the Japanese as liberators
The Japanese tried to market their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere as a liberation of Asia from the oppressive yoke of white European colonialism. The countries they occupied, however, soon found out that they’d merely traded one bunch of foreign imperialists for another. (To quote one of Frank Capra’s Why We Fight movies, “The Japs would get the Prosperity and the others would get the Co.”)
Do you have any thoughts or knowledge of the E. Europe situation?
Which particular East European situation are you referring to?
By the way, my original post contained a typo: It was supposed to say ABDACOM, not ADBACOM. Sorry.
I’ve had a thought about this part of your original post: “Suriname and French & British Guiana are treated as one territory for movement purposes.” It might be more interesting if you treated them as separate because it would open the possibility of a conflict of some sort between Suriname and Vichy-controlled French Guiana.
The Pacific Dutch are just that. Pacific Dutch. The capitol is Java and they have some starting units. I never figured NOs or NAs however.
So Pvt.Ryan, the Pacific Dutch, would they have buying power? Im thinking they should, but this might just bring more unbalance. But they have to like buy a factory because they dont start out with one or something. Maybe give them Belgian Congo so thir IPC count is 12 and they can buy a minor IC turn 1. I say Congo because the territory Hollamd-Belgium consists of the Dutch and Belgians and Dutch peices would represent the Belgians too. I dont know. And they could possibly have national objectives.
Ugh sorry never posted this. Been busy at in school. Alrighty the Dutch are basically a minor power. They have a small army and navy and airforce. The setup does include a minor IC on Java. The thing about the Dutch is is that they should in theory weaken the UK in the pacific. Would you rather have one nation or have those IPCs being spent by just one power? I mean I think (excluding NOs) my job would be easier if the Allies all shared movement, buying, and combat.
This looks very interesting. Granted, it may be a stretch historically, but it’s cool to add another faction and I love playing alternate reality type scenarios. That said, I have a few questions/comments of my own:
1-I understand the Italian over-running of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece are meant as balancing factors rather than historical events. What I don’t understand is why the Italians are so offended by Dutch actions. In this scenario, you seem to make the Italians really have an axe to grind against the Dutch Diaspora, even more so than against the British it seems. Why is that?
2-About the DEI. I’m not so sure they should be considered “Allied Neutrals” and given over to other Allied powers. Granted, your NO about the transfer of power does at least give 2 ipcs per territory for a total of 8 ipcs (Sumatra, Java, Celebes & Dutch New Guinea), still the DEI is a large chunk of the Dutch income. I guess between the NO and if they manage to take over the rest of South America, that will make up for the territory loss of the DEI income, it just seems like too large a percentage of the Dutch income is based on NOs as opposed to actual territory. Then again, since you mentioned not wanting to add territorial ipcs, I guess you did good with what you had to work with.
3-You mentioned with the formation of the Dutch Diaspora, Argentina, Chile and Venezuela become Pro-Axis Neutrals. I take it they are treated the same as Finland and Iraq? If Germany, Italy or Japan managed to get some troops over there, they could land and absorb those countries, plus gain extra infantry, on their NCM?
4-I have a few questions about your new National Objectives:
A - UNITED STATES - The US turns over the West Indies to Dutch Diaspora, subtracting 1 ipc from the US total (US gets 51 ipcs now). One of the US wartime NOs is for US control of Mexico, Southeast Mexico, Central America and West Indies. In your scenario, should this read “Allied” control now?
B - JAPAN - The original Japanese NO for the DEI was 5 ipcs per turn for control of ALL the DEI (Sumatra, Java, Celebes and BORNEO). Your new Japanese NO states that they only have to control TWO of the former Dutch territories in the East. Since Borneo belongs to UK/India, does that simply drop Borneo from this NO? Also, does this NO include Dutch New Guinea?
That’s all the questions I can think of now. I pretty much understand the rest. One more thing, about the game pieces used. Historical Board Gaming has Dutch pieces available in their Painted Armies section. I think they are orange. They even have Dutch roundels to use for control markers. That might work better than using Russian pieces, plus it would add more color to the board.
Thanks for the interest. We were actually able to play a game with this rule so I have answers to all your questions.
1. The Dutch vs. Italy language is intended to provide a “storyline” element to the Dutch vs. Italian situation that presents itself on the board and to explain the equal granting of units and territories to both nations.
2. The problem here is that the Dutch have no way to build units in the Pacific, so I didn’t think it was appropriate to siphon IPCs from the Pacific. I think that I will change this in a future revision to provide facilities in the DEI.
3. You are correct, they can be taken over by any Axis power. In the game we played, both Italy and Germany contemplated invading Venezuela after a failed Dutch invasion.
4. A) Yes, we encountered this and treated it as “allied control.” B) This is wrong, it should read “The Japanese must control two of the following territories: Borneo, Java, Sumatra, Celebs and Dutch New Guinea”
Thanks for the tip about the Dutch units, I’ll probably order some. Also, stay tuned for version 2 of the Dutch rules, they were pretty much a non-issue in the game I played and Italy was a beast with 60 some IPCs by round 4. Part of this was weak rolling, but there are some balance changes that are needed.
Thanks for the answers. I was wondering about the Italy changes, specifically all the extra manpower and units they get. I understand that you were trying to keep things balanced (eg. adding a new Allied power = giving Axis a little more stuff), but I also wondered if that would make Italy too dang strong for starting. Even though the extra stuff Italy got was due to the Dutch addition, it would be the British in the Med and Africa, and perhaps Turkey as well, that would suffer.
Japan is certainly getting a boost. Only having to control 2 of those territories will make it much easier for Japan to get that NO. Getting all 4 of the DEI can be really hard, especially with ANZAC and India nipping at your heels.
I will keep checking back whenever I’m on the forum to see your progress on this. You’re welcome about the tip on HBG. It looks like I may have to go order some of his Dutch as well.
I tried this out and liked it a lot. Italy having a boost to put them in a better starting position was nice. And it was also nice to have another ally making landings in Europe/Africa, as it seems with my games that UK always falls quickly.
One significant change I tried was making the Dutch connected to France, the same way London and Calcutta are connected– separate economies, but everything else being united. I mostly did this to allow the use of blue pieces for the Dutch. But I liked the result of French African pieces being reinforced by Dutch pieces and being able to move together.
What were the game results? When did the Dutch receive their NOs (what was their final income)? Was there any discernible difference in the Pacific?
Thanks for trying it out.
What were the game results? When did the Dutch receive their NOs (what was their final income)? Was there any discernible difference in the Pacific?
Thanks for trying it out.
They got the South American NO by the second turn. They kept a Dutch ship in the Pacific the whole game by moving a sub to SZ 52. It took quite some time for ANZAC or India to take control of the DEI as Japan was gunning very fast for Calcutta and all effort had to go toward keeping the capital.
Their highest income was 26 including NOs.
It did not make a difference in the Pacific. This is because the sub fled in order to keep the NO, and Japan never tried for the DEI, and when ANZAC never built enough transports to make use of the newly acquired infantry from the DEI.
Here’s were the Dutch were helpful. They built a ragtag navy of around 5 subs, 4 destroyers and 1 aircraft carrier. They destroyed the Italian fleet in SZ 92 allowing the Americans to land straight into Rome.
What did not work so well for the Dutch was transporting infantry and artillery into French West Africa. It took too long for those units to walk to Egypt to find some Italians to fight.
I think it is an interesting point to add a dutch faction, but a little unneccesary as the game is complicated as it is. We could also see a bulgarian faction, finnish faction, Romanian faction (which I would actually like to see), belgian faction, polish faction, Czech faction…etc. but seeing as the only countries of these that had a colonial presence at the time of the war were the belgians and dutch perhaps we could incoporate the two into one faction. I think the idea of giving them brazil is a little too far fetched. I think the territories owned by the belgian/dutch should be:
1. Angola
2. West Indies
3. Dutch east indies
4. Belgian congo
5. Suriname
6. Sri Lanka (on lease by the british)
delpoyments would be
Angola: 1 infantry
West Indies: 1 infantry, 1 airbase
Dutch east indies: 1 submarine off of Java, naval base on java
Belgain Congo: 2 infantry
Sri Lanka: 1 Destroyer, 1 infantry, 1 naval base
1 transport on a sz bordering London
Special rules:
the dutch forces can only deploy units on India or London, their income will be half of the value of the territories they control (7 ipc’s at the beginning)
National objectives:
The dutch will gain 2 ipc’s for every territory of the dutch east indies that the allies liberate or commandeer.
the Japaneses lose 2 ipc’s per turn every turn that their is a dutch sub within 4 spaces of tokyo representing admiral Helfrich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Emil_Lambert_Helfrich
Germany: takes control of Bulgaria and yugoslavia during setup 1infantry on yugo, 2 on bulg.
italy: takes control of greece and places two infantry there during setup and adds one infantry to their forces in ethiopia (anti-dutch congans)
Japan: add 1 DD and TT to SZ 6, National objective +3 ipc’s for no dutch ships in the pacific (east of malaya, west of new zealand) (seazones that include areas west of malaya/east of NZ are not included)
I think this is a better balance, I firmly believe that the dutch should not have control of Brazil or any industrial complexes, I think Sri Lanka is a more suitalbe addition then brazil because the Dutch had a small colony there and the British may have accepted a deal where they leased it to the dutch in place of the british taking ownership of the east indies.
@Weezer:
I think it is an interesting point to add a dutch faction, but a little unneccesary as the game is complicated as it is. We could also see a bulgarian faction, finnish faction, Romanian faction (which I would actually like to see), belgian faction, polish faction, Czech faction…etc. but seeing as the only countries of these that had a colonial presence at the time of the war were the belgians and dutch perhaps we could incoporate the two into one faction. I think the idea of giving them brazil is a little too far fetched. I think the territories owned by the belgian/dutch should be:
1. Angola
2. West Indies
3. Dutch east indies
4. Belgian congo
5. Suriname
6. Sri Lanka (on lease by the british)delpoyments would be
Angola: 1 infantry
West Indies: 1 infantry, 1 airbase
Dutch east indies: 1 submarine off of Java, naval base on java
Belgain Congo: 2 infantry
Sri Lanka: 1 Destroyer, 1 infantry, 1 naval base
1 transport on a sz bordering LondonSpecial rules:
the dutch forces can only deploy units on India or London, their income will be half of the value of the territories they control (7 ipc’s at the beginning)National objectives:
The dutch will gain 2 ipc’s for every territory of the dutch east indies that the allies liberate or commandeer.
the Japaneses lose 2 ipc’s per turn every turn that their is a dutch sub within 4 spaces of tokyo representing admiral Helfrich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Emil_Lambert_HelfrichGermany: takes control of Bulgaria and yugoslavia during setup 1infantry on yugo, 2 on bulg.
italy: takes control of greece and places two infantry there during setup and adds one infantry to their forces in ethiopia (anti-dutch congans)
Japan: add 1 DD and TT to SZ 6, National objective +3 ipc’s for no dutch ships in the pacific (east of malaya, west of new zealand) (seazones that include areas west of malaya/east of NZ are not included)I think this is a better balance, I firmly believe that the dutch should not have control of Brazil or any industrial complexes, I think Sri Lanka is a more suitalbe addition then brazil because the Dutch had a small colony there and the British may have accepted a deal where they leased it to the dutch in place of the british taking ownership of the east indies.
Angola was part of he Portuguese nation
