New system. USA starts the game with South America under control

Cow

This system is really fair and works out pretty good. Just pick a side and play. The neutrals with infs and moneys in South America become USA inf and territories, adjust income, wam bam pick a side and play the game.

calvinhobbesliker

Do they get the infantry in South America?

aequitas-et-veritas

So America gets plus 8IPC income.
Is the NO expanded?
Is S.A. homeland terry as well?

A little bit more info please cow.
It sounds interesting.

The Hessian

Do they get the infantry in South America?

I would say yes; at least this is how I understand it. The big question for me is: Do you mean the whole continent or just Brazil?

Anyway, a nice suggestion.

Cow

The whole continent. Start the game, adjust the income, get the infs. It is not bad. No need to bid, if you want to you can do something small, even 3 ipc goes a long way in egypt or just make the 2 African territories worth 1 ipc part of UK and give them the 4 inf. The inf stay where the territory is and can move out round 1.

Anyway doing South America to USA feels much more organic. Latin America did support the allies, mostly under the table, some of which direct with strait up ships, canadian airforce volunteers and trade.

I like this system because it is much more forgiving for both sides. Extra sub every round goes a long way and the starting inf help usa get rolling sooner so less crazy 20+ bids are needed.

CWO Marc

In practical terms, it’s not necessary for the US to control all of South America to get the full bonus income and the full bonus infantry being described here because Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, British Guiana, Suriname and French Guiana have neither standing armies nor IPC income values. All the US needs to control is Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina and Chile (for a total of 11 standing army infantry units and 8 IPCs), which is more plausible than controlling the whole continent. The four countries involved are credible as US WWII allies, though to varying degrees. Brazil declared war on the Axis in mid-1942 and actually contributed combat troops to the European theatre in 1944. Venezuela was technically neutral until late in the war, but it provided lots of oil to the Allies. Chile was neutral for most of the war, but broke relations with the Axis in 1943. Argentina was a complicated case: like Chile, it broke relations with the Axis in 1943 and only made a late entry into the war, but it was in an awkward position because on the one hand it was traditionally close to Germany and it had an authoritarian government, while on the other hand it was under US pressure to side with the Allies.

One question for Cow: when you say “get the infs”, meaning that the standing armies of these four countries become US units, do they simply stay where they are? I assume so, because I think the only way they could legitimately be moved to the European front would be by naval transport.

Adam514

What you should consider with this change is that now there won’t be as much of a dissuasion for the Axis to declare war on the neutrals. In fact, neutral crushes might even happen in most games with this.

Cow

It is mostly Turkey and Spain that dissuades axis from dowing neutrals, that is it. (oh sure 4 inf by india and saudi arabia and south africa)

Anyway. Yes, I usually just do the cash flow SA places, less editing. Argentina provided airmen to Canadian/Royal Air force. Chile provided a few ships to USA. Venezuela late DOW. They all supported the allies through trade as well.

The Hessian

@Cow:

It is mostly Turkey and Spain that dissuades axis from dowing neutrals,…

Don’t forget Sweden (6 Inf. & German NO).

Black_Elk

I like this idea a lot. From an ease of implementation standpoint it seems preferable to most other suggestions to rebalance the G40 game by sides. Nice work man!
:-D

Ps. I like Marc’s suggestion, again for ease of use, because it requires less USA roundels to get up and running.

barney

sounds like a Excellent idea ! You could give the US the dough and leave the inf neutral until activated by a US ground unit. Shouldn’t make much difference. Might give a little flavor. : )

Yea good idea, sounds cool

Young Grasshopper

Good idea Cow!… I hope it grows some legs.

regularkid

tried it yesterday. liked it. will do it again.

knp7765

If I remember the map right, you also need to include Columbia to make a US territory. It doesn’t have any IPCs or standing army, but it is located between Central America and Brazil/Venezuela. Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Venezuela all connect to one another but Columbia blocks the path to Central America and on up to the US.

I like this idea too because I’ve never cared for having to go around the neutrals, especially now that a lot of them are worth precious IPCs. I would carry this further:
All South American neutrals go to the US.
All African neutrals go to the UK.
Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Portugal and Ireland to the UK.
Sweden and Switzerland to Germany.
Spain to Italy.
Turkey to Russia.
Mongolia to Japan.

regularkid

columbia doesn’t block. Venezuela is connected to panama.

CWO Marc

@knp7765:

All South American neutrals go to the US.
All African neutrals go to the UK.
Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Portugal and Ireland to the UK.
Sweden and Switzerland to Germany.
Spain to Italy.
Turkey to Russia.
Mongolia to Japan.

Are these allocations based on how likely these countries were to be conquered by the powers that get them? Or on the political leaning of these countries towards the powers that get them? Either way, some of the allocations leave me perplexed. Turkey and Russia were traditional enemies, with a long history of competing interests in the Balkans and the Black Sea. Mongolia was for all intents and purposes a subsidiary of the USSR, with whom it was on very cozy terms, and Japan had failed miserably in its late-1930s attempts to bite off pieces of it.

Black_Elk

The beauty of COW’s suggestion is that it only involves changing the ownership of 4 territories, and they’re all in the same localized zone, so easy to adjust. Start adding in too much more, and the set up tweak will lose its essential charm.

There is only one further option I would consider, to tie this stuff together with a nice blue ribbon, and that is…

“Change the starting ownership of Sierra Leone from True Neutral to UK”

The reasons are both historical and gameplay oriented, since the British did have a naval base in Freetown.

The historical justification: since we are back-loading all those South American nations into the 1940 conflict, it makes sense to me to do the same with this W. African territory, which was involved in the conflict from early on. I honestly am not even sure why this territory is designated “true neutral” on the gameboard in the first place? Perhaps it was an error in the original draft that was never corrected?

CWO could probably provide some insights.

Gameplay justification: this way the Allies can build a naval base with access to sz 87, for the African shuck out of E. USA. And to make the new starting possessions in South America more useful with another staging zone. This seems a bit easier to me than changing all the French territory in Africa to UK, since its just the one spot.

That would be 5 total roundels, 4 neutrals to USA and 1 to UK. All in the same basic region of the game map. Easy to manage.

Any thoughts?

CWO Marc

I have no idea why the map designates Sierra Leone as a neutral. It was British-controlled at the time: Freetown (where there was indeed a naval base during WWII) had the status of a British crown colony, while the rets of the country was a British protectorate. So this element of the map is indeed puzzling. Mind you, this is the same map which implies (by land colour and roundel) that Mexico, Central America and the West Indies are all part of the United States…so it’s hardly a model of geopolitical rectitude.

An argument could be made, by the way, that Sierra Leone’s game map neighbor Liberia ought to be a pro-Allied neutral. The US and Liberia were on very close terms during WWII: American troops served there, a lot of servicemen transited through it, and it was an important supplier of rubber at a time when Japan controlled many other sources for this material. In practical terms, however, this change wouldn’t affect very much because Liberia has no IPCs and no standing army.

General Veers

At this rate why not give Mongolia to the Soviets? Maybe those six extra infantry can be the difference in a Moscow defense.

Black_Elk

I like these rules because they don’t require anything to achieve beyond a few roundels and following the information that’s already printed on the map.

Just change the neutral ownership or standing armies in the designated area, and switch to new owner.

Here is a save edit, with the suggested changes…

I included the Sierra Leone correction. For the start date Sierra Leone should definitely belong to UK in 1940.

Having a West Africa space to UK that borders sz 87 provides an interesting possibility that isn’t available OOB, a repeating shuck for USA into Africa!

if UK chooses to build an NB, this could help to accelerate the US involvement on a possible torch or sub-saharan route, that doesn’t just hinge everything on Gibraltar.

The new USA possessions in South America, fits with the theme already present on the OOB map in central America and the Caribbean, that the nations in this hemisphere contribute directly to the US war effort. The 8 extra IPCs bring the USA to a clean 60 ipcs.

Nice and round! I like it a lot :-D

Global 1940 South America to USA.tsvg

New system. USA starts the game with South America under control

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

New Neutrals Rules (G40)

America at War

USA - G40 - One economy Two Players

Victory condition for short games

New Pieces/Rules on a Throwback Board.

Russia as Axis ? Or, just stay Neutral whole game?

New Weapons Developement

Does the game need more types of units?

43

17.9k

40.7k

1.8m