Neutral Activation

@cthuwu said in Neutral Territory Infantry:

Do neutral territories regenerate infantry?

Say you attack Turkey, and only take out 6 of their infantry and you get wiped out, would their infantry regenerate back to 8 immediately, or when they remain with 2 until someone finishes them off?

If u want a house rule I can pm it to chat so don’t tie up this topic.

Right, Holland is treated as an already vanquished non-playable ally, like France. On that note, French territories after Paris falls should be treated in the same way, at least the UK could grab some extra income in West Africa, Madagascar & Syria. Would also encourage Germany to take Normandy.

I guess the implication of ‘activating’ friendly neutrals is having to wait for them to fully mobilize. Also not sure why you’d need a combat unit, why can’t an AAA do it? It has a built in support staff and troops.

If UK attacks and does not finish the standing army off, the standing army stays there.

I generally represent such a scenario with French units atop of chips as the French are the least utilized army.

If the Axis then moves in, you would represent all units there with the Axis nation that claims the remaining standing army.  So in example:

UK attacks Turkey and has to retreat after killing 4 units.
Put 1 French Inf atop of the remaining units (3, I think?)
Italy then moves in and claims Turkey.
Remove the French INF, place an Italian INF atop the chips.  They now move and act as Italian units.

Pretty sure that is how the scenario would work.  Just remember that claiming neutral standing armies is part of the NCM phase, so those units in Turkey can only defend until the subsequent Italian turn.

thank you for the answers, that was my understanding aswell, but my group couldn’t agree on it so i wanted to clear out things.

The original strategy was no secret what Japan was doing.  It was hauling units back and dropping serious money on transports.  The idea was to get them next to W. USA/Panama or one space away so you could close the Canal and take W. USA before America could build enough to stop you.  Meanwhile, the Germans had to be in SZ 91 with some transports of its own, it was like 10 transports and units in Gibraltar./SZ 91 so they could attack E. USA or E. Canada.  That made it so America lost Panama and W. USA but could build enough to stop an E. USA attack but not enough toliberate W. USA and E. Canada.

It was almost unstoppable.  Or rather, I have never seen anyone stop it.  (Putting that disclaimer on so that Jimmy/Jim dont start threads about how to stop Operation American Eagle, etc.)

I am always tempted to use this strategy with the allies. There is however always one thing which holds me from doing so: the Mongolian forces - if Japan can activate these units, I think this will tip the balance on the pacific board in favor of the Axis.

Nevertheless, It would be a disaster for Germany to defend another border, which is so close to france and the US at the same time…

@Gargantua:

So there is a DEFINITE seperation between invading a Friendly Neutral, and a friendly/allied territory.

That is what we’re currently trying to determine.

@kcdzim:

A) if the US controls finland (or has fighters there), it’s no longer neutral.  It MUST be at war to be in Finland, no other way around it.
B) if any axis power declares war on Russia on the Europe side of the map, Russia is no longer neutral (it’s at war with someone, so it’s a friendly power to the Allies).
C) Declaring War occurs at the beginning of the move phase, and scrambling occurs at the end (at which point Russia is at war with at least one Axis power).

So in your example, as Russia is not neutral, and the US is not neutral, US planes in Finland can scramble to the seazone against an attack on Russia.

Correct, except that TheDefinitiveS said “UK”, not “US”, but that is a minor point.  Either way, the scrambling power is at war.

@kcdzim:

Neutral non player powers are different, in that they never automatically flip to a side, they just change to “friendly neutrals”.

Not exactly true.  When attacked, they join the opposite side from the attacker.

@kcdzim:

And even “friendly neutrals” require a non combat move into them to take control, even after they’re forces have been activated by a failed enemy attack.

After being attacked, they are no longer neutral, but friendly to the opposite side from their attacker.  However, the territory and forces are uncontrolled, as you say.  The question at hand is the timing of this status change.

@kcdzim:

And a friendly neutral is not the same as a player power not yet at war - they have completely different diplomatic rules.  For example, if Russia is not at war on the Europe map, Britain CANNOT noncombat move through their spaces.  It is NOT the same as a friendly neutral, for lack of a better term it’s a Neutral Power, completely different than a Friendly Neutral or a Strict Neutral.

Correct.

I do mind these things, and will be posting on this soon.

Sierra Leone was an important Atlantic base for the UK, being it’s most westerly large colony in Africa.

However is does seem bizarre that warts like Rio de Oro and Portuguese Guinea are included while much larger and more important colonies have been left out.