True Neutrals

There were a few wars fought in South America in the early 30’s. I don’t know who had who’s backing in those conflicts. There was the Guerra del 41 between Equador and Peru. I know the US supported Peru and Japan supported Equador, but I’m pretty sure that support was from the bleachers. The only equipment I can tell you for sure that was used was the Czech LTP (Panzer 38t). These were used by Peru.
Peru had all the gear. They actually prepared for war. This lead to Peru having a 3-4 to 1 advantage in men and equipment. Except for tanks. Equador had none. Peru had around 25. Take a wild guess at who won.

Played our first game of 1914 tonight and had a blast. Afterwards, we brainstormed some additional house rules (because gamers, I suppose), and one stuck out. Before I say this, let me note this is a very casual crowd.

Rule: A neutral minor power when attacked by one faction or the other sides with the one that did not attack it. If it is able to repel the invasion, it becomes a fully functioning member of the alliance it joined. It has IPCs, builds units, deploys them, and attacks.

Cause: Almost no reason not to attack some of these nations. Defeat means nothing- the scale of units involved means a small handful of units lost is not a true blow. The potential IPC gain outweighs the risk in all but a few instances. By making neutral powers a bigger threat, hopefully players will only attack those they deem important to a war winning strategy and not just as random acts of violence for IPC gain. This can lead to silliness with Switzerland and the Nordic countries along with Spain among others.

Mechanics: New factions get 6/8 IPCs plus whatever IPC total is on their territories. From this point we had some disagreement:
1- They are a fully active faction with no restrictions.
2- They can only attack the faction that attacked them and their territories.
3- They can only counter attack into the territories that the attack against them was launched

––
I posted this in the 1914 forum, then I saw the House Rules forum.  I believe that is the forum suited for the idea. I would message the mods to move this thread but their profiles indicate they’ve been gone for a while. I apologize for my faux paus.

That’s fair, would also include the caveat for Spain that Germany must be at war with the Soviet Union (since they can get a peacetime NO to start with).

Liberia should also be US-friendly, not that it would ever play a role in the game.

Your right it was. Thanks for the heads up. I wish I got that in a pm from the mod who moved it but oh well. Strange how discussions of rail, the board itself, bids, reductions of navy or any other tweak to the game didn’t end up there as well.

It would only be Pro-Axis on German and Italian turns, to prevent the US from covering it with green army men.

I guess the rule would be reflecting that IF the European axis was gaining a lot of traction, Franco would be a little more accommodating to the Axis. But just because the Axis is doing well wouldn’t make Spain a target for the allies unless it was annexed.

I guess perhaps some other nations could become Pro-Allies under certain NO conditions for them……its just a little more difficult.

The big neutral players are Spain, Turkey, Sweden and Mongolia. The first three may have been convinced to join the axis. The last one was already a communist enclave.

@MacNaughton:

But for the sake of game mechanics, it is important that we say that Germany “liberates” Rome. Also, for the sake of game mechanics, we can only take historical accuracy so far. Which means that if Rome is liberated by Germany, then we pretend that all the Italian territories all over the board will be perfectly happy to come back under the rule of Italy no matter the actual feeling of those people in actual history.

Exactly. Thank you, sir.

@Imperious:

All those dice rolls thing would imbalance the game, only a fixed result can be balanced and must be.

Hmm… We are both talking about Axis and Allies, right?

IDK, maybe you treat all true neutrals as independent nations (no blocks, or alliances w/other powers or neutrals). Mongolian tt aren’t included, they remain part of the NAP.

Pay 5 IPCs to roll a diplo dice. You can buy as many as you want (or maybe limit it to 1-2 per turn), but each one is dedicated to only one true neutral tt per turn, and you must be able to invade. State what true neutral nation you are trying to sway/invade (must have units dedicated to the invasion, and can’t make changes after dice is rolled). Once you start the process there is no turning back, you must follow through that turn.

Roll your diplo dice.

Roll 1 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), and the standing army joins you (immediately becomes your color) because you negotiated them to join your cause (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

Roll 2 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), but the standing army doesn’t join you (it is dissolved) because you negotiated a peaceful occupation, and they laid down their arms (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

Roll 3-4 tt becomes pro your enemy. You have to fight the standing army at least one round of battle and if you retreat any surviving units immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice of controlling power). Whom ever controls the tt will get the IPC value in their collect income phase.

Roll 5 and the standing army is doubled, you must again fight at least one round of battle, but then can retreat. You under estimated the resolve of the country and their will to fight. Any survivors from the standing army would immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice).

Roll 6 failed attempt. You lost your investment, and it was deemed not in the best interest to continue negotiations or attempt an invasion. This was a diplomatic process, so nothing changes, and the standing army stays intact.

As note #1 I also think that any neutral tt w/o standing army, or IPC value should be awarded 1 inf (maybe 2) so the US can’t just waltz down through say Columbia w/o resistance to get to the more valuable S American nations.  All the above would apply.

*As note#2 you could beef up the 3 major true neutrals to include better units in the standing army.

It’s simple, yet a bit more sensical than what we have now: In any turn you wish to attack strict neutrals, you have the option of “buying off” any remaining ones so that they stay neutral.

Case in point: Germany wishes to attack Sweden, but obviously doesn’t want to turn Spain or Turkey against them. To keep them as strict neutrals, Germany must pay 2 + 2 (the IPC values of each territory).

If it wants to include Afg. and Saudi Arabia, then 2 + 2 + 2 + (say a min of 1 IPC, for those territories with no IPC values).

These territories would also stay strictly neutral in the event of an Allied attack (although perhaps that can be debatable). Also, the IPC costs themselves: perhaps double the tt value would be better, but those are, of course, details.

Thoughts?