Neutral Set

Oztea also has a 1942 setup

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/20575/oztea-s-1942-global-setup

Any land assault from a sea zone with neutral ships in same sea zone gets to defend against the attacking navy. Then you can attack Oslo from sea if trannys survive.
If you attack Oslo you want to attack from Finland and with German airborne [also fort doesnt get to defend] so when you capture Oslo the neutral ships are rolled for and become scuttle or UK or German ships.

@Tall:

“Coach”,

––As far as the Island Warfare set in your Global Warfare-1939 series sets goes,….Do you have plans for making,…or could you PLEASE include an APD Attack Transport? These were the WW1 era 4-piper Destroyers that were rebuilt into Attack Transports for the Marine Raiders and other units. The Japanese also had simular Attack Transports and both were seen starting in the Guadalcanal campaign.
––My Marine Raiders are anxiously awaiting their rides into battle.

––I’m including a drawing & some pics, below.

“Tall Paul”

100400114.jpg
ban_apd009dent.jpg

thanks for the update you guys are the best. Can I ask what set is after UK?

i’m surprised we got neutral set with anything other than infantry. And very surprised it was released before USSR, UK, and Japan. I kind of get Italy, France and Anzac but before 3 of the 5 Major Powers? As far as USSR, UK and Japan goes I’m surprised we got two German sets and two American sets first and almost got a third american set.

@coachofmany:

@Lunarwolf:

how many infantry sculpts are u willing to do

2-4 different sculpts, possibly and not set.

so do you mean that they would be individual pieces with  diffident colors?

if neutrals are building infantry and such, then we go back to who gets to decide that?  if they are neutral they we can’t say the other side, because both sides are the other side.  if we give neutrals a standing army, and a military growth chart that sets how they grow each round or so, but deciding what Spain or Saudi Arabia could build is gonna be a big argument in game by the two sides and really isn’t going to be worth playing with, unless we made all the neutrals a standing 7th player and let them work together the whole game, but that’s so far from history…

–if we give neutrals a standing army, then to declare war I would think shouldn’t need to cost anything, as they have to fight enemy troops and there is a cost to that. 
–if we don’t give them a standing army, then yes, there should be a cost to declaring war, whether in dice, or that they have to move the number of units equal to the value of the territory in, or that the other side gets to roll equal number of dice to the value of the territory, then divide in half, round up to take the economic toll.  in some way should be a cost, beyond the classic 3IPC cost.
–if it is just diplomatic, then the cost of the dice work for that.

@onetthome:

These seem pretty cool, I’ll be sure to print the rules. I’m not seeing any rules for the Pacific though  :|

I appreciate the compliments from you and from Georgemak!

I’m currently putting the final touches on another rules set–a more advanced one. As is also the case for the rules set under discussion, this rules set is designed with a global war in mind. But that being said, I wouldn’t object to a custom map designer creating a Pacific scenario.

Every time I create a rules set like this, I try to build something generic enough that a custom map designer will have a lot of room in which to work. Working within the general framework, a custom map designer could create his own starting map, nations list, national advantages, disadvantages, and available technologies for each nation, starting unit setup, and other adjustments. The rules set is intended to give map designers plenty of room in which to exercise their creativity.

But my greatest current need is for a software developer. If anyone here is a developer or knows a developer who might be interested in something like this, please PM me.