True Neutrals

I’d say it is utterly situational, rather than a strategy to be used. In a desperate game, I tried it with the Allies, and it showed promise, but the game was already over.

I believe it could have serious advantages if completed early enough by the Axis… Spain grants access to Gibraltar and keeps Italy in their NO… Turkey allows for land forces to flow into the Middle East. Norway gives an extra 3 IPCs once defeated.That’s 7 IPCs in income plus fantastic strategic positioning.

I just don’t have the guts to do it!

I was once on Axis as Italy with my good friend as Germany and it worked exactly as the previous poster described. By using subs/air power to neutralize UK the Axis was able to build up significant land forces instead of feinting Sea Lion with a transport purchase. With these extra land forces we went for a neutral crush. We hit Turkey, Sweden, and Spain on the same turn which was turn 2. From there we had instant access to Gibraltar, we sealed it off and were then able to reinforce the defenses by land instead of vulnerable transports. Sweden overall weakened our strategic position in the North but we needed to retain the NO bonus. Turkey allowed Italy to bust through into the Middle East flanking UK forces there. In the long run the game was decided with the Axis winning. The U.S. tried to land in Spain was bogged down by a counter attack by the Gibraltar, Normandy and Southern France troops. Russia had some success in the North with Germany and Russia trading Scandinavian territories but was losing in the main battle. Italy was able to capture Egypt and the Middle Eastern territories fairly quickly giving it lots of NO cash. When the game ended Italy was just about to take the Caucuses and make a move on India. It was also slowly progressing south towards South Africa. While Britain was somewhat able to recover the continued convoy raiding and air attacks it was never able to make any significant moves against the Euro Axis and with the United State’s first major offensive in Spain losing its steam very quickly we called the game.

@aaron91:

I was once on Axis as Italy with my good friend as Germany and it worked exactly as the previous poster described. By using subs/air power to neutralize UK the Axis was able to build up significant land forces instead of feinting Sea Lion with a transport purchase. With these extra land forces we went for a neutral crush. We hit Turkey, Sweden, and Spain on the same turn which was turn 2. From there we had instant access to Gibraltar, we sealed it off and were then able to reinforce the defenses by land instead of vulnerable transports. Sweden overall weakened our strategic position in the North but we needed to retain the NO bonus. Turkey allowed Italy to bust through into the Middle East flanking UK forces there. In the long run the game was decided with the Axis winning. The U.S. tried to land in Spain was bogged down by a counter attack by the Gibraltar, Normandy and Southern France troops. Russia had some success in the North with Germany and Russia trading Scandinavian territories but was losing in the main battle. Italy was able to capture Egypt and the Middle Eastern territories fairly quickly giving it lots of NO cash. When the game ended Italy was just about to take the Caucuses and make a move on India. It was also slowly progressing south towards South Africa. While Britain was somewhat able to recover the continued convoy raiding and air attacks it was never able to make any significant moves against the Euro Axis and with the United State’s first major offensive in Spain losing its steam very quickly we called the game.

Good for you that it worked well, but from what i read here i have the feeling that the USA didn’t chose their offensive very good.

A question, what would you have done against all this if you had been the Allies?

Also, I’m curious, did the USA pick up the South American IPC’s and units, and did it make any difference for them??

And did the extra units for UK (aghanistan, etc) make any difference? (or did Japan put the pressure on India?) (or was it a Europe, not a Global?)

Lots of questions  :)

I have tried the strict neutral crush a couple of times when I played Germany.  I made sure I was in position to take Spain, Sweeden and Turkey all at once. 
In one game, it worked really well;  German and Italian troops went through Turkey to threaten the Middle East and create a southern front against Russia.  Stalingrad was taken much quicker.  Spain made Gibraltar much easier to defend.  Sweeden didn’t have much of an impact except to get those extra 3 IPCs and solidify the German Scandanavian NO.
In the other game, it turned out to be a disaster.  Fighting those three countries’ armies took too many units and cost too many casualties.  Defenses ended up too week on Spain and Gibraltar so USA took both and simply absorbed Portugal.  My north force was weak and failed to take Karelia.  Then the Russians rolled through Scandanavia.  Turkey put up such a fight, plus I didn’t commit enough forces, that Germany didn’t take Turkey but Italy did.  Therefore, Italy had some fun rampaging through the Middle East but it messed up Germany’s attack on Russia in the south.

So, I guess the point is, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.  In later games, both Axis and Allies pretty much leave strict neutrals alone.

One thing, have you thought of trying “neutral blocks”?  It’s a house rule we have adopted where the neutrals are sectioned into geographical blocks;  European neutrals, Middle East neutrals, African neutrals, South American neutrals and Mongolian neutrals.  So, if you attack a strict neutral, ONLY the neutrals in that block change to pro-other side.  The thinking is why would Mongolia or Argentina care if Sweeden was attacked?  Just an idea.  Even using neutral blocks, our players tend not to attack strict neutrals anyway.

i think neutral blocks would make it more tempting for the Germans to attack strict neutrals becuase that would only make switzerland sweden spain portugal and turkey pro allies. since your likly going to attack those anyways its much more likly to happen IMHO

I’ve toyed with blocks too, it certainly makes more sense.  However there are no true nuetrals in Africa, they are all colonies of European states.  So we have the blocks be Spain and its colonies and Portugal and its colonies.  SAmerica is another block and the Middle East.  Mongolia gets its own rules since its actually a soviet puppet at this time.

@JimmyHat:

I’ve toyed with blocks too, it certainly makes more sense.  However there are no true nuetrals in Africa, they are all colonies of European states.  So we have the blocks be Spain and its colonies and Portugal and its colonies.   SAmerica is another block and the Middle East.  Mongolia gets its own rules since its actually a soviet puppet at this time.

What are these special rules for Mongolia?

That only Russia can invade Mongolia, that they can only do so once Japan invade USSR, not USSR invading Japan.  Russia also has to spend most of one turns of money to take Mongolia.  20 ipcs to the bank to turn them Russian.  This negates the value to Russia of the infantry, although not entirely because their location also gives some value.

With some simple house rules attacking the true neutrals does not need to be insane.

In our group we are remove 1 inf in each of the mongolian territories and in angola and mozambique. This makes attacking an European true neutral less devastating for the asian land war and makes it less severe for the Italians. Its also more true to history which is a bonus.

We are also thinking of making Argentina as a pro-axis minor. This would be partly to make south america a possible theatre of operations and also to reduce the extreme impact on the american economy and manpower from attacking a true neutral. Not very true to history but we just regard that as a potential bonus.