Should we make better rules for invadable neutrals? (1940)

@barnee

You’re absolutely correct.

While in playing games against myself which are lower stakes I sometimes try it, when it comes to actual, serious games against other players I stay well away from it.

It’s mostly if you just want to spice the game up and you don’t care about winning or losing.

That being said the technology does give you great advantages depending in the power and technology.

Super Subs+Improved Shipyards almost guarantees US or Japanese (depending on who got both of them) dominance in the Pacific.

Of course getting those two technologies is not easy, but it’s not impossible.

@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.

@general-spengler Very interesting. I think having conscripts cost only $1 and be totally unable to attack is both a little sleepy and tends to give too much of an advantage to the defenders.

What about conscripts that cost $2, move 1, defend at 1 each, and attack at 1 as a stack? In other words, no matter how many conscripts you have in an attack, they all collectively only roll one die per round of battle, which only hits if the die is a 1.

This should naturally discourage players from building too many conscripts, since a stack of 5 conscripts is less cost-efficient than a single conscript.

You could also limit production of conscripts to 1 per factory and/or recruiting center per round. So if you have both a factory and a recruiting center in the same territory, you could buy up to 2 conscripts there per turn. If you have only a factory or only a recruitment center, then you could only buy 1 conscript per turn in that territory.

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

As the War progressed it became apparent to all Major Powers, that Weapons Production needed a significant increase.

The Total War rule reflects the efficiency in production as War materiel were mass produced.

G40 Total War.pdf

I can text you pics of the map too if you need.
You could look at map Sat if u wanted to show and play allies with me. I got a Gib plan too that u kinda wanted to try.

Do you play it that Italy does nothing while neutral, i.e. Italy cannot buy new units or move what they already have?

In my view this is essential for a workable neutral Italy; as far as the powers of the day were concerned mobilization was the equivalent of a declaration of war, so as soon as a power starts moving and building it should be considered at war for all purposes.

Also, it’s rather unfair that Italy can build, yet Austria cannot attack it. Therefore, if Italy can build/move R1/2 then Austria has no reason not to attack Venice R1 to prevent an Italian buildup, which of course renders the rule obsolete.

If you’re going to make Italy neutral for two turns, then Turkey should be neutral at least until the beginning of its first turn.

Why is Uk 23 and also Can I use this rule for Canada on 1940 2nd?

In terms of movement the port works the same as AAP, its not a new zone.

Under these rules the only way to get them out of port forcibly is by “dislodgement” by taking the territory by land, the naval units are put out to sea which will cause a naval battle on the following turn if enemy ships are blockading.

Also, i would limit air attacks at one round, with AA providing flak fire if present in the territory.

So under these rules the only time a port would be under attack is if you have like a single ship defending or overwhelming odds by air power knowing these planes will be loses