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

@jacobg I think that makes airplanes too vulnerable. You would need to make them cheaper.

Cheaper airplanes and more effective AA might well be more realistic, but be careful about shifting the balance.

I’m going to say that I don’t really like that this strategy is as effective as it is. If Japan changed the J2 buy to 2CV+1TT even full Pacific naval buys by USA wouldn’t stop this half the time, although obviously that would weaken the ground attack.

My view is that the game is a little broken here.

UK helping defend USA should stop this strategy pretty dead with troops/planes dropped in Quebec but really, should they have to? The other possibility is UK/Anzac retake of the Philippines which would help USA income if they can hold it but distracting Japan from its objectives may be enough.

@The-Captain

Didn’t know your team was so impressive. I look forward to the update.

@midnight_reaper that’s a cool idea and I might have to try it. However I don’t like the idea of getting advancements for free, which is why I like some sort of facility to buy. Since the G40 R&D board seems to have the better advances on one side I’d say you have to roll a 1-4 to get the 1 column, and 5-6 to get the second. Maybe even through in an added cost to get 1-3 & 4-6. But again with that, I think countries should have to build the facilities in their capitol instead of anywhere and starting with them.

I edited the Tacs in list.
Is there still a bid ?
BB & CR shore shot at 11 and 9 ?
How many table top games have you played ?

I assume you are asking about a land territory. The answer would be no. When you attack a land territory, you attack all country’s units that are in that land territory. So if Russia attacks an Italian territory that has German units in it, then Russia just declared war on Germany.
Sea zones are different. In a sea zone, you can attack one power’s units while other “neutral” power’s ships will simply sit there.

Hi all,

Been a long time reader on the boards, but this is my first time posting! Been an avid AA player and history buff for a long time. Sorry to post here at such a later date, but I wanted to get an opinion.

My take on adding Canada to the game without too much drastic effects on the playability involved a couple of moving parts.

Give Canada the 7 ipc income of the Canadian territories to spend each turn, but that same ipc value still counts towards the UK as well, with the UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Do the same thing for South Africa, giving them both South Africa territories and Rhodesia for a 4 ipc total. Again, UK still controls the money as well, with UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Both Commonwealths still play as part of the UK, buy, move, combat, etc. Essentially just adding 11 ipc income.

To counter this so it’s not unfair to the Axis, do the same thing with Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary (Slovakia-Hungary on the map of course). Those four powers would have a total of 9 ipc value between them. I figured the extra two ipc’s would have minimal effect.

Essentially all I did was add ipc’s and therefore troop numbers to the game, just forcing them to be used at their respective locales.

My only thought with this was would the immediacy of the minor Axis powers being on the front lines basically effect gameplay on the Eastern Front more so than the added Commonwealth powers would in Africa and Europe? I don’t want to hurt the USSR unfairly.

Any feedback would be great! Glad to finally post and be a part of the community!

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