EXECUTIVE ORDER: if you add 1 rule you have to remove 2 other rules

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

I play whit a part of the rules and for the other i adapt a part of the rules. The scale of unit and terrain is not the same. But in overall is fun and much historical.

The Zimmerman note triggering the war IS the conclusion.

True, but it also represents the other German cruisers on the loose in the Pacific, South Atlantic & and Indian Oceans that cannot be represented. These were a serious concern for the Allies until eliminated.

Since A&A 1914 came out, I’ve been looking to import some of the rules from there into the Global 1940 game. The rule I’ve been eyeing most is the contested territory mainly, but as this is mainly a result of the limited combat rounds I feel it may limit the game too much. That was until I thought this could be a perfect time to implement oil rules! If you used oil to “buy” extra combat rounds as needed, this could simulate supplying your army as they attack. This really allows the use of the contested territory rules without the limiting effects of a hard one-round cap on combat, as well as limit territory exchanges. I thinking something along the lines of:

**Oil Refinery
Cost: 12-15
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defense: 0 (AA ability)

Oil Refinery: Oil refineries give the nation that possesses it 3 oil tokens. These refineries can be built in any land territory you control that can support an oil refinery i.e. a territory such as the Caucasus or Romania (places that had a historical set of oilfields during the conflict); you can only have one per territory.**

@Imperious:

The reduced values are realistic because the target is a fast moving plane and not a slow moving tank.

My point is: if you don’t dominate the skies, then you can’t loiter around doing the damage required to neutralize a dug-in infantry division, for example.

IMO, there should be some decrease in fighter lethality if enemy fighters remain in the battlespace.

Thanks Tekkyy

Yes, it would need rules for repairs; the choice for attackers is to cripple the entire enemy fleet in the hope of inflicting huge repair coasts, or to target and sink capital ships while taking the greater number of hits from escorts and fighters this would involve.