Question about neutrals and powers at war with each other

@DallinD

Japan not attacking round 1 also has a similar strategy. You can focus on china for a turn and if you plan on a sea-lion attack with germany and the german turn went well you might want to prevent the US from doing anything for a few rounds.

With Sea-lion as a viable alternative and Japan in striking position but not yet at war anzac and the UK have to be carefull while the US has to decide how to split its money if they spend all on europe to maby counter sea-lion or liberate fast then japan can really mess around.

@J-o-C I’ve been considering trying attacking the neutrals, mostly for the helluva it. Thanks for laying out thoughts. As far as multi-national forces sequenced, I’m considering sending in U.K. forced into Saudi’s Arabia if conditions permit. Also, ANZAC on Argentina As a capper, maybe Chile also but Argentina first.

Sweden would be tough to get as Allies unless already in Norway so might Axis taking it might the cost of opening Spain and Turkey and make you commit to invading Europe form the south, not necessarily a bad thing.

@Panther Thanks Panther for this edit and clarification!

Matt

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

@simon33:

Airbases with 3 or more damage are not operational. Presumably this applies to rockets too.

I also read that they fire independently.

You are correct on both issues.

:-)

Right, Holland is treated as an already vanquished non-playable ally, like France. On that note, French territories after Paris falls should be treated in the same way, at least the UK could grab some extra income in West Africa, Madagascar & Syria. Would also encourage Germany to take Normandy.

I guess the implication of ‘activating’ friendly neutrals is having to wait for them to fully mobilize. Also not sure why you’d need a combat unit, why can’t an AAA do it? It has a built in support staff and troops.

True, I did not mean to say that one bad-luck battle increases your odds of a future good-luck battle. What I meant is that Global 1940 is a much bigger game than, say, Revised. Global has more units involved and more battles that matter. The effect of having more units and more battles is to soften the effect of any one unit missing or of any one battle going poorly. In other words, as you broaden your sample size, you get closer to achieving average results in the aggregate.

yukon and bc were combined into western canada.