TH-cam Administration you can build small factories on territories (not islands) with at least a value of 2 IPC’s according to the second edition rule book.
The one thing I noticed is that in 1st edition 1940 Pacific, ANZAC can get a national objective bonus for capturing an originally held Japanese territory. In 2nd edition this is removed. Maybe this was done to prevent ANZAC from getting too strong if they capture an insignificant island like Paulau, for balance purposes.
Fun fact! for number 4 it’s only Major Factories that have to be with national marker. So Japan can still build a minor factory on any of those Chinese territories, just not a Major one.
Oh and for Canada, on the First Edition version of the map there are Two Territories on the west, while in Second Edition (the newer one) there is only Western Canada on the map. It will say first or second on the box next to the name and on the map next to the name
I believe that the strict neutrals are the way they are not to represent what side countries are on but rather what side Catherine country actually join (for like the height of the war, 1940-42)
So although Argentina was pro axis they never officially declared war on the Allies same with Spain. I think it does make the game more historical, or more closer to real life because once again in real life Spain never joined the war against the allies, neither did Chile, or Argentina. And while certainly a lot of South American countries joined the Allies at the very end I also believe that they aren’t included because they didn’t do much in the war (in major sense) and that Brazil was probably just important enough and joined the war in the middle (not at the end) to be allowed.
The original First Edition map of Axis and Allies 1940 had the territories Yukan and British Columbia in Canada and both are mentioned correctly in the First Edition rulebook. However, 1940 Second Edition merged the territories into one - Western Canada on the map but forgot to update the Second Edition rulebook with this modification. The change was made to reduce confusion with starting IPC's for UK Europe when the game was combined into Global 1940 and UK Pacific when it was played on it's own.
I feel like the new UK roundel makes it more confusing. All the Canadian roundels go to UK Europe. Western Canada IPC also goes to UK Europe in global while Western India goes to UK Pacific. Keeping it Canadian made this easier to remember.
Rule 4: only major industrial complexes are limited in the way you mentioned in the video. Minors can bee placed on any territory the player held at the start of their turn, with an IPC value of 2 of greater. Rule 3: The board in the video is the same as mine, a first edition board. There is also a sleight sea zone change, I believe in the North Pacific.
It is absolutely essential for Spain to be true neutral for game balance. If Spain is allowed to be pro-axis neutral (as it probably should be IRL), then the USA gains an overwhelming advantage since the USA can invade Spain directly from the US East Coast (using the allied UK naval base in Gibraltar). The USA can do this almost immediately after it enters the war and with overwhelming force, and if the USA can establish a strong base with an IC on Spain (pretty easy for the US), Germany is toast on jam. The only thing stopping this is the fact that if the USA invades Spain, it shifts all the other neutrals to pro-Axis including Turkey which is real bad news for the allies (the UK in particular). If Spain is pro-Axis, this issue goes away and the US becomes even stronger than it is already.
fair but i think this point is that if Brazil was given a pro allies label than why not spain. I believe his argument is that Brazil shouldn't have gotten one at all.
@@mrhype1616 Except that Brasil absolutely should. Unlike most other South American nations, Brasil did join on the side of the allies when the outcome of the war really was in doubt. Granted this was 1942 not 1940, but then again the USA itself didn't officially join the conflict until nearly 1942 as well. In addition to that if you look at prior editions of A&A, you find that Brasil along with Mexico are counted as part of the "US" (i.e. part of the North American alliance against Germany and Japan) and both (Mexico and Brasil) sent combat troops on the allied side. If anything calling Brasil 'pro-allied' neutral is understating the case. By contrast Franco in Spain was very coy with Germany (at the urging of Adm Canaris who was double-dealing Hitler) and tried as much as he could to very much keep Germany at arm's length after meeting with Adm Canaris. That said, I agree that 'realistically' Spain should be pro-Axis neutral, but see my above post for the game play implications of that.
I use a rule for Spain (sort of like the Turkey rule for 1940 HBG game) where nations can try to bribe Spain to their side. I find this to make the game have a chance to swing but at the start of the game it is true neutral.
Well lets rethink: If Spain would be pro-Axis, Germany would capture it before US gets it and definitely enforce the troops in there. The US is not able even if Japan attacks them in turn one to beat 6 Infs, because just having a transport at the beginning. Even in turn two they won‘t have the power to attack 6 Infs + German troops. So Germany would be able to reinforce Spain as it would do with Normandy-Bordeaux or Holland and Belgium. The only thing: The attack on the SU would be realized later (but normally I (I do not speak for everyone) attack them not before turn 3.
@@aqhatalhalef17 The Germans would not be able to take a pro-Axis Spain before G2. Only the Italians could non-combat take an axis learning Spain on turn one, and for the Axis that would be the worst of all possible worlds given how exposed Spain is to direct Attack from the Eastern/Central US....and the US player can outbuild ANYTHING the Axis can put on spain unless the Germans don't go after Russia in a big way which is a mistake.
I know western Canada is for the second edition and BC and Yukon is the first edition. I have Europe 2nd edition and pacific 1st edition and I'm glad because being Canadian I like feeling represented I'm even from British Columbia
Really awesome video, I would love to publish this on my channel if you will allow me... I’m not monitized and I would of course provide a link to your channel in the description box. I would appreciate it very much, but I would also understand if you don’t wish to. Thanks... great job.
I have played a game where the Allies won at the end of round 5, Although my axis powers were being a little incompetent, with the German Player leaving the Russian Border supremely undefended. Also, Japan failed to acknowledge the threat of the impending doom of the USA, and they even had to wait for turn three to join. Aside from this, I have never experienced even close to an allied victory.
Good video. I've always marveled at how A&A allows for significant troop movement through the very north of Norway and Finland. I would make a large swath of territory up there "impassable" as Siberia. The weather and lack of infrastructure in that region certainly prohibits major troop movement. So I would add: 1) Ground movement/attack cannot occur between Finland and Norway or Finland and Sweden. 2) Invasions cannot be made from sea zone 127.
That's an interesting house rule. I wonder how much more of an advantage that gives the Germans since that route allows the British or Americans to relieve pressure for the Soviets.
@@nolimit7959 The problem is that Italy is perpetually starved for cash. It's not good enough for Italy to deny the UK IPCs (although she should), but Italy needs to get cash for herself including her own N.O.s. The problem with Malta (and Cypress for that matter) is that it wastes a turn for Italy's Navy and Italy's Navy doesn't get that many turns, and a competent UK player doing "Middle Earth" will have the Naval Resources to take back either easily after the Italian Navy has long since been sunk.
I think the Western Canada thing has to do with just playing the Pacific game. In the Pacific only, Canada isn't listed as separate to the British Empire and doesn't have a factory or anything, so it goes to Britain/India. Then maybe they changed it to fit global better where Canada is more seperate to the British with a factory and bases.
The thing that really annoyed me about the new game board is that for some inexplicable reason Sierra Leone is depicted as strict neutral when it was a British colony. Freetown was the major British naval base in West Africa for the war so what gives? Making it British wouldn't have even changed anything because the territory has zero IPC value and isn't in a very crucial spot. At times I've considered making it a house rule to regard it as UK territory at start but it's actually that meaningless where there's really no point in doing that.
For my house rules I put an airbase on Malta and strict neutral only work with those in the same continent so Sweden only cares for other neutral European countries
I always take Malta with Italy if I get the chance and same goes for Cyprus. You take away a UK bonus so why would you not do it. If things go bad for the Italians, they at least keep away a UK bonus for several extra rounds. And may even get some cheap shots at some UK units taking back these islands. As a UK player it can be really a pain in the a** to retake these islands and if you are not patient you might end up losing way more than a bonus for several rounds. And if Germany plays dark skys then the UK can forget about ever getting that bonus back...
@@jacobcathcart5091 If you give Italy more troops in Africa the game would be broken. Italy can be a real headache for the Allies with a littel help from Germany.
Nice work, however, after years of debate and trying different things with regard to strict Neutrals, we finally settled on the best way to handle them as to not give an advantage to one side or the other. What we do is strict neutrals can be attacked by either side. You need to destroy the standing armies, and you then control the IPC value for that territory, HOWEVER, if the now owned neutral is attacked by the other side, and captured, the attacking side gains that IPC value, AND it also gets a one time free reformation of the standing army present at the beginning of the game. All other strict neutrals do NOT automatically become pro axis, or pro allies. This makes a ton of sense historically, and also a great deal of strategic and tactical sense with regard to actual game play and flow of the game. It also adds a new element to how you approach the games as a whole. We've play tested this on more than a dozen occasions with no conflicts or an unfair advantage to either player. What do you think?
Seems pretty broken for USA to hop the Atlantic in one turn. Nobody can contest it pretty early on and then they build a factory there. USA is 2-3 turns earlier on the European mainland
That's interesting. I think that the one-time bonus army - seems similar to what the French receive if liberated by America - makes sense for some strict neutrals but maybe not all. Generally, though, I agree with any house rule that eliminates the rule that all other strict neutrals because pro-the other side.
I don’t know why but my global version does not begin with units on Malta and a big English fleet in the mediteran sea next to Malta. Anyone knows what the problem is?
I feel a lot of people look at pro neutrals as a very literal term and not what it means in the game. All pro axis neutrals were countries that at some point joined the war on the axis side. Just because spain was "pro axis" in real life doesn't mean it would be in the game because it doesn't mean sympathetic or friendly it means ready to join the war.
Regarding the damaged BB offshore and neutrals (esp Spain), I feel like you overly burden the game with details it wasn’t designed to support. It’s a simplified strategic game that incentivizes historical outcomes to certain degrees. If Spain was pro-axis, then in almost every game you’d have an ahistorical outcome with axis acquisition or no incentive for the allies not to invade. There are other games with the level of detail you seek though, if that’s your thing... still, I like the vid.
The thing about Spain is, despite Franco's Nazi-Fascist sympathies, if Hitler had marched into Spain like he did (for example) Austria, Spain would most likely have joined the Allies.
Historically Spain got stuff imported from America and the U.K. so even though they might have wanted to join the Axis, they would have lost everything they were getting from the U.K. and America; which is why didn’t join the Axis.
The old edition has the two territories in Canada, and second edition has one. You map is correct, you rulebook is wrong, and your online map is wrong. For the South American neutrals, it is a balance choice. Giving them as pro-axis would allow the US to come through and take the IPCs, while Germany doesn't ever have a chance to get the IPP. As for Spain, alot of people explained, would ruin the balance. Also, historically, Spain was asked to join the war but didn't. They had great fears of the Allied attacks, and much of their food supply was imported. Going to war risked famine and even more devise war in the aftermath of a 4 year civil war. Their greatest involvement was sending some volunteers to fight the USSR and conducting trade with Germany. Look at it this way: nations that actually DECLARED WAR are pro-somebody neutrals. Anyone that DIDN'T declare war or didn't do so until very late in the war (about 1945) are strict.
I wholly agree with you about Spain. Disagree with regard to Panama, Argentina and Chile. Having a leader who is vocally pro Axis does not equate to the country being pro Axis, or it's government, or it's economy. Panama is the easiest example of this. Panama is and was dominated by it's relationship with the US. Precisely why their leader was looking to gain political capital by bashing the US. I would say to a less obvious degree, the same holds true for both Chile and Argentina in 1940.
It seems that countries are pro-allies/axis only if they were to the extent that they'd join the war in full for that side (and before the war was decided). Economic support or assistance for ships/aircraft isn't really represented (some exceptions, like sweden are represented thru national objectives). Given this criteria spain and argentina seem accurate to me.
México and Central América, need to Star as pro allies. But if you have 1936, need to star as pro axis, example, Costa Rica goberment 1936-1940 have a lot of love for axis europe, and a Nazi club and Temple in Cartago province, and a Nazi Migration minister. In 1941 New gobernante and Comunist Alliance of Calderón and PCC change that...
No 4. I was under the impression that major factories can’t be built on captured territories, but that minor factories can be.
Minors can be build everywhere, majors only if the territory:
1) is building country's motherland
2) the IPC production is 3 or more in this territory
TH-cam Administration you can build small factories on territories (not islands) with at least a value of 2 IPC’s according to the second edition rule book.
Correct on all counts.
The one thing I noticed is that in 1st edition 1940 Pacific, ANZAC can get a national objective bonus for capturing an originally held Japanese territory. In 2nd edition this is removed. Maybe this was done to prevent ANZAC from getting too strong if they capture an insignificant island like Paulau, for balance purposes.
Fun fact! for number 4 it’s only Major Factories that have to be with national marker. So Japan can still build a minor factory on any of those Chinese territories, just not a Major one.
Oh and for Canada, on the First Edition version of the map there are Two Territories on the west, while in Second Edition (the newer one) there is only Western Canada on the map. It will say first or second on the box next to the name and on the map next to the name
So it’s actually the other way around, you map is the updated one and the one in the rules is outdated
I believe that the strict neutrals are the way they are not to represent what side countries are on but rather what side Catherine country actually join (for like the height of the war, 1940-42)
So although Argentina was pro axis they never officially declared war on the Allies same with Spain. I think it does make the game more historical, or more closer to real life because once again in real life Spain never joined the war against the allies, neither did Chile, or Argentina.
And while certainly a lot of South American countries joined the Allies at the very end I also believe that they aren’t included because they didn’t do much in the war (in major sense) and that Brazil was probably just important enough and joined the war in the middle (not at the end) to be allowed.
The original First Edition map of Axis and Allies 1940 had the territories Yukan and British Columbia in Canada and both are mentioned correctly in the First Edition rulebook. However, 1940 Second Edition merged the territories into one - Western Canada on the map but forgot to update the Second Edition rulebook with this modification. The change was made to reduce confusion with starting IPC's for UK Europe when the game was combined into Global 1940 and UK Pacific when it was played on it's own.
I feel like the new UK roundel makes it more confusing. All the Canadian roundels go to UK Europe. Western Canada IPC also goes to UK Europe in global while Western India goes to UK Pacific. Keeping it Canadian made this easier to remember.
Rule 4: only major industrial complexes are limited in the way you mentioned in the video. Minors can bee placed on any territory the player held at the start of their turn, with an IPC value of 2 of greater.
Rule 3: The board in the video is the same as mine, a first edition board. There is also a sleight sea zone change, I believe in the North Pacific.
It is absolutely essential for Spain to be true neutral for game balance. If Spain is allowed to be pro-axis neutral (as it probably should be IRL), then the USA gains an overwhelming advantage since the USA can invade Spain directly from the US East Coast (using the allied UK naval base in Gibraltar). The USA can do this almost immediately after it enters the war and with overwhelming force, and if the USA can establish a strong base with an IC on Spain (pretty easy for the US), Germany is toast on jam. The only thing stopping this is the fact that if the USA invades Spain, it shifts all the other neutrals to pro-Axis including Turkey which is real bad news for the allies (the UK in particular). If Spain is pro-Axis, this issue goes away and the US becomes even stronger than it is already.
fair but i think this point is that if Brazil was given a pro allies label than why not spain. I believe his argument is that Brazil shouldn't have gotten one at all.
@@mrhype1616 Except that Brasil absolutely should. Unlike most other South American nations, Brasil did join on the side of the allies when the outcome of the war really was in doubt. Granted this was 1942 not 1940, but then again the USA itself didn't officially join the conflict until nearly 1942 as well. In addition to that if you look at prior editions of A&A, you find that Brasil along with Mexico are counted as part of the "US" (i.e. part of the North American alliance against Germany and Japan) and both (Mexico and Brasil) sent combat troops on the allied side. If anything calling Brasil 'pro-allied' neutral is understating the case. By contrast Franco in Spain was very coy with Germany (at the urging of Adm Canaris who was double-dealing Hitler) and tried as much as he could to very much keep Germany at arm's length after meeting with Adm Canaris. That said, I agree that 'realistically' Spain should be pro-Axis neutral, but see my above post for the game play implications of that.
I use a rule for Spain (sort of like the Turkey rule for 1940 HBG game) where nations can try to bribe Spain to their side. I find this to make the game have a chance to swing but at the start of the game it is true neutral.
Well lets rethink: If Spain would be pro-Axis, Germany would capture it before US gets it and definitely enforce the troops in there.
The US is not able even if Japan attacks them in turn one to beat 6 Infs, because just having a transport at the beginning. Even in turn two they won‘t have the power to attack 6 Infs + German troops. So Germany would be able to reinforce Spain as it would do with Normandy-Bordeaux or Holland and Belgium. The only thing: The attack on the SU would be realized later (but normally I (I do not speak for everyone) attack them not before turn 3.
@@aqhatalhalef17 The Germans would not be able to take a pro-Axis Spain before G2. Only the Italians could non-combat take an axis learning Spain on turn one, and for the Axis that would be the worst of all possible worlds given how exposed Spain is to direct Attack from the Eastern/Central US....and the US player can outbuild ANYTHING the Axis can put on spain unless the Germans don't go after Russia in a big way which is a mistake.
Regarding the Western Canada issue - I have 1st edition Pacific and on the board I have Yukon and British Columbia
My board also has the issue with western Canada
I wonder if I contacted Avalon hill if I could get a new board
For Malta, i house rule and airfield at star.
Thanks for your comment I just received the game and reading the rules .this helps out alot
Persia in reality need to by pro axis or S.Neutral, because anglo-soviet invasión on 1941...
Saudi Arabia in game includes Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, and British territories. However in game is only labeled and defined to Saudi Arabia.
CODEwater Airsoft and More That’s true of tons of territories in the game
Evan DeVries yes but it sticks out because it is such a large bland space on the map
I know western Canada is for the second edition and BC and Yukon is the first edition. I have Europe 2nd edition and pacific 1st edition and I'm glad because being Canadian I like feeling represented I'm even from British Columbia
Really awesome video, I would love to publish this on my channel if you will allow me... I’m not monitized and I would of course provide a link to your channel in the description box. I would appreciate it very much, but I would also understand if you don’t wish to. Thanks... great job.
Hey, thanks! I appreciate the compliment from one of the community's biggest. Business inquiries can be sent to the email indicated on my channel page
I have played a game where the Allies won at the end of round 5, Although my axis powers were being a little incompetent, with the German Player leaving the Russian Border supremely undefended. Also, Japan failed to acknowledge the threat of the impending doom of the USA, and they even had to wait for turn three to join. Aside from this, I have never experienced even close to an allied victory.
For issei no. 4, my board is the same as yours, and I bought it brand new one year ago
Good video. I've always marveled at how A&A allows for significant troop movement through the very north of Norway and Finland. I would make a large swath of territory up there "impassable" as Siberia. The weather and lack of infrastructure in that region certainly prohibits major troop movement. So I would add: 1) Ground movement/attack cannot occur between Finland and Norway or Finland and Sweden. 2) Invasions cannot be made from sea zone 127.
That's an interesting house rule. I wonder how much more of an advantage that gives the Germans since that route allows the British or Americans to relieve pressure for the Soviets.
A great reason for Italy to take Malta is to deny the British of of their NOs of 5 ipcs!!!
Italy has much better options for denying the UK their bonus for controlling all their original territories. Ex - Simply moving into Tobruk.
@@EquilibriumTelevision Perhaps but my said strategy would be used if the Axis were driven out of Africa, Cyprus is another option!!!
@@nolimit7959 The problem is that Italy is perpetually starved for cash. It's not good enough for Italy to deny the UK IPCs (although she should), but Italy needs to get cash for herself including her own N.O.s. The problem with Malta (and Cypress for that matter) is that it wastes a turn for Italy's Navy and Italy's Navy doesn't get that many turns, and a competent UK player doing "Middle Earth" will have the Naval Resources to take back either easily after the Italian Navy has long since been sunk.
@@EquilibriumTelevision you mmean alexandia right?
I think the Western Canada thing has to do with just playing the Pacific game. In the Pacific only, Canada isn't listed as separate to the British Empire and doesn't have a factory or anything, so it goes to Britain/India. Then maybe they changed it to fit global better where Canada is more seperate to the British with a factory and bases.
13:15 I would add that Spain was left to find false Allied invasion plans in 1943 as part of Operation Mincemeat.
The thing that really annoyed me about the new game board is that for some inexplicable reason Sierra Leone is depicted as strict neutral when it was a British colony. Freetown was the major British naval base in West Africa for the war so what gives? Making it British wouldn't have even changed anything because the territory has zero IPC value and isn't in a very crucial spot. At times I've considered making it a house rule to regard it as UK territory at start but it's actually that meaningless where there's really no point in doing that.
Our board has #3
For my house rules I put an airbase on Malta and strict neutral only work with those in the same continent so Sweden only cares for other neutral European countries
I always take Malta with Italy if I get the chance and same goes for Cyprus. You take away a UK bonus so why would you not do it. If things go bad for the Italians, they at least keep away a UK bonus for several extra rounds. And may even get some cheap shots at some UK units taking back these islands. As a UK player it can be really a pain in the a** to retake these islands and if you are not patient you might end up losing way more than a bonus for several rounds.
And if Germany plays dark skys then the UK can forget about ever getting that bonus back...
Does Italy even get a fair set up I feel like Italy should have a couple more units in Ethiopia tbh
@@jacobcathcart5091 If you give Italy more troops in Africa the game would be broken. Italy can be a real headache for the Allies with a littel help from Germany.
Nice work, however, after years of debate and trying different things with regard to strict Neutrals, we finally settled on the best way to handle them as to not give an advantage to one side or the other. What we do is strict neutrals can be attacked by either side. You need to destroy the standing armies, and you then control the IPC value for that territory, HOWEVER, if the now owned neutral is attacked by the other side, and captured, the attacking side gains that IPC value, AND it also gets a one time free reformation of the standing army present at the beginning of the game. All other strict neutrals do NOT automatically become pro axis, or pro allies. This makes a ton of sense historically, and also a great deal of strategic and tactical sense with regard to actual game play and flow of the game. It also adds a new element to how you approach the games as a whole. We've play tested this on more than a dozen occasions with no conflicts or an unfair advantage to either player. What do you think?
Seems pretty broken for USA to hop the Atlantic in one turn. Nobody can contest it pretty early on and then they build a factory there. USA is 2-3 turns earlier on the European mainland
That's interesting. I think that the one-time bonus army - seems similar to what the French receive if liberated by America - makes sense for some strict neutrals but maybe not all. Generally, though, I agree with any house rule that eliminates the rule that all other strict neutrals because pro-the other side.
The Canada thing is from first edition. I have that.
It's something else. I have first edition, and it's two territories
I don’t know why but my global version does not begin with units on Malta and a big English fleet in the mediteran sea next to Malta. Anyone knows what the problem is?
Check your version. The version 1 rules and set up are not the same as version 2.
I feel a lot of people look at pro neutrals as a very literal term and not what it means in the game. All pro axis neutrals were countries that at some point joined the war on the axis side. Just because spain was "pro axis" in real life doesn't mean it would be in the game because it doesn't mean sympathetic or friendly it means ready to join the war.
Could have Spain declare war on the allies if London falls
I 'liked' the emojis at 2:54. Everything else is gravy.
Regarding the damaged BB offshore and neutrals (esp Spain), I feel like you overly burden the game with details it wasn’t designed to support. It’s a simplified strategic game that incentivizes historical outcomes to certain degrees. If Spain was pro-axis, then in almost every game you’d have an ahistorical outcome with axis acquisition or no incentive for the allies not to invade. There are other games with the level of detail you seek though, if that’s your thing... still, I like the vid.
The thing about Spain is, despite Franco's Nazi-Fascist sympathies, if Hitler had marched into Spain like he did (for example) Austria, Spain would most likely have joined the Allies.
I also have the western canada on map.
we have house rules where attacking strict neutrals does nothing for other strict neutrals...makes it more interesting
I like this rule because not all the strict neutrals would have reacted the same way realistically, but in the game I get why they made this a rule.
Historically Spain got stuff imported from America and the U.K. so even though they might have wanted to join the Axis, they would have lost everything they were getting from the U.K. and America; which is why didn’t join the Axis.
When me and Drakken play this game, I encircle him in Berlin within 3 turns!!
The old edition has the two territories in Canada, and second edition has one. You map is correct, you rulebook is wrong, and your online map is wrong.
For the South American neutrals, it is a balance choice. Giving them as pro-axis would allow the US to come through and take the IPCs, while Germany doesn't ever have a chance to get the IPP.
As for Spain, alot of people explained, would ruin the balance.
Also, historically, Spain was asked to join the war but didn't. They had great fears of the Allied attacks, and much of their food supply was imported. Going to war risked famine and even more devise war in the aftermath of a 4 year civil war. Their greatest involvement was sending some volunteers to fight the USSR and conducting trade with Germany.
Look at it this way: nations that actually DECLARED WAR are pro-somebody neutrals. Anyone that DIDN'T declare war or didn't do so until very late in the war (about 1945) are strict.
I wholly agree with you about Spain. Disagree with regard to Panama, Argentina and Chile. Having a leader who is vocally pro Axis does not equate to the country being pro Axis, or it's government, or it's economy. Panama is the easiest example of this. Panama is and was dominated by it's relationship with the US. Precisely why their leader was looking to gain political capital by bashing the US. I would say to a less obvious degree, the same holds true for both Chile and Argentina in 1940.
It seems that countries are pro-allies/axis only if they were to the extent that they'd join the war in full for that side (and before the war was decided). Economic support or assistance for ships/aircraft isn't really represented (some exceptions, like sweden are represented thru national objectives). Given this criteria spain and argentina seem accurate to me.
México and Central América, need to Star as pro allies. But if you have 1936, need to star as pro axis, example, Costa Rica goberment 1936-1940 have a lot of love for axis europe, and a Nazi club and Temple in Cartago province, and a Nazi Migration minister. In 1941 New gobernante and Comunist Alliance of Calderón and PCC change that...
Is it possible for France to win in 1940
It is very unlikely for France to win initially. After about 6-10 turns though depending on the situation, they can come back.
Has anyone ever tried converting this game to the simpler 1984 Gamemaster rules? A&A has just gotten TOO rules heavy!
If it’s too complacated for you than simply do not use some of the rules. Me and my friends simplified them and added some new historical units