So, as far as I understand it, the rulebook for Europe states that if a country invades a "strict neutral" (that is, any neutral that doesn't specify if it is Pro-Allies or Pro-Axis) then ALL other strict neutrals go pro-"non attacking side." For example, let's say that Italy invades Greece. Greece is a strict neutral, so according to the rules, all of the other "strict neutrals" would now become Pro-Allies....

If the U.S. invades Brazil, why would Greece care, or Switzerland for that matter?

I do not play with these rules, since I think they don't make sense. What variations of this have you played?

  • 1
    But do you think the rules are dumb? Commented Jun 3, 2011 at 11:33
  • @LittleBobbyTables; I do think that those strict neutral rules are dumb. I revise them when I play.
    Commented Jun 11, 2011 at 2:54
  • The thought is if you are willing to invade brazil then you are willing to invade us as well. => This makes you my enemy. => The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    – Chad
    Commented Aug 3, 2011 at 19:47
  • @Chad; I get the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend thing" but it just seems to make all of the rest of the game imbalanced. If I invade a strict neutral in South America, then why would a country in the Middle East care too much to say "I think I'll change my strict neutrality and become pro-Axis"
    Commented Aug 5, 2011 at 4:53
  • @RPRATHER - The logic is if you will invade one neutral country you are willing to invade another. So you are willing to invade me and probably will. At least once you have taken out your enemy which will leave me vunlerable. So I am better off siding with your enemy. The truth is Germany would benefit most strategically from being able to invade a neutral country with out penalty. The rules are fair to everyone so that no one can invade a neutral country but Germany is most hampered by it.
    – Chad
    Commented Aug 5, 2011 at 13:05

5 Answers 5


For years a group of us in Michigan have played a set of house rules that includes a diplomacy system where you can pay for diplomatic overtures to neutrals to try to sway them to lean toward you ( adding their economy to yours 1$ for sumbness like Rio de Oro, 4$ for Switzerland) and letting you move through their territory or base there. If you get a spectacular result (11+ on 2 d 6) or two partial results they join you activating their armed forces in your color (rangeing from 1 inf for Rio de Oro to 3 inf a tank and a fighter for Spain). I agree that attacking one European neutral should not sway the opinion of Asian and American neutrals.


I don't think such rules make sense either. Because it puts too heavy a penalty on attacking neutrals.

Attacking neutrals is not something that should be done lightly, and there should be a penalty. Maybe that penalty should be that all (threatened) neutrals in a particular REGION (e.g. Europe), go over to the non-attacking side. But MOST neutrals will understand such a move if it is made for a reason that is quite clear will not apply to them. Such a case may be made for a neutral on say, a DIFFERENT continent.

So I'd limit (but not eliminate) the impact of attacking one neutral on other neutrals.


I agree that it should have some strategical value to attack nuetrals rather than only discourage. Perhaps they should be grouped so attacking, say, Mozambique would only anger African neutrals and not all. Still, I can see how they want to stop

  1. A nation from invading a neutral to outflank an opponent and no-one minding

  2. A nation from completely taking over the world!

by restricting them through not wanting enemies to gain more allies. Historically, if Germany took over ALL territories in sight, it would worry even the most peaceful neutrals.


I've never played Axis and Allies Europe, but the rules seem a little silly to me as well.

I suppose I can see the historical justification though. Neutral parties are just trying to stay out of the war, something they can typically only get away with if their territory or industrial base isn't a significant enough benefit to be worth the opportunity cost of diverting military resources to conquering and holding them. It's easy to see how the Swiss managed this. Mountainous terrain, armed citizens, easy to go around on the way to France, no industrial base to speak of, and useful to keep as not an enemy so that you can use their banking system.

But perhaps even given this calculus it might still be too enticing to pick off a small neutral or two. So the neutrals basically agree, tacitly or otherwise that if one of them gets picked off they all go to war. This raises the stakes for the attacker from having to deal with one little country to having to deal with a bunch of them--all over the globe. Now it's definitely not worth the trouble.

I assume the game is just trying to capture the same sentiment.

  • In some (computer) games I know, this dynamic is captured by the fact the "neutrals" is a separate (computer-controlled) player, which is to say, attack one and the computer will play them ALL against you.
    – Tom Au
    Commented Jun 3, 2011 at 22:34

After an attack on a true neutral country, allow your opponent to choose true neutrals to become pro-them equal to twice the IPC value of the violated neutral.

E.g. If Germany attacks a neutral worth 3 IPCs, the allies may choose 6 IPCs of neutrals to become pro-allies.

This significantly reduces the negative consequences of violating neutrality while retaining some neutral backlash.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .