@andrewaagamer said in Land aircraft in neutral allied territory:
Only LAND units may take control of the now uncontrolled Neutral.
Precisely we are not talking about an uncontrolled Neutral, but about an uncontrolled allied territory.
Neutral Blocks
-
Like the Alpha setup changes… if someone is going to create a new module rules for Neutral Blocks, perhaps one should consider a BEEF UP the Neutrals?
Maybe some tanks and / or planes… AB’s, NB’s, Complexes? Otherwise certain Neutrals will get hit EVERY game.
I love the concept though…
-
So as I understand it there are these Neutral Blocs:
Turkey bloc;
Argentina Bloc;
Spain Bloc;
Sweden/Swiss bloc;
and Mongolia alone bloc?
Is that right?
And the former obo Neutral rules only apply to the immediate/adjacent neutral neighbors about them?
Sounds right. We’re gonna try it out. Stay tuned.
-
Like the Alpha setup changes… if someone is going to create a new module rules for Neutral Blocks, perhaps one should consider a BEEF UP the Neutrals?
Maybe some tanks and / or planes… AB’s, NB’s, Complexes? Otherwise certain Neutrals will get hit EVERY game.
I love the concept though…
Um, 20 enemy infantry isn’t enough of a disincentive in Europe, alone? Plus you will have longer fronts and more territories that will need to be garrisoned. Going after Spain so you can put troops into Gibraltar will require a huge influx of troops from the Western Front, and all of it will be vulnerable to Allied landings on the coast. Turkey is probably better in that after you take it over, you can now send transports through the Straits into Russia, and you also have better access to the oil in the Middle East. But you’re also spreading your troops out rather thin in fighting Russia this way as well.
-
I’m sorry I ever started this thread. If you guys hate the revisions, don’t play with them, Larry is doing a heck of a lot unpaid work to be hearing any of this crap from you. If you don’t want to hear people whine about the balance then don’t read the forums. And SGT.Blitz a signature like that makes me wonder why you’re even hear. You’re all the biggest whiners I’ve found in my entire forum hunt and the fact that Krieghund saw this forum makes me ashamed. Next Moderator who sees this. Please lock or destroy or remove the thread
-
Croesus?
So you present an Idea you like, people decide they want to try it because it sounds fun, so then you slander and berate them, calling them whiners.
I don’t get it.
GOOD THREAD by the way, maybe throw it in House Rules, but certainly don’t lock or delete.
-
I’m sorry I ever started this thread. If you guys hate the revisions, don’t play with them, Larry is doing a heck of a lot unpaid work to be hearing any of this crap from you. If you don’t want to hear people whine about the balance then don’t read the forums. And SGT.Blitz a signature like that makes me wonder why you’re even hear. You’re all the biggest whiners I’ve found in my entire forum hunt and the fact that Krieghund saw this forum makes me ashamed. Next Moderator who sees this. Please lock or destroy or remove the thread
Dear God, flamed again… Apparently people either can’t take jokes or have to outwhine the whiners when it comes to attention. My IRONIC comic might have some basis in reality in that Larry can’t seem to make his mind up either on what to do with the AAE/P40 games… so why not chuck it all and focus on the better things in life? Obviously, my suggesting new revisions and constantly testing these Alpha + Global versions on the forums is completely detrimental and I should just go die of shame for ever possibly suggesting something counter to the new(er(est)) version everyone else is currently glorifying. What a bad person I must be, to disagree about boardgame rules with other people! “Gather the kindling! We have a witch trial to begin! SgtBlitz is the reason Global 1940 sucks!”
Also, I’m sorry, the last I heard was that I paid a total of $180 to purchase both Pacific and Europe Axis and Allies 1940 Editions, and expected them to come OOB with a working Global version that had been systematically playtested and was accurate and fair to both sides playing the game (“fair” can be debatable, but I like a game where the Axis have at least a prayer in hell if they focus their energies correctly). Obviously, mistakes have been made. If we’re making GAME CHANGING REVISIONS to the CORE RULES (hint hint SCRAMBLING CHANGES), I’d like to imagine that my input based on historical perspectives and viable Axis 1940 options could be valued as well. Of course, my even making SUGGESTIONS is declared heretical and I am forever subjected to namecalling and thread closings… Whatever. The True Neutrals aren’t even that big a part of the game anyway.
-
So as I understand it there are these Neutral Blocs:
Turkey bloc;
Argentina Bloc;
Spain Bloc;
Sweden/Swiss bloc;
and Mongolia alone bloc?
Is that right?
And the former obo Neutral rules only apply to the immediate/adjacent neutral neighbors about them?
In the game me and Blitz are playing right now the neutrals are:
Neutral Blocks:
South American Block: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile
African Block: Rio de Oro, Portuguese Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique
European Block: Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden
Middle Eastern Block: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan
Asian Block: MongoliaI think it’s going to open up some interesting strategies from both sides now that attacking neutrals is more likely. Not sure if any neutrals need more units yet. Would have to play a couple of games like this before I could say one way or the other.
I like the idea of making Argentina Pro-Axis, since why not have more action in the South Atlantic? In that vein why not add a German cruiser in SZ 84 to represent the Admiral Graf Spee? Then those convoy zones down there could see some action. :evil:
-
What the heck is your problem Croesus?
We are discussing your thread and it has quit good ideas,
but I am disappointed at the myriad of revisions officially brought to us by the makers of this game!
It just apppears to me that the makers of this game, have gone way overboard in the revisions.
They have blown up the game, absolutely ridiculous and harmful and discredits the “historiocity” of the game if there ever was one!
This neutral bloc idea is a modest “house” rule, but Alpha 2.4 or whatever it is now is just too much.
I expect Beta soon and then Gamma.
The porch is oft kilter, lets tear down the house to make it right is the attitude of these guys!
All one has to do to add the so called “balance” is to not allow the USA to go from 52 to 82 in one turn.
We had USA add 5 the 1st war turn, 10 the next and then 15. So the USA gets 82, but gradually.
And countries can not build major factories outside thier home territories.
And added the neutral bloc rules.
3 count them 3 revisions and the game is indeed now “balanced” for all those Axis whiners: "Boo Hoo we can’t win the game 50% of the time!!
-
I think as far as the US income is concerned, Larry Harris corrected that with adding all the new NOs for USA. Yeah, they still go from 52 to 82 as soon as they enter the war, but at least it’s a bunch of little NOs instead of one big 30 IPC chunk which was nearly impossible to take away from them. Remember, it was 30 IPCs for being at war and controlling Eastern US, Central US and Western US –- no other territories were involved. As most Axis players know, you usually don’t even get to the continental US territories unless just about all other Allies are done for, in which case the game is usually won for the Axis anyway.
Now, it is much easier for the Axis to nip away at the US economy. One of the NOs, the “5 out of 7 islands” NO, requires the US to take some Japanese territory so they can’t just sit back and collect money and build. Also, it is fairly easy for Japan to take the Philippines NO away as well as the one for the other US Pacific possessions. It is entirely possible for Italy or Germany to slip over and take the West Indies, wrecking another US NO. Plus there is always the possibility of large amounts of Axis subs sitting off the coast of US wrecking their convoys.
So, while USA is still pretty strong economically, they aren’t the indestructible giant they were in OOB.
-
- puts up a kudo for SgtBlitz *
Even though I didnt contribute a damn, your words completely describe my thoughts.
-
Croesus?
So you present an Idea you like, people decide they want to try it because it sounds fun, so then you slander and berate them, calling them whiners.
I don’t get it.
GOOD THREAD by the way, maybe throw it in House Rules, but certainly don’t lock or delete.
I berate only those who berate the developers, but I guess I’ll leave the thread open. Sorry, Sgt. Blitz I didn’t understand the Irony, but otherwise I apologize for none of my made comments.
Onto the game, thank you for appreciating this thread, whether or not I actually started the discussion/Idea of it -
LOL, I post on two stupid game forums, AA.org and Darkfallonline.com, and that’s about it. Funny that I manage to get flamed on both. It’s okay, Croesus, no harm done. I’m just trying to have a good time here.
-
For those of you who are still considering this option, I made some Roundels
If you have an Asian Bloc, use the ASEAN roundels (homemade)(Grain)(not accurate, but there isn’t a unified logo)
If you have a Spanish Bloc, use the Nationalist roundels (White X on black disc)
If you have a Portuguese Bloc, Use Portuguese Roundels (red cross)
If you have a Mongolian Bloc, use Modified Mongolian Roundels (Modified to be circular, have a star)
If you have a European Bloc, Use EU roundels (homemade) (gold stars on blue field)
If you have a African Bloc, Use African Union roundels (Gold with little Africa inside)
If you have an Arab Bloc, use Arab league Roundels (Has Arabic writing in it)
If you have a South American Bloc, Use UNASUR roundels (Tornadoes)
These can be used to
A) Keep track of the Monetary Value of taking a Bloc (or loss of giving up rest of bloc)
B) Keep track Of each Bloc’s alignment (needs a chart-anyone want to make one?)
C)Place on the Countries of a Bloc as a reminder
Oops, does anyone know how to put a file on the blog? -
That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…
From a strictly historical point of view: Argentina’s government at that time (a Military dictatorship) had pro-German bias. That was specifically about cultural/institutional reasons since most Argentine Army officers had received training from Prussian military institutions.
However, the economic ruling elite (rich cattle & grains producer landowners) were strongly pro-British. And that was because of both cultural but above all economic reasons: Argentina was a huge exporter of cattle&grains to the United Kingdom (that the UK especially needed during war time), and a buyer for UK’s industrial goods.
Most of the people (not that anyone cared) had pro-allied feelings.
So, even if the governing Military Dictatorship had a taste for fascism, Argentine economy (and the economic well being of the landowners whose economic interest the Military were defending) relied on trade with the Great Britain.
All that resulted in an odd situation where the Military Government liked Germany… but Argentine foreign policy was leading to maintain neutrality… and maintaining neutrality was the best option for, well, for the United Kingdom! That was because as long as Argentine were neutral German U-Boats couldn’t torpedo Argentine cargo-ships carrying grains to the UK.
Too sum up: Argentina’s neutrality was a de facto support of Great Britain’s war time economy.
A different matter was the relationship with the USA. The Americans wanted all South American countries to declare war against the Axis powers. That idea was resisted by both the Argentine Military Goverment (both because of their pro-fascist ideology and because of the economic interest of the landowning elite), and by London (because of the reasons explained above).
The Argentine Military Government’s fascist ideology would have taken as far as allowing the German pocket-battleship Graff-Spee to seek safe heaven Buenos Aires’ port (if she had managed to scape from Montevideo and reach the Argentine Capital)… but it’s un-clear how much help the Argentine government would have given to the German ship after all – breaking with the UK would have been like killing the Golden Laying Eggs Chicken for the Argentine economy.
So from an historical point of view anything but a stric neutral Argentina doesn’t makes sence.
-
Oops, does anyone know how to put a file on the blog?
Click additional options and then attach, there’s a limit to files sizes though.
-
@Gallo:
That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…
From a strictly historical point of view: Argentina’s government at that time (a Military dictatorship) had pro-German bias. That was specifically about cultural/institutional reasons since most Argentine Army officers had received training from Prussian military institutions.
However, the economic ruling elite (rich cattle & grains producer landowners) were strongly pro-British. And that was because of both cultural but above all economic reasons: Argentina was a huge exporter of cattle&grains to the United Kingdom (that the UK especially needed during war time), and a buyer for UK’s industrial goods.
Most of the people (not that anyone cared) had pro-allied feelings.
So, even if the governing Military Dictatorship had a taste for fascism, Argentine economy (and the economic well being of the landowners whose economic interest the Military were defending) relied on trade with the Great Britain.
All that resulted in an odd situation where the Military Government liked Germany… but Argentine foreign policy was leading to maintain neutrality… and maintaining neutrality was the best option for, well, for the United Kingdom! That was because as long as Argentine were neutral German U-Boats couldn’t torpedo Argentine cargo-ships carrying grains to the UK.
Too sum up: Argentina’s neutrality was a de facto support of Great Britain’s war time economy.
A different matter was the relationship with the USA. The Americans wanted all South American countries to declare war against the Axis powers. That idea was resisted by both the Argentine Military Goverment (both because of their pro-fascist ideology and because of the economic interest of the landowning elite), and by London (because of the reasons explained above).
The Argentine Military Government’s fascist ideology would have taken as far as allowing the German pocket-battleship Graff-Spee to seek safe heaven Buenos Aires’ port (if she had managed to scape from Montevideo and reach the Argentine Capital)… but it’s un-clear how much help the Argentine government would have given to the German ship after all – breaking with the UK would have been like killing the Golden Laying Eggs Chicken for the Argentine economy.
So from an historical point of view anything but a stric neutral Argentina doesn’t makes sence.
Thanks for the clarification, Gallo Rojo. I always wondered about the True Neutral status of Argentina depicted in 1940 when you see movies like Evita and there’s a fascist takeover of the state half way through (happened in the fifties tho, right?) But that’s what I get for having a pro-Western media-driven ignorant shallow mindset about it, right? It is funny that NONE of the so-called True Neutral countries was really neutral in real life, however, they were making as much money as possible off the war as they could (and for ALL the IPCs the Allies technically “make” during the course of the war, ALL of the Allied powers ended the war in DEBT up to their ears… (Can I borrow an extra 20 IPCs this round? I promise I’ll pay it back by the time the war is over.))
I guess the True Neutrals “balances” itself out by there being equal amounts of neutral IPCs in range of the Axis and Allied powers on the Europe map. The only problem is that the US ALSO gets a bunch of free infantry for free from S. America and they’re already raking in enough cash as it is. If the S. American T.N.s didn’t come with the free infantry or the money was forced to be split between the Allied powers it’d probably be all right.
-
Hey guys loving this thread this is what my group has been using for the last month ( This is not for historical purpaces only for extra options during game play ). These rules come out of our houserule book.
24. Strict Neutral Convertion- You can try to have a strict neutral sway your way by rolling a 6 on a 1D6 and a cost of 5 IPC’s per IPC that country generates. This happens after the purchase unit phase and before the conduct combat phase. Tell all players which country(s) you wish to try to sway to your side, you have to have at least 1 infantry unit capable of landing in said country(s) on the combat movement phase on the same turn as a negotiator, this unit only moves into the country if you are successful in swaying it to your side. If successful claim the countries infantry and IPC output.
25. Attacking a Strict Neutral- If you attack a strict neutral all remaining strict neutrals in that block become Pro(your enemy)
BLOCKS
South America Europe Middle East
Venezuela- 2ipc’s, 2inf Sweden- 3ipc’s, 6inf Turkey- 2ipc’s, 8inf
Argentina- 2ipc’s, 4inf Switzerland- 2inf Saudi Arabia- 2ipc’s, 2inf
Chile- 2ipc’s, 2inf Portugal-1ipc’s, 2inf Afganistan- 2inf
Equador Spain- 2ipc’s, 6inf
Peru Africa
Bolivia Asia Angola- 1ipc’s, 2inf
Paraguay Olgiy- 2inf Mozambique- 1ipc’s, 2inf
Uruguay Dzauhan- 1inf Rio-De-Oro
Columbia Ulaanbaatar- 1inf Portugese Guinea
Byant Uhaa- 1inf Sierra Leone
Tsagaan Olom LiberiaNote Only countries at war mat use the above rules.
-
Hey guys loving this thread this is what my group has been using for the last month ( This is not for historical purpaces only for extra options during game play ). These rules come out of our houserule book.
24. Strict Neutral Convertion- You can try to have a strict neutral sway your way by rolling a 6 on a 1D6 and a cost of 5 IPC’s per IPC that country generates. This happens after the purchase unit phase and before the conduct combat phase. Tell all players which country(s) you wish to try to sway to your side, you have to have at least 1 infantry unit capable of landing in said country(s) on the combat movement phase on the same turn as a negotiator, this unit only moves into the country if you are successful in swaying it to your side. If successful claim the countries infantry and IPC output.
25. Attacking a Strict Neutral- If you attack a strict neutral all remaining strict neutrals in that block become Pro(your enemy)
BLOCKS
South America Europe Middle East
Venezuela- 2ipc’s, 2inf Sweden- 3ipc’s, 6inf Turkey- 2ipc’s, 8inf
Argentina- 2ipc’s, 4inf Switzerland- 2inf Saudi Arabia- 2ipc’s, 2inf
Chile- 2ipc’s, 2inf Portugal-1ipc’s, 2inf Afganistan- 2inf
Equador Spain- 2ipc’s, 6inf
Peru Africa
Bolivia Asia Angola- 1ipc’s, 2inf
Paraguay Olgiy- 2inf Mozambique- 1ipc’s, 2inf
Uruguay Dzauhan- 1inf Rio-De-Oro
Columbia Ulaanbaatar- 1inf Portugese Guinea
Byant Uhaa- 1inf Sierra Leone
Tsagaan Olom LiberiaNote Only countries at war mat use the above rules.
24. Yeah, uh, no. Maybe if you cheapened the die roll cost to the IPCs being generated by the territory, and had the territory convert on a 50% (1-3 or 4-6) roll, it’d be feasible. If you have tech in the game, it’d be a better investment than going after the true neutrals with the cost of 5 IPCs PER TERRITORY IPC VALUE FOR ONLY A 1/6 CHANCE OF CONVERSION. (Imagine spending 15 IPCs a turn to convert Sweden diplomatically for the next 3 turns, you’d STILL of had only a 50% chance of converting it to your side. Sweden generates what, 3 IPCs… You have to hold that territory for 15 turns to get your money back (I guess the free infantry would offset this somewhat)). How would you convert territories that aren’t worth any IPC value, do you get those for free (Mongolia and Switzerland)? You could also have like a “critical failure”, where if you roll a 6 when you needed a 1-3 for success, the country turns Pro-Allies due to diplomatic international incidents.
With the reduced conversion rates, have either ALL the other true neutral territories convert to Pro-Allies based on a DIE ROLL (50%? Roll for each one) or perhaps all the other countries in that BLOCK roll to see if they turn pro-Allies due to international pressure.
Otherwise, yeah, along the lines we’ve been thinking. Adding a conversion rule wouldn’t hurt.
-
Thanks for the clarification, Gallo Rojo. I always wondered about the True Neutral status of Argentina depicted in 1940 when you see movies like Evita and there’s a fascist takeover of the state half way through (happened in the fifties tho, right?)
Juan Perón governed (Evita was Juan Peron’s firtsh wife) from 1946 to 1955, when was overthrown in a military coup.
In the film Evita he is depicted as a quasi-fascist and a wanna-be dictator. The point there is that the film takes the point of view of Peron’s political adversaries (mostly the land-owning economic elite). Althought there was an element of authoritarianism in his government, Peron was not a fascist – actually he was a democratically elected leader.
The ‘fascist’ element in Peron’s goverment was more a matter of aestetics than of policies.
Serious historians and political-scientist agree about characterizing Peronism as one of the three classic examples of 1950’s Latin-American Populism (Gertulio Vargas in Brazil and Cardenas in Mexico are the two other). An similar lider outside Latin-America would be Mosadeq in Iran. -
Hey Sarge. This is a one time investment, if you miss on your first turn then you can still rule every following turn until you get your hit. I like the 1 on a 1d6 because multable countries can all try for the same country. In our last game both US and Germany paid for Spain, Germany succeeded and claimed spain and america lost it IPC’s it had invested into it. My group uses it’s own set of tech’s and one of them is diplomacy Lv1 through Lv3 Each lv adds a +1 to your chance of success.
5) Diplomacy
Lv 1- Local Aid- 7 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
Lv 2- Silver Tounge- 10 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
Lv 3- Golden Tounge- 13 ICP’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
Suggested Topics
