Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

  • '17

    If it goes pirate, it’s no longer a disincentive or balancing force though.  Unless you mean something different than I am gathering.


  • Wheatbeer, I am happy with the Collaborative Neutral Blocks rules.

    Saudi Arabia would be a good place for an American minor IC when the Axis invade Turkey.

    Also like the neutral navies and air forces and the 3IPC propaganda cost for American imperialism.

    As for who controls the neutrals and their navies/air forces, I would suggest Italy for the Axis side and France for the Allies side if for no other reason than they come last in the turn order.  So if turkey is attacked, the ships in z100 become French.

    The only other piece I would like to suggest is a further deterrent to invading spain or turkey:

    Sweden and Switzerland
    If any Allied power attacks any territory or warship in the Iberia Block, Sweden and Switzerland immediately become pro-axis neutral.  If any Axis power attacks any territory or warship in the Islamic Block, Sweden and Switzerland become pro-allies neutral.

  • '17

    My issue with the conditional: what happens if the Allies invade Spain on turn 5 but then the Axis invade Turkey on turn 6?  Or if the Axis invade Turkey turn 5 and the Allies invade Spain turn 6?  Will Sweden flip back and forth?  Or only flip once?

  • Sponsor

    The suggestion that was voted for had no mention of neutral navies, a change like that may need to be voted on separately in a different poll

  • '17

    If a strict neutral territory or a member of its block is attacked by the Allies, its navy (if any) immediately falls under the command of the Axis navy of the Axis player’s choice.  If a strict neutral territory or a member of its block is attacked by the Axis, its navy (if any) immediately falls under the command of the Allies navy of the Allies player’s choice.

    Does anyone feel this will create problems?

    Young Grasshopper, I’ll move navies to the bottom and label it “suggested” for now then.


  • I would say once it is flipped, it is flipped.  So maybe add something general like:

    Once a true neutral territory becomes pro-allies, it can never revert to being true neutral or become pro-axis.  Once a true neutral territory becomes pro-axis, it can never revert to being true neutral or become pro-allied.

  • '17

    replaced older rules proposal, see Simplified Collaborative Neutral Block rules later in thread


  • I don’t want to undermine this topic but what exactly are the objections people are having with the current neutrals system?


  • Wheatbeer that is Perfect!

  • Sponsor

    Everything is fine and I would be happy to include your neutral blocks rule into Delta+1. however, the suggested neutral naval units is an extreme version of the original and would need to win in its own poll as a separate addition to the already Delta rule of neutral blocks, sorry. I don’t want to see a lot of added layers to the rule that was voted for making it very different than what people originally wanted, when you have the final product, let me know and I will look for loop holes.

  • Sponsor

    @special:

    I don’t want to undermine this topic but what exactly are the objections people are having with the current neutrals system?

    It is unrealistic to assume that a strict neutral would go to war for a side, just because another strict neutral on the other side of the world was invaded.


  • And it would make the game more fun because it opens up new possibilities.  The way it is now, no one ever attacks true neutrals and that’s kind of crummy.

  • '17

    @special:

    I don’t want to undermine this topic but what exactly are the objections people are having with the current neutrals system?

    I have a few issues with OOB/A2 neutrals system.

    First, I think it offers a stronger disincentive to the Axis than to the Allies.  The Axis often won’t be poised to take advantage of South American, Afghan, and African neutral armies/territories if they turn pro-Axis due to Allied aggression.

    Second, like Vance, the cost is so prohibitive that neutral crushes are rarely employed.  I believe the game can be made more fun by expanding the reasonable strategic options for both the Axis and the Allies.

    Third, like JimmyHat, it doesn’t make any geopolitical sense (I admit this isn’t a gameplay issue, but it bugs me nonetheless … neutral blocks will never make it perfect, but it will feel better to me on these grounds)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Vance:

    And it would make the game more fun because it opens up new possibilities.  The way it is now, no one ever attacks true neutrals and that’s kind of crummy.

    What are you talking about?  I attack them ALL THE TIME, with the United States.  I just line up my attacks so that America hits Sweeden and Spain simultanoiusly and England follows up with an attack on Turkey (which is no longer true neutral, but pro-axis.)

  • '17

    @Cmdr:

    I attack them ALL THE TIME, with the United States.  I just line up my attacks so that America hits Sweeden and Spain simultanoiusly and England follows up with an attack on Turkey (which is no longer true neutral, but pro-axis.)

    I haven’t faced an opponent who did this.  But it does go along with my first point.  In the event of an attack on neutrals, currently, the Allies can far more easily deny the Axis new pro-Axis territory, than can the Axis deny the Allies new pro-Allies territory.

  • Sponsor

    @Cmdr:

    @Vance:

    And it would make the game more fun because it opens up new possibilities.  The way it is now, no one ever attacks true neutrals and that’s kind of crummy.

    What are you talking about?  I attack them ALL THE TIME, with the United States.  I just line up my attacks so that America hits Sweeden and Spain simultanoiusly and England follows up with an attack on Turkey (which is no longer true neutral, but pro-axis.)

    It has been determined in past threads that Jens strategy in regards to attacking strict neutrals, would be rare for most games.


  • Jen is clearly an above average player.  A typical player does not attacks neutrals with the current rules.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Okay, when attacking true neutrals you have to take certain things into account.

    1)  Don’t EVER do this with an axis nation!  Unless you own E. USA, W. USA and C. USA, attacking a true neutral with an axis power is like handing the allies the game. 
    2)  Spain is 1 movement from E. USA and E. USA is 1 movement form Spain.  If you wanted to go the conventional way, it would take 2 moves to get your units to France via England.  Attacking Spain basically cuts the needed transports by 33% and the movement time by 50% (and is a 2 IPC territory so you can put a complex there.)
    3)  Either own Finland/Norway or be able to hit Sweeden the same round you hit Spain.  Why give them the free guys, especially when it’s not all that hard to line up an attack on Sweeden really.  (England in Norway with a large enough stack should be able to do it.)
    4)  With English complexes in Iraq and C. Persia (where i normally have them) I generally get a pretty nice army to use to hit Turkey.  Far easier to walk to Greece than to have to walk to Jordan and load transports (that you have to protect) to land in Greece.  At 6 units a round, it takes 3 rounds to have enough units to take out Turkey - add in the rounds to get the complexes up, this is about round 6 or 7 when you are ready to hit Turkey - not that you have to do it then!
    5)  Axis powers have no access to true neutrals if you hit Spain, Turkey and Sweeden.  They just dont.  So there’s no risk for the allies in hitting them!

    @Young:

    @Cmdr:

    @Vance:

    And it would make the game more fun because it opens up new possibilities.  The way it is now, no one ever attacks true neutrals and that’s kind of crummy.

    What are you talking about?  I attack them ALL THE TIME, with the United States.  I just line up my attacks so that America hits Sweeden and Spain simultanoiusly and England follows up with an attack on Turkey (which is no longer true neutral, but pro-axis.)

    It has been determined in past threads that Jens strategy in regards to attacking strict neutrals, would be rare for most games.


  • @wheatbeer:

    @special:

    I don’t want to undermine this topic but what exactly are the objections people are having with the current neutrals system?

    I have a few issues with OOB/A2 neutrals system.

    First, I think it offers a stronger disincentive to the Axis than to the Allies.  The Axis often won’t be poised to take advantage of South American, Afghan, and African neutral armies/territories if they turn pro-Axis due to Allied aggression.

    Second, like Vance, the cost is so prohibitive that neutral crushes are rarely employed.  I believe the game can be made more fun by expanding the reasonable strategic options for both the Axis and the Allies.

    Third, like JimmyHat, it doesn’t make any geopolitical sense (I admit this isn’t a gameplay issue, but it bugs me nonetheless … neutral blocks will never make it perfect, but it will feel better to me on these grounds)

    1. would the exclusion of the S.America block turning pro-Allies (after Axis attack true neutrals) be enough to balance this?
    So when Axis attack neutrals all turn pro-allies except for S.America and Mongolia.

    2. spicing up the game is of course ok, but you risk to encourage neutral attacking in such a way they will happen every game.

    3. Realism is indeed an argument, but it’s a game so realism is by definition relative and shouldn’t it always be overruled by gameplay and -balance? (chinese ACME wall for example is sorta silly but has its reasons. And why would Spain care what happens in Sweden or Turkey, etc.
    But hey, if a change makes something more realistic and benefits the gameplay/balance, i’m all for it!

    @wheatbeer:

    @Cmdr:

    I attack them ALL THE TIME, with the United States.  I just line up my attacks so that America hits Sweeden and Spain simultanoiusly and England follows up with an attack on Turkey (which is no longer true neutral, but pro-axis.)

    I haven’t faced an opponent who did this.  But it does go along with my first point.  In the event of an attack on neutrals, currently, the Allies can far more easily deny the Axis new pro-Axis territory, than can the Axis deny the Allies new pro-Allies territory.

    Well the benefit for Axis to do a neutral crush would be more of a geographical nature instead of a financial one: Turkey as a shortcut to the Middle East and South Russia. Since the game’s balance is based on the Axis having to win before it’s too late, Turkey is a reasonable option in certain (rare) specific cases: if it helps Axis get their VC’s before the Allies can retreive and use their fresh IPC’s and troops.
    That makes them have to think twice before attacking neutrals.
    Same goes for Allies, if they attack neutrals they mostly risk giving Germany 8 units in an excellent position and a fast doorway, allowing the Axis to win valuable time and recources. Gaining some IPC’s (which takes time, troops and some losses) is perhaps good in a long term battle, but i doubt the Axis will be waiting for that…

    So i think that neutral attack is supposed to be part of a specific, risky, strategy

    As for Jen’s tactics i assume she is talking about many turns in the game, not as a right-away tactic. or am i wrong there?


  • @Cmdr:

    Okay, when attacking true neutrals you have to take certain things into account.

    1)  Don’t EVER do this with an axis nation!  Unless you own E. USA, W. USA and C. USA, attacking a true neutral with an axis power is like handing the allies the game. 
    2)  Spain is 1 movement from E. USA and E. USA is 1 movement form Spain.  If you wanted to go the conventional way, it would take 2 moves to get your units to France via England.  Attacking Spain basically cuts the needed transports by 33% and the movement time by 50% (and is a 2 IPC territory so you can put a complex there.)
    3)  Either own Finland/Norway or be able to hit Sweeden the same round you hit Spain.  Why give them the free guys, especially when it’s not all that hard to line up an attack on Sweeden really.  (England in Norway with a large enough stack should be able to do it.)
    4)  With English complexes in Iraq and C. Persia (where i normally have them) I generally get a pretty nice army to use to hit Turkey.  Far easier to walk to Greece than to have to walk to Jordan and load transports (that you have to protect) to land in Greece.  At 6 units a round, it takes 3 rounds to have enough units to take out Turkey - add in the rounds to get the complexes up, this is about round 6 or 7 when you are ready to hit Turkey - not that you have to do it then!
    5)  Axis powers have no access to true neutrals if you hit Spain, Turkey and Sweeden.  They just dont.  So there’s no risk for the allies in hitting them!

    But if the Allies own Norway and Finland and have the beef to capture Sweden and Turkey, haven’t the Axis already lost the game? Where is Germany?

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 5
  • 5
  • 7
  • 22
  • 3
  • 285
  • 39
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

57

Online

17.4k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts