This is what we do in game. Each neutral has a territory value and some kind of army and a few ships. You can attack them if you want. But u need to capture each neutral territory to get icp income.
If you lose battle then just that lone neutral joins other side.
But we also have a cost to try and influence a strict neutral to your side and you receive the territory value towards income and what is there for the ground troops and a possible ship. Nothing stronger than a Destroyer.
Not all countries can influence the same neutrals. We roll a d20 and a 4 or less u get neutral.
This is just an idea u may look at.
Spain and Turkey have the biggest Amy but cost more for those 2 to try and get.
Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1
-
I was just thinking it’s not nice to ban someone from doing something. So allowing the Axis to attack true neutrals without any penalty at all (and give them the Russian NO to boot for it!) would effectively do this.
Maybe if the allies attack a true neutral, any pro-allied neutral, that is not currently owned by the allies, would go true neutral?
The axis could still attack the neutral without penalty as per normal, but now the other neutrals of the world would thumb their collective noses at the allies, instead of being allied leaning?
Sequence:
America attacks True Neutral Spain.
True neutrals of the world go pro-axis immediately
Pro-Allied neutrals go true nuetral, immediately
Pro-Axis neutrals join Germany (there are no pro-axis neutrals on the Pacific map.) - al le Mongolian style rules. -
I disagree, we went on a recruiting drive towards the end of the war, I believe Colombia and Cuba joined the war, I bet there were others.
Adding ipcs to territories that the Axis take could work, although that might end up enticing us all to a Neutral crush strategy.
-
@Cmdr:
Maybe if the allies attack a true neutral, any pro-allied neutral, that is not currently owned by the allies, would go true neutral?
But which pro-Allied neutral would still not be activated by the time a neutral crush would take place?
-
I disagree, we went on a recruiting drive towards the end of the war, I believe Colombia and Cuba joined the war, I bet there were others.
Adding ipcs to territories that the Axis take could work, although that might end up enticing us all to a Neutral crush strategy.
Yes, but we didn’t attack Spain either!
Think about it, how would the League of Nations reacted to the US Ambassador if Eisenhower had directed an amphibious assualt against the Spanish government solely because it was more fuel efficient for his transport ships? I dare think they would have at least entertained the German embassadors, if not covertly sent them aid and comfort.
That’s the feel I am going for. The world, shocked and appalled about how democratic nations (Congress / Parliament) invade nations who just want to be left alone, turn on the former trading partners - economically, if not militarily.
The other thing I wanted to consider is not restricting a person’s ability to prosecute the war as they see fit. If we have to Ban America from invading a neutral, then fine, but I’d rather just severely punish them, instead of ban them.
I just thought of this, what if the allies take a true neutral, the United States immediately and forever loses their 10 IPC NO for the Continental United States? I never liked that one anyway and it would be fitting punishment. Call it loss of trade revenues with neutral nations - economic sanctions by the League of Nations (dont care if they could do that or not, they could make an agreement to stop trading with the US!).
The allies can still attack neutrals, but wouldn’t dare do it until such time as they feel secure that they are going to win. The axis can still attack neutrals as well - and only those in the block would go pro-allied so it’s no big harm if Turkey falls, since the US does not get the 8 infantry in S. America.
-
@special:
@Cmdr:
Maybe if the allies attack a true neutral, any pro-allied neutral, that is not currently owned by the allies, would go true neutral?
But which pro-Allied neutral would still not be activated by the time a neutral crush would take place?
Ireland, Crete…ok fine! You make a point!
BTW, the idea of taking an NO away because an ally does something is not new! You lose the SZ 125 NO if America or England lands a plane on your territory, even if you did not give them permission to do so!
-
@Cmdr:
I just thought of this, what if the allies take a true neutral, the United States immediately and forever loses their 10 IPC NO for the Continental United States? I never liked that one anyway and it would be fitting punishment. Call it loss of trade revenues with neutral nations - economic sanctions by the League of Nations (dont care if they could do that or not, they could make an agreement to stop trading with the US!).
Not a bad idea at all!
-
@special:
@Cmdr:
I just thought of this, what if the allies take a true neutral, the United States immediately and forever loses their 10 IPC NO for the Continental United States? I never liked that one anyway and it would be fitting punishment. Call it loss of trade revenues with neutral nations - economic sanctions by the League of Nations (dont care if they could do that or not, they could make an agreement to stop trading with the US!).
Not a bad idea at all!
Will the US be able to invade neutrals if they endure this penalty…… I would hope so.
-
@Young:
@special:
@Cmdr:
I just thought of this, what if the allies take a true neutral, the United States immediately and forever loses their 10 IPC NO for the Continental United States? I never liked that one anyway and it would be fitting punishment. Call it loss of trade revenues with neutral nations - economic sanctions by the League of Nations (dont care if they could do that or not, they could make an agreement to stop trading with the US!).
Not a bad idea at all!
Will the US be able to invade neutrals if they endure this penalty…… I would hope so.
i think so, basically they can harvest about 10 IPC’s in true neutrals, so with some effort (and time) they can neutralize the penalty (which is not bad, since the USA is often found to be too powerful, this way neutral crush won’t happen for economical gain).
-
Personally, I don’t see myself toiling in South America after I enter the war, looks time consuming. The rule about not attacking neutrals unless you are at war, still exists right?
-
Correct. I foresee the US sending a small contingent to Samerica. Grabbing Brazil and hitting Venezula will get you 4 ipcs and even on infantry. That will leave 4 inf 2 art under my current iteration to counter, spread in Chile and Argentina. Axis will probably coalesce or perhaps take Brazil, but the main issue the allies will have to deal with is the 3 new axis ships. I thought about adding a sub to SAmerica but I feel a roving axis sub could make its money back and then some in the SAtalntic/Indian Oceans.
Germany will probably collect on Samerica for a turn, and then US will most likely mop up the rest.
In Europe, we have two scenarios to consider, Germany attacking Iberia to control Gib, this would probably be in conjunction with a pure barbarossa campaign. Secondly is the Allies(US) taking it to open a new front in Europe while threatening all of Italy. This is where the playtesting will come in.
Turkey and the middle East I feel is really only under threat from the Axis, can anyone see a reason the Allies would break neutrality that makes sense? The Turkish fleet might survive and if it does it is safe in the Black sea. SaudiArabia and Afghanistan provide boots on the ground immediately and 2 ipcs to UK provided London is not captured.
-
Yes, I think it would be up to the American player to figure out if he wanted to garb S. America to recover the lost revenue and if so, how.
I can see two methods:
1) Set up a few transports so you can hit all but Argentina in one round (it’s the only one you cannot get too from E. USA by my count.) Perhaps by setting it up from the get go, just having the transports and troops ready to deploy immediately.
2) Go back with a transport and an aircraft carrier and snipe the territories as needed. In this case, Argentina would be the hard one, but could be done.
Of course, who’s to say you give it all to America??? Perhaps you want ANZAC to take Argentina, Chili and Brazil, huh?
-
Instead of a continent NO, for the States, we could call it a world trade NO, and it would rely on America not attacking neutrals.
-
Here’s another idea:
If one of the strict neutrals in a block is attacked, the others not only become Pro-Axis, but those which are still neutral get an infantry bonus. For example, If US attacks Venezuela, then Argentina and Chile both get an extra 1-4 infantry, due to local resistance to American forces. If Italy attacked, the same thing would happen. -
Current Neutral Blocks Proposal.
I am going to lay my proposal out in full, this is the ‘official’ proposal however if anyone else has their own ‘official’ proposal it will be entered into consideration. Please be thorough.
Neutral Blocks
SAmerica- all territories in Samerica minus Brazil.
Middle East-Turkey, Arabia, Afghanistan
Iberia and Colonies-Portugal, Spain and all African neutral territories including Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Switzerland, aloneMongolia is removed from the ‘strict neutral’ camp and is added to the Japanese/Russia non-aggression pact. If Russia attacks Japan, Mongolia remains neutral all game. If Japan attacks Russia Mongolia immediately joins Russia, replace Mongolian troops with Russians and place control markers on Mongolian territories.
Sweden is removed from the ‘strict neutral’ camp. It is now tied to the German NO for Swedish iron ore. So long as Sweden is not controlled by the Allies Germany collects a 5 ipc NO. If Russia controls both Finland and Norway then Sweden will join the Axis at the beginning of Germany’s next turn. Replace units with Germans.
Amended Force Pools for Neutrals
Argentina) 1 aa gun, 1 art
Venezuela)1 art
Chile)1 art
sz65)1dd
sz66)1 dd 1 CA
Turkey)2 art 1 ftr
sz100)1 dd 1 CA
Spain)1 aa gun, 1 ftr, 1 arm
Liberia)1 inf
sz91)1 dd
sz92)1 dd 1 CA 1 sub
Sweden)1 art 1 arm 1 ftr
sz114)1 dd 1 CAMiscellaneous
When a neutral block is attacked, all other territories within that block immediately join the opposing side. Players choose which power the entire block will join. All units and territories are replaced with the new controlling power and they will collect ipcs for remaining territories in their next collect income phase. -
If Germany attacks say, Turkey, on G3 does that immediately bring USA and USSR into the war? Can USA attack Spain then?
-
USA would be restricted to coastal territories until they are at war just as in A2. Not sure if they should be allowed to invade Samerica while Neutral, I am guessing not.
Great question about Turkey, the Axis could try and delay Barbarossa and instead position an army in Persia for a drive north. That would be interesting. First they will have to deal with the British who have been beefed up by 6 inf and 2 ipcs. Also the fleet in the Black sea would have to go to UK as well. All units could go to Russia I suppose….Allies deciding.
I see the problem you are eluding to, that the Axis might be able to do some serious damage and the Russians will be unable to stop it. I need to playtest sooo bad, perhaps after Thanksgiving.
Its also looking like India could be a valid Axis target, take China and India out and try for a Pacific win…must playtest:)
EDIT: possible fix might be to put an aa gun in Turkey.
-
Maybe Turkey’s navy could be in z99 instead of z100. I think if the axis hit a neutral, USA and USSR should be allowed to declare war.
-
@Young:
Instead of a continent NO, for the States, we could call it a world trade NO, and it would rely on America not attacking neutrals.
Aye.
-
@Vance:
If Germany attacks say, Turkey, on G3 does that immediately bring USA and USSR into the war? Can USA attack Spain then?
Interesting.
However, America could take these territories and then what? Germany could attack and bring America into the war, or watch America put a complex down and build units ready to make an attack? Or just fret over having Americans on Continental Europe early.
-
Sweden is removed from the ‘true neutral’ camp. It is now tied to the German NO for Swedish iron ore. If Sweden is neutral or controlled by the axis Germany collects 5 ipcs. If Russia controls both Finland and Norway then Sweden will join the Axis at the beginning of Germany’s next turn. Replace units with Germans.
I have a few comments. First, I would change the language to “strict neutral” following the original rules (I am sure everyone knew what you meant, but players involved in rules disputes can get very nitpicky. More importantly, by saying the are removed from the true (strict) neutral camp, what does that mean? Can any power attack Sweden or Mongolia before your conditions take place? Since you are giving Sweden some unnamed exceptional status at the start of the game, your NO would better read, “If Sweden is not controlled by the Allies then Germany collects 5 IPCs.”
Miscellaneous
When a neutral country is attacked, all other territories within that block immediately join the opposing side. Players choose which power the entire block will join. All units and territories are replaced with the new controlling power and they will collect ipcs for remaining territories in their next collect income phase.Here, I highly recommend being more specific about which player chooses. I assume you mean that if the Allies are attacking a block, block control is decided by the Axis (and vice versa).
Suggested Topics
