The updated OPERATION FELIX-HEINRICH includes the revised SetUp of units in Spain that are described in the G40 Strict Neutral Expansion rulebook.
Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1
-
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).
-
Is this rule close to a consensus?
-
I think it is very good, but I would like to see a statement that any attack by an axis power on any Strict Neutral territory or its ships while the USA and/or USSR are neutral will result in USA and USSR immediately joining the Allies. That would allow USA to attack Spain and USSR to counterattack Turkey if Italy and Germany try to tag team the middle east before America wakes up (imagine what such a strategy would do if Japan also hits India early).
-
Simplified Collaborative Neutral Rules
A. An attack by any Axis power upon any territory within a Neutral Block will result in all territories and armies within that Block immediately joining whichever Allied power the Allied player chooses. An attack by any Allied power upon any territory within a Neutral Block will result in all territories and armies within that Block immediately joining whichever Axis power the Axis player chooses. The six Neutral Blocks are:
1. South America (VEN, COL, ECU, PER, BOL, PAR, CHI, ARG, URG)
2. Iberia & Africa (SPA, POR, ANG, MOZ, RDO, PRG, SIE, LIB)
3. Islamic (TURK, SAUD, AFG)
4. Mongolia (OLG, DZA, TSA, CMO, ULA, BUY)
5. Sweden (SWE)
6. Switzerland (SWI)B. The United States Continental NO is now called the World Trade NO. If the United States attacks any strict neutral, it may never again collect this NO.
C. An attack by an Axis power on any strict neutral territory while the USA and/or USSR are not yet at war will result in USA and USSR immediately joining the Allies.
Strongly Suggested:
D. Adding aa guns, artillery, fighters, and possibly naval units to selected strict neutral territories to help balance. In particular, Turkey and Spain. This will be determined collaboratively if this variant of neutral block rules is accepted. -
@Vance:
I think it is very good, but I would like to see a statement that any attack by an axis power on any Strict Neutral territory or its ships while the USA and/or USSR are neutral will result in USA and USSR immediately joining the Allies. That would allow USA to attack Spain and USSR to counterattack Turkey if Italy and Germany try to tag team the middle east before America wakes up (imagine what such a strategy would do if Japan also hits India early).
I think this is something I would add after playtesting. I don’t think we will need the Allies to DOW the axis in this case if it proves to not be game changing. We should keep this in the back pocket though in case this issue arises we got the fix.
Quote from Wheatbeer
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). The idea behind letting the defending side choose its leader is that allows the defending team to decide who is going to get those few ipcs, but also the ships and units. I thought about going with closest ally, but letting the alliance choose gives the players variable experiences. It shouldn’t affect balance. -
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.”
On sweden. Not sure I understand, Sweden is removed from the strict neutral camp at the beginning of the game, there is no ‘before’.
-
The idea behind letting the defending side choose its leader is that allows the defending team to decide who is going to get those few ipcs, but also the ships and units. I thought about going with closest ally, but letting the alliance choose gives the players variable experiences. It shouldn’t affect balance.
I agree entirely with the idea. I was just suggesting you make your wording more specific so it is clear that its the non-aggressor who gets to choose (even if it seems obvious).
As for Sweden and Mongolia under your rules, I am just curious what happens if Germany attacks Sweden on turn 1? Or what happens to Mongolia if the USSR or Japan attack it on turn 1?
-
Simplified Collaborative Neutral Rules
Strongly Suggested:
D. Adding aa guns, artillery, fighters, and possibly naval units to selected strict neutral territories to help balance. In particular, Turkey and Spain. This will be determined collaboratively if this variant of neutral block rules is accepted.Neutral blocks is already accepted as a Delta+1 rule (in principle). However, this suggestion is to radical from the original neutral blocks suggestion that was voted for in poll #1. All standing armies for neutrals will remain as is, unless suggested in a different poll, under a different rule suggestion, to be voted on later. The winning “Neutral Blocks” rule will consist of grouping the strict neutrals into geographical blocks, so if one is attacked it will trigger only the strict neutrals within that block, and not others on the far side of the world. Ideas of adding standing land/sea/air units to Neutral territories and/or their adjacent sea zones, may not be used within the “Neutral Blocks” rule. If you tell us that “Neutral Blocks” is absolutely broken without adding units to a neutrals standing army, than a few infantry will be considered, but absolutely no sea or air units allowed under this selected rule.
-
@Young:
Simplified Collaborative Neutral Rules
Strongly Suggested:
D. Adding aa guns, artillery, fighters, and possibly naval units to selected strict neutral territories to help balance. In particular, Turkey and Spain. This will be determined collaboratively if this variant of neutral block rules is accepted.Neutral blocks is already accepted as a Delta+1 rule (in principle). However, this suggestion is to radical from the original neutral blocks suggestion that was voted for in poll #1. All standing armies for neutrals will remain as is, unless suggested in a different poll, under a different rule suggestion, to be voted on later. The winning “Neutral Blocks” rule will consist of grouping the strict neutrals into geographical blocks, so if one is attacked it will trigger only the strict neutrals within that block, and not others on the far side of the world. Ideas of adding standing land/sea/air units to Neutral territories and/or their adjacent sea zones, may not be used within the “Neutral Blocks” rule. If you tell us that “Neutral Blocks” is absolutely broken without adding units to a neutrals standing army, than a few infantry will be considered, but absolutely no sea or air units allowed under this selected rule.
We just went through 8 pages of dialogue and came up with these unit numbers. My neutral block proposal needs troops because as Special Forces put it without beefing up the Neutrals we are in fact weakening them by splitting them into blocks. What I am saying is a neutral block rule would not be balanced without beefing up their armed forces.
Secondly, if we are not making setup changes to neutrals, then how are we going to do so later in the development process? If we find that units are needed then one would assume we would then have to revisit the Neutral Blocks rule.
The original poll I thought was to find the topics that people want included, then those topics get their own thread for the hashing out of the details. Lastly, once the rule is finalized we have to playtest it to see if any adjustments need to be made. (this is where unit adjustments come in)
If you feel we should be separating the ‘Neutral Blocks’ and ‘Neutral Force Pools’ could you give us a few reasons why? I feel we cannot do neutral blocks without additions to their military because in essence we are weakening the strict neutral block we have now.(which is all of them)
-
Jimmy,
Just write up a “poll” with the rule name in bold red and the details below. Shouldn’t require more than just copy/pasting your changes into the new setup.
-
If you look at the original neutral blocks rule, it is a very simple idea that does not mention anything about adding sea or air units to territories, that said, I do realize that any ideas that are voted in, are very raw and need discussion for refinement. However, if I don’t question drastic changes in the process, than ideas accepted by democracy become unrecognizable to the members who voted for the rule in the first place.
The reason why I need to question and even reject suggestions made to Delta+1 rules in their final stages, is to guard them from members wishing to exploit winning rules in order to push in their more radical ideas into Delta, ideas that may not sit well with most members who are involved in this project. I am not suggesting at all that you are such a member, but I’m sure you can appreciate the risk of not filtering out ideas that are completely in left field from the original.
That said, looking at the suggestions to re-write almost all the standing armies for every strict neutral on the board, and the amount of layers added to the original suggestion, to say that “neutral blocks” is impossible without adding ships and planes, is disappointing. I guess my question is, can it be done with just infantry and artillery?
Suggested Topics
