Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

[Young Grasshopper]

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?

[Robbernosky]

@Young:

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?

You’re like a Thomas Jefferson for these Delta rules.

[Jennifer]

I think the rule can stand as is, but we should open the discussion to changing armies to “balance” it.  And yes, I think that should be a seperate poll.

Neutrals are going to be targetable for most games now, that’s a dynamic shift in the game that should be looked at a bit more in depth, I feel.  Yes, the rule is in, but now we need to discuss how to adjust the game board to make up for the new dynamic.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cmdr:

I think the rule can stand as is, but we should open the discussion to changing armies to “balance” it.  And yes, I think that should be a seperate poll.

Neutrals are going to be targetable for most games now, that’s a dynamic shift in the game that should be looked at a bit more in depth, I feel.  Yes, the rule is in, but now we need to discuss how to adjust the game board to make up for the new dynamic.

We must tread lightly, after the written Delta+1, the practical play testing stage of Delta+2 will maybe shed a lot of light on dramatic changes. I would like to avoid radical ideas before we get there.

[Jennifer]

@Young:

@Cmdr:

I think the rule can stand as is, but we should open the discussion to changing armies to “balance” it.  And yes, I think that should be a seperate poll.

Neutrals are going to be targetable for most games now, that’s a dynamic shift in the game that should be looked at a bit more in depth, I feel.  Yes, the rule is in, but now we need to discuss how to adjust the game board to make up for the new dynamic.

We must tread lightly, after the written Delta+1, the practical play testing stage of Delta+2 will maybe shed a lot of light on dramatic changes. I would like to avoid radical ideas before we get there.

Agreed.  However, the neutral block rule is pretty radical.  One of the major reasons neutrals are only defended lightly is because they are rarely invaded and the penalty is not lost men and machines, but rather the risk your opponents get free men and machines.  Removing this penalty may mean adding more threat to your men and machines to compensate.

[JimmyHat]

@Cmdr:

I think the rule can stand as is, but we should open the discussion to changing armies to “balance” it.  And yes, I think that should be a seperate poll.

Neutrals are going to be targetable for most games now, that’s a dynamic shift in the game that should be looked at a bit more in depth, I feel.  Yes, the rule is in, but now we need to discuss how to adjust the game board to make up for the new dynamic.

First let me say I think you’re right Grasshopper, and any proposal will have to be available to refinement as the process goes along because a later change might effect an earlier one.  That was my point earlier about trying to pick foundation topics to hash out first.  If a topic goes to its own thread, then it is during that process that members have the best chance to point out possible errors or balance issues.  We leave those threads up for a while so that hopefully all areas are covered.  Once the ‘final’ rule is completed, it then should be added to the current rules iteration.(which I think should be a locked sticky on the main page for reference and to promote cross-board traffic)  Once we have a few rules up there we should get an idea of if we have something or not.  Of course once a rule gets posted to the sticky it can be called out further in other threads if someone sees a problem.  In fact I would put that in the opening post, that if at anytime someone wants to question or get clarification on a Delta rule they just make a post.

Secondly, now is a great time to talk about neutral force pools, I know there was some ideas on increasing the various fleets, but I felt it would be easier to see missing ships than it would be to remove them.  As far as ground units go, the reason I added armor to Sweden and Spain was to increase defense, same with the ftrs.  The aa gun in Argentina will hopefully dissuade US from coming in lightly.  In fact beefing up the armies in such a way seems to me to discourage a neutral crush strategy, however it needs to be playtested to find out.  I played with the idea of only adding infantry, but that would mean disregarding the printed inf numbers on the board and I felt trying to keep as much information with the board the same was important.(I don’t see Larry commissioning a new board like I do see him changing rules or perhaps releasing aa gun molds)

Based on that, I tried to add the least amount of troops possible but still give the defender an ‘army’ with which to delay the invader.  I also took into consideration movement and that is why there are so few mechanized units and the aircraft are located in target areas, most likely to die in the initial invasion.

If it were to be done with just inf and art, we would need many more units.  In regards to the fleets, it would be possible to try without them, although I think it is best to look at each fleet separately.

Turkish fleet: this is placed more as a disincentive for the Axis to attack Turkey without sending their aircraft to die against these ships.  If the Allies take Turkey then this fleet would be near useless for the Axis as it is located in the Black sea, this is their historic berth, Turkey tried to contest the Black Sea because it was no contest in the Med against Italy/France/UK.

Swedish fleet: located in defense of Stockholm, this fleet cannot really defend its coast, but is also an incentive for Germany not to attack Sweden and also for the Allies to split control of Scandinavia and get the US in the North Atlantic.

Iberian fleet: Portuguese dd and Spanish fleet is designed to prevent bombards on the invasion if coming from the US.  It also will possibly buff the axis Med fleet if US moves on Spain heavily.  It also serves as a deterrent to the Axis to invade, including the african troops.

SAmerican fleet: Chilean dd is there to block movement and prevent bombards, Argentina fleet also protects bombards and if these ships are not destroyed they can become a real pain to the Allies.

I went conservative and left the fleets tiny, I expect playtesting to finalize the force pools.

[Young Grasshopper]

Here is a simple solution:

When an axis power attacks a true neutral territory, all remaining true neutrals within that block become pro-allies. Any IPC value of a true neutral teritorry is a one time bonus only, to the invading power at the time of occupation. This IPC value may never again be collected in the game regardless of how many times the territory is captured or recaptured.

This way, the reasons for over taking a true neutral are strategical and not a shameless money grab, also, there is no reason to balance the blocks with massive neutral armies if the territories are worthless.

This is just a simple idea I had, and I don’t mean to undermine the great work that has been done up to this point. I just don’t see how force pools help balance Alpha+2, if it’s just a bandaid for the neutral blocks rule.

[JimmyHat]

I wouldn’t call it a band aid so much as the solution to a neutral crush strategy.

I do see where you are coming from, neutrals are a peripheral subject, what is the value in bringing them into play in the first place.  The game can certainly be played without them, perhaps it might be best to say each of these Delta rules can be used singly or in groups…I don’t know.  This was the subject voted on so this is the one I have been working on.  I do feel personally that the current A2 neutral rules are silly, for instance the first game I ever played as UK I invaded Crete, thereby unlocking Greece for the allies…er, no.

Putting them in realistic political blocks weakens the neutrals overall, but there is another realistic solution and that is to add other types of units besides infantry to Neutrals.  Spain had a huge fleet and they had left over weapons from the Civil war, Sweden had a nice army and good defensible terrain, Turkey rivaled Russia for control of the Black sea.  Giving these neutral nations slightly larger armies gives them a bit more flavor if you ask me and a chance for the true nerds out there to model an Argentinean aa gun and such…pointing no fingers.

Of course I could be totally wrong, I think I have a solid proposal though and intend to playtest the heck out of it after the family leaves town, perhaps even this weekend.

[special forces]

Somehting that just popped into my mind (abit similar to something i proposed before)

Each true neutral (even after turning pro-some camp) that gets attacked gets 1d6 extra inf (partisans).

So you can get 1 up to 6 extra inf per country, not knowing which neutral will fight back fiercely and which one will give in easily.

As they are civilians, these are ONLY for defence, when a turned neutral gets activated, only the amount of soldiers indicated on the board get drafted.

It can be called “neutral partisans”

Edit: …i guess this means if for example Russia attacks Turkey (Stalin wanting kebab) and all the other neutrals (blocks or not) turn pro-axis,  the axis can chose NOT to activate Spain, forfeiting the 2 IPC income but gambling to have up to 6 INF extra in case it gets attacked. Might be interesting in certain cases.

[special forces]

@Young:

Here is a simple solution:

When an axis power attacks a true neutral territory, all remaining true neutrals within that block become pro-allies. Any IPC value of a true neutral teritorry is a one time bonus only, to the invading power at the time of occupation. This IPC value may never again be collected in the game regardless of how many times the territory is captured or recaptured.

This way, the reasons for over taking a true neutral are strategical and not a shameless money grab, also, there is no reason to balance the blocks with massive neutral armies if the territories are worthless.

This is just a simple idea I had, and I don’t mean to undermine the great work that has been done up to this point. I just don’t see how force pools help balance Alpha+2, if it’s just a bandaid for the neutral blocks rule.

I kinda like this idea. But this means that for example S.America will completely be out of the game, as it has almost no strategic value whatsoever.

In fact only Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Saoudi Arabia will remain in the running. Is that a good or a bad thing? I don’t know…

[special forces]

@JimmyHat:

Putting them in realistic political blocks weakens the neutrals overall, but there is another realistic solution and that is to add other types of units besides infantry to Neutrals.  Spain had a huge fleet and they had left over weapons from the Civil war, Sweden had a nice army and good defensible terrain, Turkey rivaled Russia for control of the Black sea.  Giving these neutral nations slightly larger armies gives them a bit more flavor if you ask me and a chance for the true nerds out there to model an Argentinean aa gun and such….pointing no fingers.

A practical question: those neutral naval units, which miniatures are players going to use for them?

[Young Grasshopper]

@special:

@Young:

Here is a simple solution:

When an axis power attacks a true neutral territory, all remaining true neutrals within that block become pro-allies. Any IPC value of a true neutral teritorry is a one time bonus only, to the invading power at the time of occupation. This IPC value may never again be collected in the game regardless of how many times the territory is captured or recaptured.

This way, the reasons for over taking a true neutral are strategical and not a shameless money grab, also, there is no reason to balance the blocks with massive neutral armies if the territories are worthless.

This is just a simple idea I had, and I don’t mean to undermine the great work that has been done up to this point. I just don’t see how force pools help balance Alpha+2, if it’s just a bandaid for the neutral blocks rule.

I kinda like this idea. But this means that for example S.America will completely be out of the game, as it has almost no strategic value whatsoever.

In fact only Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Saoudi Arabia will remain in the running. Is that a good or a bad thing? I don’t know…

It’s a good thing, the more I think about this solution the more it makes sence. If we bang our heads trying to find a way to get S.A into the war, we will end up shifting the balance of the game, and let’s face it, other than ANZAC, America is the only nation that stands to benifet from S.A, and everyone agrees not to make the US more powerful. I say screw S.A and focus on territories with strategic value, and if the US wants to toil in S.A for a total of $8 and maybe a place to build a minor, than let them as long as thats all they get from it. Under the suggestion submitted above, it will allow neutral to enter the game without an earthquake like effect…. which is something we should be avoiding.

[Jennifer]

I don’t really mind S. America being out of the running in most games.  However, I have used S. America to destroy N. America with Germany (and Japan landing in Alaska/Threat to W. USA) before.

Argentina = Minor Complex
Brazil = Minor Complex
Venezuaela = Minor Complex
and
Chile = Minor Complex

Coupled with very minor reinforcements as needed allowed for Central America to be traded (W. Indies gone) with lots of submarines in SZ 101 and SZ 10…USA was pretty crippled…then again, I did lose Berlin to the Russians that game…

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cmdr:

I don’t really mind S. America being out of the running in most games.  However, I have used S. America to destroy N. America with Germany (and Japan landing in Alaska/Threat to W. USA) before.

Argentina = Minor Complex
Brazil = Minor Complex
Venezuaela = Minor Complex
and
Chile = Minor Complex

Coupled with very minor reinforcements as needed allowed for Central America to be traded (W. Indies gone) with lots of submarines in SZ 101 and SZ 10…USA was pretty crippled…then again, I did lose Berlin to the Russians that game…

No offense Jen, but I will go out on a limb and say that some of the situations you describe in your games (like the one above) are very rare to games played by most of the members here.

[Jennifer]

I didn’t mean to imply this happens routinely!  It was unique to that game, specifically!  I was trying to kill America first and I did so, but again, that was game specific and I don’t think I could repeat the process against the same person!

@Young:

@Cmdr:

I don’t really mind S. America being out of the running in most games.  However, I have used S. America to destroy N. America with Germany (and Japan landing in Alaska/Threat to W. USA) before.

Argentina = Minor Complex
Brazil = Minor Complex
Venezuaela = Minor Complex
and
Chile = Minor Complex

Coupled with very minor reinforcements as needed allowed for Central America to be traded (W. Indies gone) with lots of submarines in SZ 101 and SZ 10…USA was pretty crippled…then again, I did lose Berlin to the Russians that game…

No offense Jen, but I will go out on a limb and say that some of the situations you describe in your games (like the one above) are very rare to games played by most of the members here.

[Young Grasshopper]

Understood, what do you think of my suggestion in reply #118?

[Jennifer]

It looks good to me, but maybe we need to stipulate that they go allied or axis but to the power closest to them?  So the United States of America does not suddenly get Turkey while at peace.

Or better, why not toss a die?

1-2 America
3-4 England
5-6 Russia

1-3 Germany
4-6 Italy

(Afghanistan and Mongolia are the only ones on the Pacific map, seems obvious how they should default - to me anyway.)

@Young:

Here is a simple solution:

When an axis power attacks a true neutral territory, all remaining true neutrals within that block become pro-allies. Any IPC value of a true neutral teritorry is a one time bonus only, to the invading power at the time of occupation. This IPC value may never again be collected in the game regardless of how many times the territory is captured or recaptured.

This way, the reasons for over taking a true neutral are strategical and not a shameless money grab, also, there is no reason to balance the blocks with massive neutral armies if the territories are worthless.

This is just a simple idea I had, and I don’t mean to undermine the great work that has been done up to this point. I just don’t see how force pools help balance Alpha+2, if it’s just a bandaid for the neutral blocks rule.

[Young Grasshopper]

If we were going that way I would say the closest, but I prefer to keep it simple and say they turn pro allies, or pro axis.

[JimmyHat]

@special:

@JimmyHat:

Putting them in realistic political blocks weakens the neutrals overall, but there is another realistic solution and that is to add other types of units besides infantry to Neutrals.  Spain had a huge fleet and they had left over weapons from the Civil war, Sweden had a nice army and good defensible terrain, Turkey rivaled Russia for control of the Black sea.  Giving these neutral nations slightly larger armies gives them a bit more flavor if you ask me and a chance for the true nerds out there to model an Argentinean aa gun and such….pointing no fingers.

A practical question: those neutral naval units, which miniatures are players going to use for them?

When the block is attacked the defender chooses which country will control the units and replaces the neutral units with pieces of his own.

[special forces]

@JimmyHat:

@special:

@JimmyHat:

Putting them in realistic political blocks weakens the neutrals overall, but there is another realistic solution and that is to add other types of units besides infantry to Neutrals.  Spain had a huge fleet and they had left over weapons from the Civil war, Sweden had a nice army and good defensible terrain, Turkey rivaled Russia for control of the Black sea.  Giving these neutral nations slightly larger armies gives them a bit more flavor if you ask me and a chance for the true nerds out there to model an Argentinean aa gun and such….pointing no fingers.

A practical question: those neutral naval units, which miniatures are players going to use for them?

When the block is attacked the defender chooses which country will control the units and replaces the neutral units with pieces of his own.

So the neutrals are active right away?