So the Allies won in the end.
Great game report! I enjoyed reading it.
Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1
-
Understood, what do you think of my suggestion in reply #118?
-
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 Russia1-3 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.
-
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.
-
@special:
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:
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?
-
Correct, like the current A3 mongolia rule. This means the attacker will have to expect a counter attack right away.
-
Okay.
Could be good in the way that a neutral fleet needs to be fought as well before their country is invaded, if by amphibious assault. (ergo no coastals)
-
That was my thinking, and if those ships are not hit then they have a chance to get away, meaning the invading power will probably try and kill them.
-
Jimmy,
wheatbeer, special forces, and yourself have put a lot of effort into this rule. work among yourselves using all the input from this thread, and give use your best suggestion to look at (mark it with a bold red title).
Thanks.
-
@Young:
….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
I think making neutral IPCs a 1 time bonus makes a lot of sense, kind of like taking the IPCs won for taking the capital of the neutral country (Madrid, Istanbul, etc.). It also solves one potential problem I think we were talking about with regards to the UK gov’t in exile rule: Canada might build a couple transports and go on an adventure in South America instead of the US to get that income for the allies but not suffer the USA’s 10IPC penalty. If UK in exile can collect for territories outside Canada (which they can according to the rule as it now stands), then South America would be their stomping ground.
-
I think I have come across an issue with my version of the Neutral blocks in regards to Sweden. If Germany can collect the NO while Sweden is Neutral, then that means in order for the allies to block this NO they will have to invade Sweden.
Not sure if this is an issue or if we can instead connect that NO to Denmark/Sweden, just an observation I have come across.
-
I think I have come across an issue with my version of the Neutral blocks in regards to Sweden. If Germany can collect the NO while Sweden is Neutral, then that means in order for the allies to block this NO they will have to invade Sweden.
Not sure if this is an issue or if we can instead connect that NO to Denmark/Sweden, just an observation I have come across.
The National objectives may not be the same, I’m working on a suggestion to change them.
-
Yes, I think the Allies have to invade Sweeden to kill the NO. I don’t really have an issue with this as I expect the allies to be hitting Spain eventually 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.
just to clarify, are you suggesting that at the fall of a neutral all other countries in the block immediately join the other side? And then that other side, and including the original invader, do not collect income from the territories after the first round? This is an economics game, and I could see this having a big impact on whether or not people attack neutrals. The only issue I see with it is the penalty is still not high enough. Sure the payout is less, but for US 3 ipcs isn’t as big a deal as getting an army in spain to threaten Europe.
This could still be a viable version to playtest, Right now we have 2 versions, mine and wheatbeers to try out.
-
The game right now as it stands:
If Germany attacks Sweden, all remaining true neutrals become pro-allies. Because of this rule, no one wants to attack a true neutral territory (yes Jen, we know you do it all the time) therefore, much of the board becomes useless. But the big question is, why does Germany want to attack Sweden to begin with? Is it to gain some kind of strategic advantage like having the ability to land planes there, or is it to earn more income by controling more territories?
In enters “neutral blocks”
A way to bring more of the board into play, by making the act of attacking a true neutral less impactfull. So if Germany attacks a true neutral like Sweden or Turkey than only the true neutral territories within that area becomes pro allies…… simple, (one would think).
But… Some say that the standing armies of the true neutrals within the block should be activated immediately, and allowed to be move by an allied player (maybe the closest) without actually getting an infantry there. Larry’s rule says that they become pro allies or pro axis, not British troops pop up in Sweden if Germany attacks Turkey, or Italians spawn in Spain if the US walk into Argentina… not simple.
The second issue is the initial reason for attacking a true neutral in the first place. Let’s look at strategic positioning, a place to land planes for farther range, the ability to encircle they enemy or blitz them… all good game play mechanics. Now let’s look at the increase of income reasons, US grabs all of South America earning an extra $8 per turn… Problem. Germany takes Sweden, Spain and Turkey earning crazy cash… Problem. Russia takes all of Mongolia and earns $0 each turn… Problem, and what is the only solution to these problems? Neutral navies and air forces?
If the only income you receive for attacking a true neutral is a one time pay out equal to the territory value, than the intentions for attack a true neutral become purly strategical without problems. Yes, this is an economic game as well, but we don’t have to drag the neutrals into that aspect of the game, besides, if it were about money, Nazi Germany would have attacked Swizerland and robbed them of everything during the war.
I apologize for the sarcastic tone of this post.
-
The thought occurs to me that complete control of a neutral block could be a universal National Objective.
Example: Russia takes all of Mongolia, gets 3 IPC NO.
Example: Germany takes Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Sweeden and gets 3 IPC NO.Etc.
And no, I don’t think I would like the armies automatically joining. It’s enough that if Germany hits Turkey, Amerca can land freely in Spain I think
-
@Cmdr:
The thought occurs to me that complete control of a neutral block could be a universal National Objective.
Example: Russia takes all of Mongolia, gets 3 IPC NO.
Example: Germany takes Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Sweeden and gets 3 IPC NO.Etc.
And no, I don’t think I would like the armies automatically joining. It’s enough that if Germany hits Turkey, Amerca can land freely in Spain I think
That would work well with my idea, for those who think the one time pay out for attacking true neutrals with an IPC value, is not enough financial reward.
-
@Young:
The game right now as it stands:
(snip)
In enters “neutral blocks”
(snip snip)
I apologize for the sarcastic tone of this post.
Good analysis of some the problems connected with neutral rule changes. There’s probably a good reason why the rules are the way they are. ;)
(edit: and although playtesting may prove me wrong, i still think neutral blocks won’t work)
-
True Neutrals (Version #5)
A. An attack by any Axis power upon any true neutral territory within a Neutral Block will result in all remaining true neutral territories within that Block immediately becoming pro allies. An attack by any Allied power upon any true neutral territory within a Neutral Block will result in all remaining true neutral territories within that Block immediately becoming pro axis.
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. Once a power attacks any true neutral territory, they will immediately receive cash in the amount of the territories IPC value. This is a one time payout, and the income tracking chart does not get adjusted. If an opposite side takes control of the true neutral away from the other side, they will also receive cash in the amount of the territories IPC value. This is also a one time payout, and the territory can keep paying out if the other side (not an ally) continues to reclaim the true neutral.
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.
D. Each round a single power controls all the territories (not shared control with an ally) within blocks with multiple neutral territories (the first 4 blocks) they receive a $3 National Objective bonus each turn.
-
I haven’t seen much thinking outside the box in chosing neutral blocks.
What if for example S.America is connected to Spain? Language-wise that would make sense, no?
basically the 3 europe neutrals are the ones that really count and should have larger consequences when attacked, compared to the african or s.american ones, so…
what if:
attacking spain turns the european neutrals + S.America
(attacking S.America only turns all of S.America)Attacking Turkey turns the european neutrals + the arab/africa ones
(attacking arabs/africans turns arab/africa + turkey + sweden)attacking sweden ehh… does anyone care about Sweden? :)
attacking sweden turns only the european neutrals
Suggested Topics
