@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
@special:
Attacking Turkey turns the european neutrals + the arab/africa ones
(attacking arabs/africans turns arab/africa + turkey + sweden)
I like that one.
@special:
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?
attacking spain turns the european neutrals + S.America
(attacking S.America only turns all of S.America)
Wouldn’t we want it so attacking Samerica can turn Spain, in order to keep US honest in the Western Hemisphere?
An attack on Turkey sure seems to be the roughest in this scenario.
How about if Germany attacks Neutral Turkey, USSR destroys the Baku oil fields and so Germany may NEVER earn the 5 IPC NO for Caucasus.
Vance, when ever theres enough info and opinions from everyone, could you present one of your great unbiased rule versions for Neutral blocks, if we have some thing solid to discuss, it might move the process. However, if this rule needs longer to flesh out, that’s fine to.
We could start by discussing different aspects of the rule and piece it together that way, or maybe we can identify sticky points that we can’t agree on. I would also like to see updated versions of this rule from wheatbeer and JimmyHat so we can vote on one, and talk about that for a while.
OK I will do that tomorrow
@Vance:
OK I will do that tomorrow
No rush, I know you’ve spent a lot of time on UKGIE, so you might be behind in this thread. Take your time to feel out the suggestions in all it’s pages, and give attention to wheatbeer and JimmyHats ideas, who both made the original suggestion.
Maybe a couple of versions are needed, so don’t put pressure on yourself to get something out as early as tommorrow. One thing I have noticed in this thread is how often new thoughts pop up, taking this rule in many different directions.
yeah we got a big weekend coming up. Just a thought, Turkey as another access point to Europe/asia seems to be a bit contentious. Do we want movement through this corridor, and if so should we increase the penalty to the invader? I personally feel this additional possible front might make things a bit more interesting in the Med, but I need to playtest it to find out. Can’t wait till the fam leaves town and I get a table back.
I don’t mind movement through this coordidore, but we might want to beef up the local defense forces in Turkey AND Spain (for a similar reason, to punish it for being a new cooridor) so it’s painful.
Turkey: 12 Infantry, 4 Artillery, 4 Armor, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter
Spain: 8 Infantry, 3 Artillery, 2 Armor, 1 AA Gun, 1 Tactical Bomber
You can still cream them, but now they’re on par with France (which can also get creamed) and a bit more painful to attack. (Not to mention, when they go pro-the enemy it really hurts if they are annexed!)
Seems like neutral navies and air units are taking a hold, a slippery slope IMO, I am very open minded and will listen to anything, but something tells me that this rule will read very long and complicated.
@Young:
Seems like neutral navies and air units are taking a hold, a slippery slope IMO, I am very open minded and will listen to anything, but something tells me that this rule will read very long and complicated.
Yea, I am backing off the navies a bit. Cool idea, but rather hard to work into the game I think. I see 100 pages of the same questions being asked over and over again about them:
“Can I get a neutral by moving a destroyer to their navy?” /sigh
Beefing up Turkey and Spain makes sense to me in-so-much as they are major avenues of attack! America would LOVE to pummel Spain into submission, and I almost always do anyway. Same for Germany in Turkey.
Gotta see some well worded versions before we vote anyways. For the record, I’m involved in Delta to help find balance to an already great game, not to get lost in a jungle of random thoughts, and long winded inventions. Don’t mean to be critical, but this might be one that gets ahead of us.
@Cmdr:
“Can I get a neutral by moving a destroyer to their navy?” /sigh
This is easy, you would have to declare war to fight those ships, or the territory they are next to because they belong to the block. Only way to get a neutral is by having the other alliance declare war on the block.
@special:
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?
attacking spain turns the european neutrals + S.America
(attacking S.America only turns all of S.America)Wouldn’t we want it so attacking Samerica can turn Spain, in order to keep US honest in the Western Hemisphere?
No, because that way, as USA i can use S.America as an free ticket to attack Spain.
