Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

[Young Grasshopper]

@special:

@Young:

Some voters only voted once, instead of the 2 votes they were allowed.

So what else next to “none of the above” should i vote? ;)

(actually, i don’t see a 2nd vote option)

I think you have to use both votes at the same time, if you vote only once and submit it, you don’t get your second one.

[Jennifer]

I vote for none of the above and “screw your reality, I will repace it with my own!” mwhuahahahaha….

[Jennifer]

No seriously, there should have been an option with the other two nations didnt come in right away…oh well.  I’ll look them over again.

[special forces]

@Cmdr:

I vote for none of the above and “screw your reality, I will repace it with my own!” mwhuahahahaha….

hah, i was just watching Mythbusters before i checked the forum, funny coincidence :) (if that was a reference, at least)

[Young Grasshopper]

If anyone thinks I should reset the voting to zero, and allow Vance to edit some choices, just say the word. We must do everything we can to get this right.

[JimmyHat]

@Cmdr:

I don’t like any of them!  They all result in USA/USSR attacking Germany.

I agree this is a rough issue, but through playtesting we can see if it is needed or not.  Speaking of which I plan on setting up my board and playing a game of Delta this or next week if anyone is interested.

[Young Grasshopper]

@JimmyHat:

@Cmdr:

I don’t like any of them!  They all result in USA/USSR attacking Germany.

I agree this is a rough issue, but through playtesting we can see if it is needed or not.  Speaking of which I plan on setting up my board and playing a game of Delta this or next week if anyone is interested.

Sorry, I have a game this weekend, so I’m putting in tons of QT with the wife this week (as always before game days).

[Jennifer]

@Young:

If anyone thinks I should reset the voting to zero, and allow Vance to edit some choices, just say the word. We must do everything we can to get this right.

What’s done is done.  Leave it as is.

---

@JimmyHat:

@Cmdr:

I don’t like any of them!  They all result in USA/USSR attacking Germany.

I agree this is a rough issue, but through playtesting we can see if it is needed or not.  Speaking of which I plan on setting up my board and playing a game of Delta this or next week if anyone is interested.

I used my mod powers too remove myself from the poll without voting.  Basically I abstained but get to see how the vote’s working out (but it means I cannot vote now.)  1C it is.

[Jennifer]

James (seperate house rule thread) had a great idea for boosting the defense of neutrals.  If you attack a neutral nation (pro your enemy or true neutral) they get the number of rounds + their territory value for your enemy to buy extra units to defend it.  Any left overs could be captures (so if there is 1 or 2 IPC left over you can capture it.)

He also wanted annexed nations to give you their accumulated cash, but I think it would be better not to do this.  That way you get punished for attacking neutrals and if you annex a neutral then the reward is having more income and free units and that’s it.

[wheatbeer]

I like James’ idea.  I really think neutral forces need to be boosted to have any chance of balance.

[Jennifer]

Well, I don’t see how that “change” would make a difference on which rule was selected (voted on and won) so what do we say to having a binary vote on whether or not we incorporate JamesAlemans (gosh I hope that’s the right user name) idea of allowing them to spend what they “earned” for controlling their own territory?

[Jennifer]

@mantlefan:

If you want people to participate in the voting, please, for the love of all that is Axis & Allies, but the options in the first post of the thread.

Yes, waiting for Grasshopper to give me the go-ahead to create the poll on the proposed change from James.  Once he says, go, I’ll put the options in the poll and in the first post of the thread.  Simple binary, no 38 choices, just 2.  Yes or No.

[JimmyHat]

Well, I certainly agree that the neutral force pools need to be beefed up in order to strengthen the proposed Neutral block idea.  His solution is simple too, I like that.  I still think Mongolia should be a separate issue tied to the Jap/Rus border.  Would his proposal work with neutral blocks?  Without neutral blocks I foresee his addition cancelling any attacks on neutrals at all, that’s not something I am interested in.  There should be room for neutral attacks in this game.

[Jennifer]

@JimmyHat:

Well, I certainly agree that the neutral force pools need to be beefed up in order to strengthen the proposed Neutral block idea.  His solution is simple too, I like that.  I still think Mongolia should be a separate issue tied to the Jap/Rus border.  Would his proposal work with neutral blocks?   Without neutral blocks I foresee his addition cancelling any attacks on neutrals at all, that’s not something I am interested in.  There should be room for neutral attacks in this game.

Well, there was my modification where annexing a neutral did not give you the money or extra units - they only sprang into being if you attacked them.  That would mean you can attack one territory of a block and not drop 100 IPC worth of stuff on the board, but rather 10-20 IPC worth if you waited a long time to attack it.

[Young Grasshopper]

If you guys want to add force pools to this rule because you can’t fix it without them…. than by all means, go ahead and try. Here’s the deal however, Version C of this rule was a clear favorite in the last poll, So, I’m not sure what there is to vote on if a new poll was created. Where are the new versions introducing force pools to this once simple idea? What would I be voting on? I suggest starting a new thread or poll where I can see all the valid suggestions for Neutral blocks.

I just want to say thanks to Vance for posting all the selections that were voted on, it looks as though this rule may go in a different direction beginning at square one.

Lets all remember that this rule was voted in on the merits of wheatbeer’s original entry along with the JimmyHat’s as well, but if I feel that democracy is compromised with a completely different rule after the fact… it will indeed need to survive another voting process back at the starting line.

so, where are the suggestions… James, wheatbeer, JimmyHat, Cmdr Jennifer?

[JimmyHat]

Neutral Blocks Short-hand

Each block is assigned pre-determined unit additions to likely target areas in order to make an attack on any block difficult but not impossible.  Once a block has been compromised all remaining units and territories immediately join the side against the invaders.  They can move these units and collect ipcs from these territories while they survive.

This is all predicated on semi-historical neutral blocks and removing Switz/Sweden/Mongolia from the ‘strict neutral’ camp.

[Jennifer]

Here’s how I see it, YG:

Neutral Armies

Would you rather have option 1, or option 2.
1)  Rule 1C + Each Attacked Neutral gets the number of rounds the game was played times their territory value worth of new units (chosen by whomever is the closest enemy nation)
or
2)  Rule 1C + no changes

Note, only the ATTACKED neutrals get bonus units equal to (X-Rounds)*(TT-Value).  The rest of the block does not, unless one of the other territories in the block is also attacked during the same turn or thereafter (since it’s now an enemy neutral).  Annexing a territory would give you the territory and the starting units, but nothing else.

[Young Grasshopper]

I these suppose to be rule suggestions to be voted on?, because if these were entered into a published rule book, we would all be lost, and where are the bold red titles disguising them from other posts?

[Jennifer]

@Young:

I these suppose to be rule suggestions to be voted on?, because if these were entered into a published rule book, we would all be lost, and where are the bold red titles disguising them from other posts?

Vote on Rule 1, or Rule 2.  Simple, easy, you dont have 400 choices (yea, I’m going to keep harping on that. lol.)  I’ll amend it so there’s a red title for ya.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cmdr:

@Young:

I these suppose to be rule suggestions to be voted on?, because if these were entered into a published rule book, we would all be lost, and where are the bold red titles disguising them from other posts?

Vote on Rule 1, or Rule 2.  Simple, easy, you dont have 400 choices (yea, I’m going to keep harping on that. lol.)  I’ll amend it so there’s a red title for ya.

I must be in the twilight zone…… What am I voting on? Both these “rules” are just ideas, Nobody can tell me what will be added to what neutrals, am I to vote for 1 or 2 just to see neutral ships, strategical bombers and tanks pop up all over the board because Germany attacked Spain… I will not be pushed into voting for something that has less detail than a bubble gum wrapper. That’s how people impose their will and supersede protocol to get what they want.