Thanks - there is more to come:+1:
FMG, HBG, OOB Pieces Comparison
-
What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).
I would certainly put those up, but I don’t have any particular desire to buy the Neutrals set. If anyone else has them, be my guest.
-
What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).
I purchased a set of the yellow-green pieces in the hope they’d match the colour OOB Chinese infantry, but they don’t. The lime-green British pieces from revised are much more compatible with the Chinese infantry.
-
@CWO:
What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).
I purchased a set of the yellow-green pieces in the hope they’d match the colour OOB Chinese infantry, but they don’t. The lime-green British pieces from revised are much more compatible with the Chinese infantry.
I purchased a couple of the neutral sets, but not that color. Thanks, Marc. I suppose, though, you could still just use a completely different color for them, so that all the Chinese are that color (eg. HBG Yellow-green, Light Blue, Yellow, etc.)
-
@CWO:
The lime-green British pieces from revised are much more compatible with the Chinese infantry.
That brings up another point. How do the Light Green HBG Neutrals compare to the light green UK units from Revised? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
-
I couldn’t bring myself to use British sculpts for Chinese units. I’d rather have the colors not match.
-
Reply #28 in this thread…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23787.15
…has a comparative of the yellow-green Neutrals next to an OOB Chinese infantry piece.
Reply #33 has a picture of all the neutral colours.
-
Nice.
Although, can anyone tell me the use for all those Neutral units? I mean, I am all for the superfluous, but how do neutrals buy cruisers or fighters, or even tanks? House rule?
-
One of the main things I was thinking is that instead of just infantry in those neutral zones, you could have other units there also, like fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. Sea units could be located in an adjacent sea zone and claimed or fought separately from the land units, or claimed when the land units are claimed. Strict neutral units in sea zones, however, could be ignored (as long as no one invades a strict neutral, of course) or maybe they would block movement. There are lots of possibilities there.
-
One of the main things I was thinking is that instead of just infantry in those neutral zones, you could have other units there also, like fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. Sea units could be located in an adjacent sea zone and claimed or fought separately from the land units, or claimed when the land units are claimed. Strict neutral units in sea zones, however, could be ignored (as long as no one invades a strict neutral, of course) or maybe they would block movement. There are lots of possibilities there.
True. I kind of like those ideas. I did not really consider using these units for the Pro-Axis or Pro-Allies Neutrals, since obviously only infantry are able to be activated, per the game itself. Though you could modify that to include ships and tanks and the like. I would just be wary of upsetting any balance the game has. To be honest I haven’t kept up on the revisions to Alpha (Global) +++ or whatever they are on now. If anyone has a link to a latest and greatest set of rules/placements that would be great.
As for strict Neutrals, again, I am all for superfluous. Even to the point of allowing strict Neutrals ships and planes. But I have never before encountered a situation in which it was even slightly advantageous for Russia to build ships, let alone someone to attack a strict Neutral. I just cannot conceive of the application of having extra units for strict Neutrals.
-
If you could make it balanced, it would add a very interesting dynamic, to have neutral ships especially. (Imagine parking a weak UK navy behind a pro-allied neutral destroyer, preventing the Germans from wiping you out.) One thing you could do (to try not to upset the balance too much) is switch out units so that the neutrals have the same IPC value of units. Maybe just switch one Inf out for an Art? Something else that might be cool: Usually there is some kind of rule about whether or not the Black Sea is open or not. What if, instead, there is a strict neutral navy blocking the way (connected to Turkey)? However you put it, though, you could still use the infantry to place on Neutrals as a more tangible record of how many Inf are there…
As far as the different revisions to Global rules: Once I saw how much Europe 1940 was going for, I sold mine (making almost $200 off of it) and decided to just wait until 1940 Second editions came out. I was getting tired of all the revisions anyway.
-
Yes, I have considered similar ideas in the past, though not with neutrals. It is an interesting thought.
Are the Second editions out yet? Or when will they be?
-
The Second Editions are not out yet. The planned release date is September 18.
2012_07_09_AA1940Europe2_Solicitation_en_US.pdf
2012_07_09_AA1940Pacific2_Solicitation_en_US.pdf -
As for strict Neutrals, again, I am all for superfluous. Even to the point of allowing strict Neutrals ships and planes. But I have never before encountered a situation in which it was even slightly advantageous for Russia to build ships, let alone someone to attack a strict Neutral. I just cannot conceive of the application of having extra units for strict Neutrals.
You and I have NEVER played a game hoffman.
You don’t know how exciting it can get, when you play against people who consider ALL their options EVERYturn, and ALL time the time.
Also, it’s not exactly -extra- units, more than it is just -different- units. And the pro-allies/pro-axis territories would also benefit from this change.
-
You and I have NEVER played a game hoffman.
You don’t know how exciting it can get, when you play against people who consider ALL their options EVERYturn, and ALL time the time.
Also, it’s not exactly -extra- units, more than it is just -different- units. And the pro-allies/pro-axis territories would also benefit from this change.
I would love a game. Unfortunately, it sounds like you live in BC. I am in Ohio. We might have to meet halfway in a field in Montana or Saskatchewan.
I try to consider all options every turn also, but then people complain because you take such a long time. When you play Global anyway you have more options. But I don’t care too much about that. You have to think everything through.
I would disagree that it is “not exactly -extra- units, more than it is just -different- units”. For example, Greece. In a normal game the Allies can activate, what, 4 infantry? With modified units would ships or tanks be added to those infantry, or maybe replace a couple of them? Same could be said of Bulgaria or Iraq or whatever Pro-Axis Neutrals have. It just seems like adding/replacing Neutral activation units would add be both largely (historically) inaccurate and add an imbalance. I am sure there is a way you could sweeten the deal for both sides (tanks for German activation, ships for the Allies), but just infantry is simpler and more accurate.
So, you could replace units instead of just adding them, but again as far as strict Neutrals go… I cannot fathom why attacking one is in any way beneficial. Prove me wrong.
-
I do agree with Gargantua, although I have not played as many games of Global. I’m more of a 1942 or 1942 2nd Ed guy myself, so don’t take my word as gospel. I just think the idea sounds really cool, and do-able. Also, we could do more research into each of the neutrals to limit the historical inaccuracies.
And I do agree that, generally, attacking strict Neutrals is rather foolish, but not as much if you add other units, especially sea units. For example, my idea with the Turkish strait being blocked by strict neutrals (ie. strict neutral sea units in the black sea)… Germany (or Italy) might see it as beneficial to attack a strict neutral if they can also dump 8 units behind Russian lines right next to a Russian VC and IC.
-
And I do agree that, generally, attacking strict Neutrals is rather foolish, but not as much if you add other units, especially sea units. For example, my idea with the Turkish strait being blocked by strict neutrals (ie. strict neutral sea units in the black sea)… Germany (or Italy) might see it as beneficial to attack a strict neutral if they can also dump 8 units behind Russian lines right next to a Russian VC and IC.
Do-able, yes. I think it warrants experimentation. Unfortunately, I do not have that kind of time.
I still tend to be very skeptical that attacking Strict Neutrals is in any way beneficial. Supposing we did modify Neutral unit activations to include additional types like ships and tanks, maybe planes, I say that it makes attacking a Strict Neutral even less appealing and more dangerous. As you know, by attacking a Strict Neutral, all of the other Strict Neutrals then ally with the other side and can be activated by that side.
Let us use your example of Germany or Italy attacking Turkey. They would have to control the land mass of Turkey in order to navigate the Dardanelles. To do so, The Axis will have to fight off at least 7 infantry, likely some artillery and maybe one or two small ships. That is just to be able to make an invasion in the Black Sea. That burns one turn which will give the USSR plenty of time to move forces in for defense or counter-attack. Regardless of how well the battle for Turkey goes, it would almost certainly be a one time attack. Even in Global, the Axis simply do not have the resources or leeway to make such a move more than once (if that).
Which brings us to a preliminary point: how do the Axis get into a position to make such a move viable in the first place? (1) They will have to divert precious funds from more immediately effective expendatures (mainly land units) to a naval force which ultimately has no hope against the Allies, consituting a long run waste of money. (2) Preparation for such an attack will take multiple turns, causing you to focus on a secondary objective rather than concentrating forces on something more tactically or strategically relevent. It will likely leave either Germany or Italy weak on their main combat fronts: Russia and Africa. You could work a Turkey attack strategy into Italy’s mission somehow I guess, but to be effective they need money and for money they NEED Africa. Taking Africa will consume a number of turns on a good day, not to mention the problem of dealing with Royal Navy harassment. This will further delay the plan. And we haven’t even mentioned the biggest deal breaker of all yet.
Pissing off the other Neutrals. Once Turkey is attacked by the Axis, all other Neutrals and their activation forces become pro-Allied. In the regular Global, this only means upwards of 20 extra infantry for the Allies plus IPC income, but in a modified game including ships and tanks, the Allies would gain enough equipment to seriously threaten the Axis from all sides.
That said, I still don’t see much application for extra Neutral units because historically they had next to nothing to fight a modern war with. Every country has manpower and some semblance of an army, which is why Infantry activation is a simple, accurate and universal medium. Unless I am mistaken, Turkey had one of, if not the, largest armed forces of any Neutral nation in WWII. Even then Turkey had a few subs, a couple destroyers and a cruiser. The post on this forum outlines their naval forces, calling them “insignificant”. Which I would venture to say includes armor and aircraft as well. http://www.ww2f.com/north-africa-mediterranean/27491-turkey-ww2.html � (see the second reply on the thread)
If this is the case, Neutral navies/air forces/armored forces being “insignificant”, I do not know how they could be accurately or justifiably included in Axis and Allies… only because the scale of our game, big as it is, is not big enough to show how small and ill trained the forces of Neutral nations were compared to even tertiary combatants in the war.
-
but again as far as strict Neutrals go… I cannot fathom why attacking one is in any way beneficial. Prove me wrong.
I am currently in a tournament game, where probably the only way for the allies to stop the axis from winning, is to attack the strict neutrals.
I’ve conquered London, and held it strongly, then gone about strategic bombing both the Gibraltar and Egypt naval bases. This has severely hampered the allies - as they cannot be repaired, and with no morocoo either, the Americans are hard pressed to do anything of relevance.
Of course… they could break free from this poison pill by attacking and landing in Spain, building a NB, a complex, and maybe an AB, to go to war against an empty europe.
Hoffman can’t you download tripleA? I will pm!
-
but again as far as strict Neutrals go… I cannot fathom why attacking one is in any way beneficial. Prove me wrong.
I am currently in a tournament game, where probably the only way for the allies to stop the axis from winning, is to attack the strict neutrals.
I’ve conquered London, and held it strongly, then gone about strategic bombing both the Gibraltar and Egypt naval bases. This has severely hampered the allies - as they cannot be repaired, and with no morocoo either, the Americans are hard pressed to do anything of relevance.
Of course… they could break free from this poison pill by attacking and landing in Spain, building a NB, a complex, and maybe an AB, to go to war against an empty europe.
I don’t know if it was Allied incompetence or lucky rolling that caused all this to happen, but it sounds like a wild game.
Why is Europe “empty”? Are the Russians dead then? Do you have no units protecting the continent? On what turn did you take England and for how long have you held it? What the hell are the Americans doing? (besides obviously nothing of relevence) I have a lot of questions about this situation.
Hoffman can’t you download tripleA? I will pm!
I can. I just have not. You haven’t been on my case in a while.
-
Let us use your example of Germany or Italy attacking Turkey. They would have to control the land mass of Turkey in order to navigate the Dardanelles. To do so, The Axis will have to fight off at least 7 infantry, likely some artillery and maybe one or two small ships. That is just to be able to make an invasion in the Black Sea. That burns one turn which will give the USSR plenty of time to move forces in for defense or counter-attack. Regardless of how well the battle for Turkey goes, it would almost certainly be a one time attack. Even in Global, the Axis simply do not have the resources or leeway to make such a move more than once (if that).
…
That said, I still don’t see much application for extra Neutral units because historically they had next to nothing to fight a modern war with. Every country has manpower and some semblance of an army, which is why Infantry activation is a simple, accurate and universal medium. Unless I am mistaken, Turkey had one of, if not the, largest armed forces of any Neutral nation in WWII. Even then Turkey had a few subs, a couple destroyers and a cruiser. The post on this forum outlines their naval forces, calling them “insignificant”. Which I would venture to say includes armor and aircraft as well.
I will clarify and modify what I was trying to say. You could make it so that simply passing through the Turkish strait is seen an act of war. You don’t have to control Turkey itself in order to pass, but it IS seen as an act of war on a strict neutral. You could then place a cruiser or sub or something like that in the black sea to signify their small navy. With this method, it would be possible to move into the Black Sea and drop a small army behind enemy lines, taking a Russian territory (or two, or three).
It may be true that Neutral navies were rather insignificant, but I would point out that that forum also mentions that Turkey has 37 Artillery regiments, as opposed to 66 infantry (95 including cavalry). So while maybe tanks, planes, and ships aren’t that great, artillery are still significant, yes?
-
I will clarify and modify what I was trying to say. You could make it so that simply passing through the Turkish strait is seen an act of war. You don’t have to control Turkey itself in order to pass, but it IS seen as an act of war on a strict neutral. You could then place a cruiser or sub or something like that in the black sea to signify their small navy. With this method, it would be possible to move into the Black Sea and drop a small army behind enemy lines, taking a Russian territory (or two, or three).
Yes, you could make the rules exactly as you say, however it does not seem very realistic or in keeping with the game’s established convention. I mean, don’t you think the Turks would see the Germans/Italians entering the straits and have a problem with it (and therefore use all that artillery that you later mention)? I believe Turkey was known for having coastal fortifications on the straits with guns large enough to threaten ships. It just seems like the Axis could not pass through freely and then once they are finished passing through have it be seen as an act of war. Would Turkey not then close the strait and lock them in the Black Sea? I think it has to be viewed like any of the other straights in the game: to pass through your Power (or allied power) must hold the territory controlling the strait (e.g. Denmark and Gibraltar).
I’m still not sold on why this would ever become a desirable course of action, but I am all for being able to do so if you choose.
It may be true that Neutral navies were rather insignificant, but I would point out that that forum also mentions that Turkey has 37 Artillery regiments, as opposed to 66 infantry (95 including cavalry). So while maybe tanks, planes, and ships aren’t that great, artillery are still significant, yes?
Yes, I would say their artillery would be significant, or at least a significant part of their force. That being so, I think it would be more accurate to include some artillery in the activated Turkish forces. Maybe at the cost of replacing an infantry or two in the process. I personally don’t believe it would be appropriate to have 6 infantry (or 9, I forget exactly how many they get) and 4 artillery in a Neutral nation. Just seems like we are straying from simplicity and trying to be too precise.
Suggested Topics
