Neutral Blocks

What the heck is your problem Croesus?

We are discussing your thread and it has quit good ideas,

but I am disappointed at the myriad of revisions officially brought to us by the makers of this game!

It just apppears to me that the makers of this game, have gone way overboard in the revisions.

They have blown up the game, absolutely ridiculous and harmful and discredits the “historiocity” of the game if there ever was one!

This neutral bloc idea is a modest “house” rule, but Alpha 2.4 or whatever it is now is just too much.

I expect Beta soon and then Gamma.

The porch is oft kilter, lets tear down the house to make it right is the attitude of these guys!

All one has to do to add the so called “balance” is to not allow the USA to go from 52 to 82 in one turn.

We had USA add 5 the 1st war turn, 10 the next and then 15. So the USA gets 82, but gradually.

And countries can not build major factories outside thier home territories.

And added the neutral bloc rules.

3 count them 3 revisions and the game is indeed now “balanced” for all those Axis whiners: "Boo Hoo we can’t win the game 50% of the time!!

I think as far as the US income is concerned, Larry Harris corrected that with adding all the new NOs for USA.  Yeah, they still go from 52 to 82 as soon as they enter the war, but at least it’s a bunch of little NOs instead of one big 30 IPC chunk which was nearly impossible to take away from them.  Remember, it was 30 IPCs for being at war and controlling Eastern US, Central US and Western US –- no other territories were involved.  As most Axis players know, you usually don’t even get to the continental US territories unless just about all other Allies are done for, in which case the game is usually won for the Axis anyway.

Now, it is much easier for the Axis to nip away at the US economy.  One of the NOs, the “5 out of 7 islands” NO, requires the US to take some Japanese territory so they can’t just sit back and collect money and build.  Also, it is fairly easy for Japan to take the Philippines NO away as well as the one for the other US Pacific possessions.  It is entirely possible for Italy or Germany to slip over and take the West Indies, wrecking another US NO.  Plus there is always the possibility of large amounts of Axis subs sitting off the coast of US wrecking their convoys.

So, while USA is still pretty strong economically, they aren’t the indestructible giant they were in OOB.

• puts up a kudo for SgtBlitz *

Even though I didnt contribute a damn, your words completely describe my thoughts.

LOL, I post on two stupid game forums, AA.org and Darkfallonline.com, and that’s about it.  Funny that I manage to get flamed on both.  It’s okay, Croesus, no harm done.  I’m just trying to have a good time here.

@Gargantua:

That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…

From a strictly historical point of view: Argentina’s government at that time (a Military dictatorship) had pro-German bias. That was specifically about cultural/institutional reasons since most Argentine Army officers had received training from Prussian military institutions.

However, the economic ruling elite (rich cattle & grains producer landowners) were strongly pro-British. And that was because of both cultural but above all economic reasons: Argentina was a huge exporter of cattle&grains to the United Kingdom (that the UK especially needed during war time), and a buyer for UK’s industrial goods.

Most of the people (not that anyone cared) had pro-allied feelings.

So, even if the governing Military Dictatorship had a taste for fascism, Argentine economy (and the economic well being of the landowners whose economic interest the Military were defending) relied on trade with the Great Britain.

All that resulted in an odd situation where the Military Government liked Germany… but Argentine foreign policy was leading to maintain neutrality… and maintaining neutrality was the best option for, well, for the United Kingdom! That was because as long as Argentine were neutral German U-Boats couldn’t torpedo Argentine cargo-ships carrying grains to the UK.

Too sum up: Argentina’s neutrality was a de facto support of Great Britain’s war time economy.

A different matter was the relationship with the USA. The Americans wanted all South American countries to declare war against the Axis powers. That idea was resisted by both the Argentine Military Goverment (both because of their pro-fascist ideology and because of the economic interest of the landowning elite), and by London (because of the reasons explained above).

The Argentine Military Government’s fascist ideology would have taken as far as allowing the German pocket-battleship Graff-Spee to seek safe heaven Buenos Aires’ port (if she had managed to scape from Montevideo and reach the Argentine Capital)… but it’s un-clear how much help the Argentine government would have given to the German ship after all – breaking with the UK would have been like killing the Golden Laying Eggs Chicken for the Argentine economy.

So from an historical point of view anything but a stric neutral Argentina doesn’t makes sence.

@Croesus:

Oops, does anyone know how to put a file on the blog?

Click additional options and then attach, there’s a limit to files sizes though.

@Gallo:

@Gargantua:

That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…

From a strictly historical point of view: Argentina’s government at that time (a Military dictatorship) had pro-German bias. That was specifically about cultural/institutional reasons since most Argentine Army officers had received training from Prussian military institutions.

However, the economic ruling elite (rich cattle & grains producer landowners) were strongly pro-British. And that was because of both cultural but above all economic reasons: Argentina was a huge exporter of cattle&grains to the United Kingdom (that the UK especially needed during war time), and a buyer for UK’s industrial goods.

Most of the people (not that anyone cared) had pro-allied feelings.

So, even if the governing Military Dictatorship had a taste for fascism, Argentine economy (and the economic well being of the landowners whose economic interest the Military were defending) relied on trade with the Great Britain.

All that resulted in an odd situation where the Military Government liked Germany… but Argentine foreign policy was leading to maintain neutrality… and maintaining neutrality was the best option for, well, for the United Kingdom! That was because as long as Argentine were neutral German U-Boats couldn’t torpedo Argentine cargo-ships carrying grains to the UK.

Too sum up: Argentina’s neutrality was a de facto support of Great Britain’s war time economy.

A different matter was the relationship with the USA. The Americans wanted all South American countries to declare war against the Axis powers. That idea was resisted by both the Argentine Military Goverment (both because of their pro-fascist ideology and because of the economic interest of the landowning elite), and by London (because of the reasons explained above).

The Argentine Military Government’s fascist ideology would have taken as far as allowing the German pocket-battleship Graff-Spee to seek safe heaven Buenos Aires’ port (if she had managed to scape from Montevideo and reach the Argentine Capital)… but it’s un-clear how much help the Argentine government would have given to the German ship after all – breaking with the UK would have been like killing the Golden Laying Eggs Chicken for the Argentine economy.

So from an historical point of view anything but a stric neutral Argentina doesn’t makes sence.

Thanks for the clarification, Gallo Rojo.  I always wondered about the True Neutral status of Argentina depicted in 1940 when you see movies like Evita and there’s a fascist takeover of the state half way through (happened in the fifties tho, right?)  But that’s what I get for having a pro-Western media-driven ignorant shallow mindset about it, right?  It is funny that NONE of the so-called True Neutral countries was really neutral in real life, however, they were making as much money as possible off the war as they could (and for ALL the IPCs the Allies technically “make” during the course of the war, ALL of the Allied powers ended the war in DEBT up to their ears… (Can I borrow an extra 20 IPCs this round?  I promise I’ll pay it back by the time the war is over.))

I guess the True Neutrals “balances” itself out by there being equal amounts of neutral IPCs in range of the Axis and Allied powers on the Europe map.  The only problem is that the US ALSO gets a bunch of free infantry for free from S. America and they’re already raking in enough cash as it is.  If the S. American T.N.s didn’t come with the free infantry or the money was forced to be split between the Allied powers it’d probably be all right.

Hey guys loving this thread this is what my group has been using for the last month      ( This is not for historical purpaces only for extra options during game play ). These rules come out of our houserule book.

24. Strict Neutral Convertion- You can try to have a strict neutral sway your way by rolling a 6 on a 1D6 and a cost of 5 IPC’s per IPC that country generates. This happens after the purchase unit phase and before the conduct combat phase. Tell all players which country(s) you wish to try to sway to your side, you have to have at least 1 infantry unit capable of landing in said country(s) on the combat movement phase on the same turn as a negotiator, this unit only moves into the country if you are successful in swaying it to your side. If successful claim the countries infantry and IPC output.

25. Attacking a Strict Neutral- If you attack a strict neutral all remaining strict neutrals in that block become Pro(your enemy)
                                                            BLOCKS
South America                  Europe                              Middle East
Venezuela- 2ipc’s, 2inf        Sweden- 3ipc’s, 6inf            Turkey- 2ipc’s, 8inf
Argentina- 2ipc’s, 4inf        Switzerland- 2inf                  Saudi Arabia- 2ipc’s, 2inf
Chile- 2ipc’s, 2inf              Portugal-1ipc’s, 2inf              Afganistan- 2inf
Equador                          Spain- 2ipc’s, 6inf                                 
Peru                                                                          Africa
Bolivia                                Asia                                Angola- 1ipc’s, 2inf
Paraguay                        Olgiy- 2inf                          Mozambique- 1ipc’s, 2inf
Uruguay                          Dzauhan- 1inf                      Rio-De-Oro
Columbia                        Ulaanbaatar- 1inf                  Portugese Guinea
                                      Byant Uhaa- 1inf                Sierra Leone
                                      Tsagaan Olom                    Liberia

Note Only countries at war mat use the above rules.

@Detuite:

Hey guys loving this thread this is what my group has been using for the last month       ( This is not for historical purpaces only for extra options during game play ). These rules come out of our houserule book.

24. Strict Neutral Convertion- You can try to have a strict neutral sway your way by rolling a 6 on a 1D6 and a cost of 5 IPC’s per IPC that country generates. This happens after the purchase unit phase and before the conduct combat phase. Tell all players which country(s) you wish to try to sway to your side, you have to have at least 1 infantry unit capable of landing in said country(s) on the combat movement phase on the same turn as a negotiator, this unit only moves into the country if you are successful in swaying it to your side. If successful claim the countries infantry and IPC output.

25. Attacking a Strict Neutral- If you attack a strict neutral all remaining strict neutrals in that block become Pro(your enemy)
                                                             BLOCKS
South America                   Europe                               Middle East
Venezuela- 2ipc’s, 2inf        Sweden- 3ipc’s, 6inf             Turkey- 2ipc’s, 8inf
Argentina- 2ipc’s, 4inf         Switzerland- 2inf                  Saudi Arabia- 2ipc’s, 2inf
Chile- 2ipc’s, 2inf               Portugal-1ipc’s, 2inf              Afganistan- 2inf
Equador                           Spain- 2ipc’s, 6inf                                   
Peru                                                                          Africa
Bolivia                                Asia                                 Angola- 1ipc’s, 2inf
Paraguay                         Olgiy- 2inf                           Mozambique- 1ipc’s, 2inf
Uruguay                           Dzauhan- 1inf                      Rio-De-Oro
Columbia                         Ulaanbaatar- 1inf                  Portugese Guinea
                                      Byant Uhaa- 1inf                 Sierra Leone
                                      Tsagaan Olom                    Liberia

Note Only countries at war mat use the above rules.

24.  Yeah, uh, no.  Maybe if you cheapened the die roll cost to the IPCs being generated by the territory, and had the territory convert on a 50% (1-3 or 4-6) roll, it’d be feasible.  If you have tech in the game, it’d be a better investment than going after the true neutrals with the cost of 5 IPCs PER TERRITORY IPC VALUE FOR ONLY A 1/6 CHANCE OF CONVERSION.  (Imagine spending 15 IPCs a turn to convert Sweden diplomatically for the next 3 turns, you’d STILL of had only a 50% chance of converting it to your side.  Sweden generates what, 3 IPCs…  You have to hold that territory for 15 turns to get your money back (I guess the free infantry would offset this somewhat)).  How would you convert territories that aren’t worth any IPC value, do you get those for free (Mongolia and Switzerland)?  You could also have like a “critical failure”, where if you roll a 6 when you needed a 1-3 for success, the country turns Pro-Allies due to diplomatic international incidents.

With the reduced conversion rates, have either ALL the other true neutral territories convert to Pro-Allies based on a DIE ROLL (50%?  Roll for each one) or perhaps all the other countries in that BLOCK roll to see if they turn pro-Allies due to international pressure.

Otherwise, yeah, along the lines we’ve been thinking.  Adding a conversion rule wouldn’t hurt.

@SgtBlitz:

Thanks for the clarification, Gallo Rojo.  I always wondered about the True Neutral status of Argentina depicted in 1940 when you see movies like Evita and there’s a fascist takeover of the state half way through (happened in the fifties tho, right?)

Juan Perón governed (Evita was Juan Peron’s firtsh wife)  from 1946 to 1955, when was overthrown in a military coup.
In the film Evita he is depicted as a quasi-fascist and a wanna-be dictator. The point there is that the film takes the point of view of Peron’s political adversaries (mostly the land-owning economic elite). Althought there was an element of authoritarianism in his government, Peron was not a fascist – actually he was a democratically elected leader.
The ‘fascist’ element in Peron’s goverment was more a matter of aestetics than of policies.
Serious historians and political-scientist agree about characterizing Peronism as one of the three classic examples of 1950’s Latin-American Populism (Gertulio Vargas in Brazil and Cardenas in Mexico are the two other). An similar lider outside Latin-America would be Mosadeq in Iran.

Hey Sarge. This is a one time investment, if you miss on your first turn then you can still rule every following turn until you get your hit. I like the 1 on a 1d6 because multable countries can all try for the same country. In our last game both US and Germany paid for Spain, Germany succeeded and claimed spain and america lost it IPC’s it had invested into it. My group uses it’s own set of tech’s and one of them is diplomacy Lv1 through Lv3 Each lv adds a +1 to your chance of success.
5) Diplomacy
Lv 1- Local Aid- 7 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
Lv 2- Silver Tounge- 10 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
Lv 3- Golden Tounge- 13 ICP’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.

I think you guys can still make home rules if you feel this neutral blocks thing so important.

Let’s remember that this is already a very long game and adding rules and rules may make it longer and longer!

I love playing Axis, and I think attacking true neutrals can bring nice advantages.

1. You can invade gibriltar from Spain, without any ship.
2. You can place an airport in Spain, and if you have 3 fighters in Spain with an airpot, 3 fighters in Gibriltar and the Italian Fleet in sea zone 91, the Allies will have a very hard time entering the med. So you can focus your land defences in Spain, France and Germany. (I usually leave Normandy and Belgium empty).
3. Japan can attack South America True Neutrals and annoy the US.

@Detuite:

Hey Sarge. This is a one time investment, if you miss on your first turn then you can still rule every following turn until you get your hit. I like the 1 on a 1d6 because multable countries can all try for the same country. In our last game both US and Germany paid for Spain, Germany succeeded and claimed spain and america lost it IPC’s it had invested into it. My group uses it’s own set of tech’s and one of them is diplomacy Lv1 through Lv3 Each lv adds a +1 to your chance of success.
5) Diplomacy
Lv 1- Local Aid- 7 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
Lv 2- Silver Tounge- 10 IPC’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.
Lv 3- Golden Tounge- 13 ICP’s -Gain a +1 on your diplomatic rolls.

Ha, yeah, that makes a lot more sense.  Send lazy old worthless von Ribbentrop to work!  You think your work is OVER after negotiating the Mutual Non Aggression pact with Russia?

Argentina and England HATE each other.  Clearly you have never been to Argentina.

This hatred, stemming from multiple reason culminated into the Falklands war in the 80’s.

Argentina had many OTHER trade partners who were larger - like the United States.  Great Britian was not at the top of their friends list.

And what the people think DOESN’T matter - especially in regards to the game we are playing…  look at Russia, Italy, or Nazi Germany, were all the people there Pro Comintern or Pro Fascist? No.  They were just tightly controlled by a militant government.

Falklands aside, Argentina had nothing to really gain from the war, so they never joined in.  HOWEVER,  if Nazi Germany had a South American Invasion plan, and was stomping all over the world in a blood-lust of conquest.  And had the Germany army ARRIVED there, Bent on total S.A. Domination. Argentina surely would have joined the side of the Axis.

That, or, if the allies felt that the Government of Argentina was going to join the Axis effort immenently, as a pro axis nuetral, it is possible the allies may have attacked to depose them.

It makes PERFECT game sense to have Argentina Pro-Axis.  And it add’s an EXCITING element to the game.

Guys I understand but the game can’t be 100% historical, sometimes you need the to put the game before history. I think the game is as close to being historicaly correct as it needs to be, thats larry and crew’s job. Ours is to enjoy it.

@Detuite:

Guys I understand but the game can’t be 100% historical, sometimes you need the to put the game before history. I think the game is as close to being historicaly correct as it needs to be, thats larry and crew’s job. Ours is to enjoy it.

NEVER!!!  The second you admit to this is the moment you cease to exist as a individual person!  Look at all the forum threads on Larry’s website contributing to the Alpha + .1 and .2 development process.  If people can chime in on those and make suggestions that ultimately change the way the game is played, I don’t see why we can’t do the same.  Knowledge is a two way process, my friend, and if we make enough noise it should be Larry’s duty to hear us out.

Ive been watching the build up of Alpha+2 since the day it started, and i have to say us as a whole playtesting and giving advice made these games 100 times better. I’m just saying that i believe these games are now as close to perfect as their gonna get and if we keep pushing for a more historical feel were going to start going backwards instead of forward. The first time I played Pacific i was completely disapointed, We had a game of Pacific Alpha+1 last night and the word disapointment never crossed my mind. All im saying is im happy when the Axis wins even if im the allies because it’s a game and should be 50 50 or 60 40 if you like a challenge but no more than that. And once again i have to say i love these forums.