Stop the madness, and start the presses

@KillOFzee:

I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.

Sure, go back to one of my first games against EM.  The Russians had not only all the Balkans but also S. Germany and were threatening Berlin.

@knp7765:

@Clyde85:

@knp7765:

Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union.  Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union?  Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!

I pray, good sir, that that is ment to be a joke on your part and I have tragically misunderstood you.

Yes, it was just a joke.  I am just goofing around.  I don’t really think you or anyone else on the forum is really a communist.  If we were, we probably wouldn’t be playing this game.  It wouldn’t be considered productive for the state.

why?

@Young:

If Russia takes control of a strict neutral like Turkey for the sake of grabbing a few extra bucks, it’s all over for the allies. The axis powers would be running for every neutral territory, converting all their standing armies, and gobbling up all their territorial income. It would be bad business for any side to challenge a strict neutral, especially in early rounds.

I disagree.  The allies routinely attack true neutrals in our games because most of the “standing armies” need to be activated navally for the axis.  (Sweeden cannot be walked too, you have to amphib it since the allies almost always have Norway/Finland.  S. America is just plain a lost cause for the Axis in our games.  Turkey is sometimes gotten, but generally even by then the English have a strong army to counter it and the Americans and British started the whole thing by landing in Spain.)

Thing is, the allies can plan for the invasion of true neutrals and stage themselves accordingly.  The axis cannot, the axis are land locked early or trapped in their theater in the case of Japan.

@KillOFzee:

I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.

I agree with him 100%. In my games, Lenningrad usually falls with the opening of Barbarossa, and both players, Soviet and German, are fairly competent. See, now that sealion is harder, the Germans still purchase most of the same naval stuff but use it to keep the baltic and scandanavia.

@Clyde85:

@KillOFzee:

I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.

I agree with him 100%. In my games, Lenningrad usually falls with the opening of Barbarossa, and both players, Soviet and German, are fairly competent. See, now that sealion is harder, the Germans still purchase most of the same naval stuff but use it to keep the baltic and scandanavia.

It’s very similar in our games.

I’ve never played a game with a true neutral invaded. In most cases it’s not worth the risk of activating all the others and usually the units are better off hitting an enemy territory. That’s what seems to be the trend in my group anyway.

C

@The:

@Carnage:

Just saying… but you include yourself in that.

Fair Point

@Carnage:

I’ve never played a game with a true neutral invaded. In most cases it’s not worth the risk of activating all the others and usually the units are better off hitting an enemy territory. That’s what seems to be the trend in my group anyway.

C

A while back, our group had a couple of different games where Germany decided to hit the big 3 (Spain, Sweeden and Turkey) all in the same round.  Turkey was good to help Germany get access to the Middle East and create a southern front against Russia.  Taking Spain made it easier to get Gibraltar.  Sweeden was more or less just for the extra 3 IPCs and to lock down the German NO.  In one game it worked out pretty good for the Axis, in the other game not so much.  It does take a lot of German resources to do that which inevitably delays Sealion and/or Barbarossa, which gives both the UK and USSR an extra round or two to build up more defenses.  Plus, now all other neutrals are Pro-Allied unless you use Neutral Blocks (which we weren’t at that time).
Now strict neutrals are simply left alone in our games.  Like Carnage said, it’s better to use your equipment against a real enemy.  We’ve never had an Allied power attack a strict neutral.

@special:

@Clyde85:

@KillOFzee:

I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.

I agree with him 100%. In my games, Lenningrad usually falls with the opening of Barbarossa, and both players, Soviet and German, are fairly competent. See, now that sealion is harder, the Germans still purchase most of the same naval stuff but use it to keep the baltic and scandanavia.

It’s very similar in our games.

Rarely see Novgorod fall with the opening of Barbarossa, but then we usually open on Round 2 and there’s a cruiser in the way for the landings.

@Carnage:

I’ve never played a game with a true neutral invaded. In most cases it’s not worth the risk of activating all the others and usually the units are better off hitting an enemy territory. That’s what seems to be the trend in my group anyway.

C

Since alpha 3 came out, every game I’ve played has had the allies invade true neutrals first.  There was one game in which the axis did (game with EM on these boards) and it is really shooting them in the back.  For the allies it’s a non-consideration, it’s free money and the axis are never in position to capitalize on it.  (Generally Spain and Turkey go at the same time while Finland and Norway are allied held and no ships in the Baltic or N. Atlantic for the Axis.  At least, no transports.)

Jen, Have you ever cosidered that the problems you have with your games are unique to your games? So far, the consensus is that, while poorly worded perhaps, the new objective works well enough and clears up a possible rules dispute.
I cant help but feel that this is an issue that you have because of whatever particular way in which you (and your opponents) play. So if thats the case, as just about every other post that isnt yours is people scratching their heads trying to figure out just how you get yourself in this situation (with Russians running lose in Ireland and Sardinia), then maybe its just your problem and not the games. I mean the obvious answer for any “doing X breaks the game” complaint is to say “well then, stop doing that” but still I dont think this is one that requires a total rewrite or the attention of Larry Harris.

and I hesitate to say this, as it may come across as a personal attack but please understand it is not intended as such, but with over 43,000 posts (to the tune of 16+ per day on average) one starts to wonder where you find the time to play the number of games to the lenght you do which allow these seemingly mind-boggling things to happen.

@Cmdr:

Since alpha 3 came out, every game I’ve played has had the allies invade true neutrals first.  There was one game in which the axis did (game with EM on these boards) and it is really shooting them in the back.  For the allies it’s a non-consideration, it’s free money and the axis are never in position to capitalize on it.  (Generally Spain and Turkey go at the same time while Finland and Norway are allied held and no ships in the Baltic or N. Atlantic for the Axis.  At least, no transports.)

When you said that it ‘regularly happens’ in your games I assumed you’d included your games prior to Alpha +3. These rules haven’t been out long enough for me to consider what happens in them a regular occurance.
With my shedule on base and other responsibilites I only have time to play once every week or two, I assumed it’s the same (baring online games of course, which I’ve never played) for most other people.

Carnage,

Yes.  I am including Alpha 2 games as well as Alpha 3 games.

I’ve wondered if there was a way to dissuade a British or American attack on a true neutral.  It just seems out of character to allow these two nations to wantanly destroy neutral nations and oppress the locals.  Personally, I’d just say out right ban the attack, but perhaps a -10 IPC penalty for one round due to needing to send soldiers into the streets to stop the riots would be more effective? (Applied to BOTH nations if EITHER nation attacks a true neutral.)  At least then it won’t happen on round 6 or 7.

@Young:

So, many of your games have had strict neutrals attacked on a regular bases, but I on the other hand, have never seen this done in any of my games. Am I missing something? Have I been playing it right all along, or is there a sensibility when attacking strict neutrals that myself and my experienced opponents have failed to realize due to our unwillingness to try new things?

Somebody please tell me if I have been short changing myself in this game by avoiding strict neutrals. Please tell me if the risk vs reward of Jen’s decision to attack strict neutrals is valid or if Jen’s games are an “out of the box exception” and shouldn’t be regarded as “a standard strategy”.

That’s basicly what I was wondering. Given the choice between landing directly in Normandy or landing in Spain, Normandy has always made more sense, miss the bombard, planes just have to fly back when you press on into France anyway… The only Neutral that has a bonus to taking is Sweeden because it takes away a German NO. But the only way to do that is through Finland, so why not just take Norway (either through an amphibious assault or via Finland) and be done with it? Prior to this Russian NO I don’t see any upside to violating a countries neutrality until very late game when 9/10 the game has already been decided.
That’s my read of it anyway.

@Carnage:

@Young:

So, many of your games have had strict neutrals attacked on a regular bases, but I on the other hand, have never seen this done in any of my games. Am I missing something? Have I been playing it right all along, or is there a sensibility when attacking strict neutrals that myself and my experienced opponents have failed to realize due to our unwillingness to try new things?

Somebody please tell me if I have been short changing myself in this game by avoiding strict neutrals. Please tell me if the risk vs reward of Jen’s decision to attack strict neutrals is valid or if Jen’s games are an “out of the box exception” and shouldn’t be regarded as “a standard strategy”.

That’s basicly what I was wondering. Given the choice between landing directly in Normandy or landing in Spain, Normandy has always made more sense, miss the bombard, planes just have to fly back when you press on into France anyway… The only Neutral that has a bonus to taking is Sweeden because it takes away a German NO. But the only way to do that is through Finland, so why not just take Norway (either through an amphibious assault or via Finland) and be done with it? Prior to this Russian NO I don’t see any upside to violating a countries neutrality until very late game when 9/10 the game has already been decided.
That’s my read of it anyway.

Well, i can see the tactical advantage of Spain over Normandy in certain cases.
Suppose Normandy and S.France are left empty, with an inf/art force in Paris and tanks + air in W.Germany. This will probably kick your landed troops out.
But, that makes Spain out of Axis reach for a turn, which (in case of a weak UK, for example) can make a big difference. That plus being within range of USA in 1 turn can make Spain a solid base for the USA to work from.
Does that make it worth triggering all neutrals? That is another question!

@special:

But, that makes Spain out of Axis reach for a turn, which (in case of a weak UK, for example) can make a big difference. That plus being within range of USA in 1 turn can make Spain a solid base for the USA to work from.

I hadn’t really considered the distance between Spain and the US before, that would be very useful, provided you were able to keep ahold of it for a turn.
But the risk would definately be pretty high, unless of course your doing it when you’ve already dropped Germany and Italy (I don’t include Japan because in most cases it’s locked inside the Pacific) a few pegs.

First off I want to say it is NEVER a good idea for the Axis to attack Strict Neutrals.  For one, you give the allies all of S. America and the neutral armies in Africa for sure, if not some of the middle eastern and Afghanistan armies.

Secondly, the allied attack of Neutrals is pretty much the only GOOD strategy for breaking into Europe.  But you need to do it wisely.

A)  Control the Atlantic.  Without this, you will give the Germans more income.
B)  You need to take Turkey AND Spain simultaniously, to prevent the Axis from annexing one and getting a large army boost.
C)  You want control of Norway/Finland, again, to prevent an army boost and also because it’s just plain easier on you if you have it.

Attacking the true neutrals gives you advantages.

A)  Spain is in range of E. USA via SZ 91, and you can move your transports all the way back to SZ 101 with the naval base in Gibraltar.
B)  Spain is defended by 6 Infantry, W. France and Holland might be defended with more.
C)  Armies in France cannot hit Spain due to W. France and S. France (Tanks can, but I am talking infantry/artillery here.)
D)  Spain is worth 2 IPC and thus you can build a factory there. (If you plan to ever liberate France, and I don’t know why anyone would be that stupid, this factory might come in even more handy than it normally does!)

Turkey is not something you really need to worry about “holding” it is more an attack to prevent Germany from getting 8 more guys.  Once you “clear it” it’s a matter of a British complex in Iraq to keep it cleared so that the Germans cannot use it as a short cut.

@Cmdr:

Turkey is not something you really need to worry about “holding” it is more an attack to prevent Germany from getting 8 more guys.  Once you “clear it” it’s a matter of a British complex in Iraq to keep it cleared so that the Germans cannot use it as a short cut.

And also a possible location for another US IC.

… although Saoudi Arabia may be a better (and safer) place for that. Easy to take and good strategic location (plus there’s the Egypt NB they can use in sz81).

One other thing about Sweeden and the German NO, it says Germany has to control Denmark and Norway with Sweeden not being Pro-Allied or Allied controlled.  So, if the Allies manage to take Norway and keep it, that ruins the German NO for Sweeden and you don’t have to attack it, unless you just want those extra 3 IPCs.