Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

Semi-Block Neutral Rules

This rule set withdrawn.  Now working on a collaborative rule set incorporating other contributors ideas.

Oh, I like Jimmy’s idea of America paying a penalty for invading a true neutral!

@Young:

@Cmdr:

Oh, I like Jimmy’s idea of America paying a penalty for invading a true neutral!

Personally, I would like to minimize the “rules for some but not for others” philosophy as much as possible.

But we already have such rules!

England:  One country, two economies.  This should apply to America as well, but it does not.  (My opinion and due to size and scope of the real WWII).

Russia:  NO based on whether or not allied units are in Russia (SZ 125 one.)

Russia:  Can be at war with Japan, but not Germany or Italy - all other nations are at war, or not at war and not restricted from war if they are at war already.

I don’t see how forcing the American to pay for the pleasure of invading Afghanistan would be out of line with the other “special” rules that Larry established.  Especially given that, I feel, the idea is to curtail America from turning into a cheap immitation of Adolf Hitler (invading all it’s neighbors regardless of world opinion.)

@Young:

@Cmdr:

Oh, I like Jimmy’s idea of America paying a penalty for invading a true neutral!

Personally, I would like to minimize the “rules for some but not for others” philosophy as much as possible.

First, there is already a huge penalty for attacking Switzerland.  The territory doesn’t give you any tactical advantage, is not worth ipcs, and is defended by 2 inf.  Any idiot who invades Switzerland I hope takes a casualty.

I agree, and I think there may be a better way for this to be approached but I haven’t seen it.  My idea of having all the other countries in the block switch to the other side is not really working.  Sure in Samerica if US attacks Columbia perhaps the Axis can get those SAmeican inf into a stack, and they will probably collect a few ipcs before US takes all territories, but that also means 1 attack for US is activating an entire continent.

Having Argentina be pro-axis sounds cool, but the Axis are almost never going to get over there, and whats to keep US from attacking Argentina from Brazil and not activating the rest of the continent?

Like Jenn said the 3ipcs is to help keep US honest, but really since they make so much more ipcs than the other countries, they should have a slightly more expensive penalty to grab ‘neutrals’.  BTW, didn’t colombia join the allies too?

Oh, I don’t mind Argentina being Axis.  I can see Japan grabbing it.  (Heck, I’ve seen Australia get Brazil so many times, it’s not hard for me to imagine Japan gettnig Argentina.)  I could take that or lose it.

I think the 3 IPC penalty for acting like a fascist (ie like Germany) for America is better than my idea of just banning America from ever invading a strict neutral.  At least it allows America to do what they want.  (Keeping in mind with just their base pay (52 IPC) they can invade up too 17 strict neutrals with change left over, this is not a hardship!)

A little off topic, but with Gamer’s Paradise games, we used to say Switzerland was worth 10 IPC a round to the owner, because of all the swiss banks…unrealistic then, probably still now, but was fun!  Like the Free Parking of Axis and Allies.

Agrentina as pro axis means US can attack them and not activate the rest of the continent.  In fact they could land in Brazil, attack Arg next round, and then sweep back up SAmerica.

JimmyHat, I like your rules much better now that you added the 3 IPC penalty for US invading strict neutrals.  That may be a better solution than my prohibitions on the Allies.  I would be happy with either implementation though.

I am not sure about your Sweden rule though.

I agree that Sweden is where we could use some refinement, what don’t you like about it?

Things I like: Sweden is like Mongolia, they are both very concerned what Stalin does.  Scandinavia is surrounded by 3 capitals, there should be some action there.  Historically the Western Allies wanted to keep Scandinavia outta communism.  Lastly Sweden doesnt fit into any blocks and this gives us way to have incentive/disincentive to invade.

German NO:  Germany gets 5 IPC if Sweeden is Pro-Axis, Axis Controlled or Neutral without regard to Norway or Denmark.  K.I.S.S. right?

Or better:

German NO:  Germany gets 3 IPC if Sweeden is Pro-Axis, Axis Controlled or Neutral without regard to Norway or Denmark.
AND
German NO:  Germany gets 2 IPC if Norway and Finland are German or Pro-Axis.

@Cmdr:

1 German NO:  Germany gets 5 IPC if Sweeden is Pro-Axis, Axis Controlled or Neutral without regard to Norway or Denmark.  K.I.S.S. right?

Or better:

2 German NO:  Germany gets 3 IPC if Sweeden is Pro-Axis, Axis Controlled or Neutral without regard to Norway or Denmark.
AND
German NO:  Germany gets 2 IPC if Norway and Finland are German or Pro-Axis.

1.  Swedish Iron Ore NO:  I agree with Jenn if those conditions are met than Germany gets the NO.

2.  This seems a bit too much, lots of things to keep track of.  Why do you propose Germany get 2 ipcs for those 2 territories?  Finnish metals and Norwegian fish?

The only issue I see is if Germany can control Norway and Finland, then they might see advantage in attacking Sweden.  They would still get the ore mines and now the 3 ipcs from Sweden.  We could say that any invasion of Sweden by Germany would see the Swedes sabotage their own mines or they take damage or whatever and the NO is canceled.  I just don’t want to see Germany invade Sweden, they liked their ‘aryan’ brothers and were recruiting there.

I don’t think letting Germany attack Sweden is a problem.  They will likely lose 2 or more infantry attacking Sweden.  So, it will likely take two turns of holding Sweden before they even recoup the cost of invading.  Germany is unlikely to attack it G1, so that means Germany won’t experience a net gain until the end of turn 4 at the earliest.

They will also have to pay special attention to guarding Scandinavia or the Allies will get to enjoy Sweden’s IPC later.

Honestly, option two was really there for an option two.    I probably should not have mentioned it.  I was going to go along the line of having something outside Sweeden and remembered reading a book about the Norway children smuggling gold and placing the bars under snowmen for the Americans to retrieve that night and was “hmm…sure that could be an NO.”  Other than that one book (not sure if it was fantasy or reality, but cool story!) I had no real reason to mention it.

I have to agree, Sweeden should be Sweeden.  It’s ability to help Germany should not be effected by Norway or Denmark.  I do like the idea of Sweeden just up and joining Germany if Russia takes Finland.

I wonder if an NO for control of France (if Germany controls W. France, S. France and France) would be good.  It would deprive 2 IPC from Italy.

Another issue, along with these neutral block rules, we should probably decide if there need to be any adjustments to the neutral force pools at game startup, because that could possibly affect which states are in which blocks.

For the most part the initial setups as printed on the map are fine, and we could just go with those, but I have some ideas I would like to put forward and see what people think.

Printed on the map are inf numbers for various neutral nations.  They are easy to see and assist us in setting up the neutrals if they get attacked.  Just because the numbers of inf are printed on there, doesn’t mean we cannot add other unit types to certain territories.  I also think adding neutral ships is very possible by simply naming the sz to place.  This would be similar to the last page in the Xeno’s W@W rule book that listed neutral countries armies.  IF units get added to neutral nations, it should be based solely on balance and game play issues, with perhaps merely a basis on historical fact.

UNITS I WOULD ADD:

In order to make a US conquest of SAmerica slightly harder, I would propose adding an attack unit to Argentina, perhaps an art.  I would also add a dd to Chile and a dd CA for Argentina.  This would represent the fleets for all Samerican states.

In Africa I would add 1 unit, preferably an inf to Liberia even though that goes against the printed on information.  This is to represent all garrison troops of Liberia/sierra leone/Rio de Oro and to give the allies a threat to their back  door should they choose to invade Spain, much like Angola and Mozambique do for Safrica if Spain is activated.  The only other value these territories would add to the Axis if Spain was invaded would be as landing zones for aircraft.  Perhaps this is advantage enough, only playtesting will show.

In Asia I would not be adverse to adding units to Turkey, even units that might significantly increase it’s defensive capabilities.  I would counsel against any mobile units though, Turkey had a large military but not very modern.  Adding 1 art 1 ftr, or perhaps even an aa gun might do the trick.  I would also add a dd and perhaps a trn to Turkey in the Black Sea.

Sweden could use a bit more strength too, I would add an art and a ftr here as well.  Sweden could also get a dd for coastal defense, they had the largest fleet in Scandinavia.  Also a mountainous country and modern weapons.

Iberia is definitely the one area that needs the most work.  Spain is just too tempting of a target to invade on the way into Europe.  However the value of the territory cannot be denied.  What about taking the NB away from Gib and adding it to Spain for instance?  Or just giving Spain a NB.  I think Spain should get a ftr, and perhaps an arm to represent all that Civil war material that is left over.  I would give them a CA and a dd and possibly a trn, all in the same sz inside the Med. Possibly add 1 dd to Portugal.  They needed the fleet to defend their far flung empire.

One issue these changes might bring about is that attacking neutrals, or at least some neutrals would become prohibitive.  Not sure if this is the way we want to go or not.

This is a subject where getting some advice from IL over on Larry’s site would be nice.  He knows the exact numbers for alot of these nations armies/fleets.  I would like to use that information as a basis but slant everything towards balance over reality.

I know Spain wasn’t the world power it was prior to WWI, but a Spainish fleet shouldnt be totally out of the question.  2 Destroyers, 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser wouldn’t be totally out of the question.  Maybe add a cruiser and a destroyer to Turkey (in SZ 100) as well.

I like the S. American fleet units.  However, I would give them an Armor, not an Artillery.

@Cmdr:

I know Spain wasn’t the world power it was prior to WWI, but a Spainish fleet shouldnt be totally out of the question.  2 Destroyers, 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser wouldn’t be totally out of the question.  Maybe add a cruiser and a destroyer to Turkey (in SZ 100) as well.

I like the S. American fleet units.  However, I would give them an Armor, not an Artillery.

Indeed, I thought about adding more ships but not sure if that might imbalance the game?  Turkey had like 4 capital ships and a bunch of dd’s, although that is about the same size as Sweden’s fleet.  I thought about an arm in Samerica, would the 2 movement be too much of an asset to the Axis?(in the scenario where US tries to activate Samerica)  Also it’s mostly jungly which tanks hate:)  I’m not a big fan of giving Samerica an aircraft because the axis would just try and make it escape.  Also I didn’t add any ss’s because of fear of wayward subs and CRD, but perhaps they could be used in Spanish fleet?

Maybe Samerica needs 2 arty?

I don’t think any boost we could do to a neutral would actually unbalance things, as long as it’s a true neutral.

Turkey:  Cruiser, 2 Destroyers, Transport SZ 100
Spain: Cruiser, 2 Destroyers, Transport SZ 104
Argentina:  Destroyer SZ 66

@wheatbeer:

Semi-Block Neutral Rules (revised)
C. All other strict neutrals (SWI, SWE, TURK, SAUD, AFG) are not aligned with any other strict neutral.  If any of these territories are attacked, it will not affect the status of any other territory.  For example, if the USSR attacks the strict neutral Saudi Arabia, Sweden remains a strict neutral.

Wheatbeer, I am just wondering if your revised Neutral Block rule should add some kind of deterrent to the Axis violating the neutrality of Turkey?  I know they have to fight those 8 Turkish infantry, but then they get access to the Black Sea, Iraq, Iraq’s army, middle east oil, and a southern route into Caucasus.  Italy’s navy could transport troops in through the Bosphorous and never have to mess around with Syria, z99, Greece airbase, all that crap.