Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

And it would make the game more fun because it opens up new possibilities.  The way it is now, no one ever attacks true neutrals and that’s kind of crummy.

@special:

I don’t want to undermine this topic but what exactly are the objections people are having with the current neutrals system?

I have a few issues with OOB/A2 neutrals system.

First, I think it offers a stronger disincentive to the Axis than to the Allies.  The Axis often won’t be poised to take advantage of South American, Afghan, and African neutral armies/territories if they turn pro-Axis due to Allied aggression.

Second, like Vance, the cost is so prohibitive that neutral crushes are rarely employed.  I believe the game can be made more fun by expanding the reasonable strategic options for both the Axis and the Allies.

Third, like JimmyHat, it doesn’t make any geopolitical sense (I admit this isn’t a gameplay issue, but it bugs me nonetheless … neutral blocks will never make it perfect, but it will feel better to me on these grounds)

@Vance:

And it would make the game more fun because it opens up new possibilities.  The way it is now, no one ever attacks true neutrals and that’s kind of crummy.

What are you talking about?  I attack them ALL THE TIME, with the United States.  I just line up my attacks so that America hits Sweeden and Spain simultanoiusly and England follows up with an attack on Turkey (which is no longer true neutral, but pro-axis.)

@Cmdr:

I attack them ALL THE TIME, with the United States.  I just line up my attacks so that America hits Sweeden and Spain simultanoiusly and England follows up with an attack on Turkey (which is no longer true neutral, but pro-axis.)

I haven’t faced an opponent who did this.  But it does go along with my first point.  In the event of an attack on neutrals, currently, the Allies can far more easily deny the Axis new pro-Axis territory, than can the Axis deny the Allies new pro-Allies territory.

Jen is clearly an above average player.  A typical player does not attacks neutrals with the current rules.

Okay, when attacking true neutrals you have to take certain things into account.

1)  Don’t EVER do this with an axis nation!  Unless you own E. USA, W. USA and C. USA, attacking a true neutral with an axis power is like handing the allies the game. 
2)  Spain is 1 movement from E. USA and E. USA is 1 movement form Spain.  If you wanted to go the conventional way, it would take 2 moves to get your units to France via England.  Attacking Spain basically cuts the needed transports by 33% and the movement time by 50% (and is a 2 IPC territory so you can put a complex there.)
3)  Either own Finland/Norway or be able to hit Sweeden the same round you hit Spain.  Why give them the free guys, especially when it’s not all that hard to line up an attack on Sweeden really.  (England in Norway with a large enough stack should be able to do it.)
4)  With English complexes in Iraq and C. Persia (where i normally have them) I generally get a pretty nice army to use to hit Turkey.  Far easier to walk to Greece than to have to walk to Jordan and load transports (that you have to protect) to land in Greece.  At 6 units a round, it takes 3 rounds to have enough units to take out Turkey - add in the rounds to get the complexes up, this is about round 6 or 7 when you are ready to hit Turkey - not that you have to do it then!
5)  Axis powers have no access to true neutrals if you hit Spain, Turkey and Sweeden.  They just dont.  So there’s no risk for the allies in hitting them!

@Young:

@Cmdr:

@Vance:

And it would make the game more fun because it opens up new possibilities.  The way it is now, no one ever attacks true neutrals and that’s kind of crummy.

What are you talking about?  I attack them ALL THE TIME, with the United States.  I just line up my attacks so that America hits Sweeden and Spain simultanoiusly and England follows up with an attack on Turkey (which is no longer true neutral, but pro-axis.)

It has been determined in past threads that Jens strategy in regards to attacking strict neutrals, would be rare for most games.

@wheatbeer:

@special:

I don’t want to undermine this topic but what exactly are the objections people are having with the current neutrals system?

I have a few issues with OOB/A2 neutrals system.

First, I think it offers a stronger disincentive to the Axis than to the Allies.  The Axis often won’t be poised to take advantage of South American, Afghan, and African neutral armies/territories if they turn pro-Axis due to Allied aggression.

Second, like Vance, the cost is so prohibitive that neutral crushes are rarely employed.  I believe the game can be made more fun by expanding the reasonable strategic options for both the Axis and the Allies.

Third, like JimmyHat, it doesn’t make any geopolitical sense (I admit this isn’t a gameplay issue, but it bugs me nonetheless … neutral blocks will never make it perfect, but it will feel better to me on these grounds)

1. would the exclusion of the S.America block turning pro-Allies (after Axis attack true neutrals) be enough to balance this?
So when Axis attack neutrals all turn pro-allies except for S.America and Mongolia.

2. spicing up the game is of course ok, but you risk to encourage neutral attacking in such a way they will happen every game.

3. Realism is indeed an argument, but it’s a game so realism is by definition relative and shouldn’t it always be overruled by gameplay and -balance? (chinese ACME wall for example is sorta silly but has its reasons. And why would Spain care what happens in Sweden or Turkey, etc.
But hey, if a change makes something more realistic and benefits the gameplay/balance, i’m all for it!

@wheatbeer:

@Cmdr:

I attack them ALL THE TIME, with the United States.  I just line up my attacks so that America hits Sweeden and Spain simultanoiusly and England follows up with an attack on Turkey (which is no longer true neutral, but pro-axis.)

I haven’t faced an opponent who did this.  But it does go along with my first point.  In the event of an attack on neutrals, currently, the Allies can far more easily deny the Axis new pro-Axis territory, than can the Axis deny the Allies new pro-Allies territory.

Well the benefit for Axis to do a neutral crush would be more of a geographical nature instead of a financial one: Turkey as a shortcut to the Middle East and South Russia. Since the game’s balance is based on the Axis having to win before it’s too late, Turkey is a reasonable option in certain (rare) specific cases: if it helps Axis get their VC’s before the Allies can retreive and use their fresh IPC’s and troops.
That makes them have to think twice before attacking neutrals.
Same goes for Allies, if they attack neutrals they mostly risk giving Germany 8 units in an excellent position and a fast doorway, allowing the Axis to win valuable time and recources. Gaining some IPC’s (which takes time, troops and some losses) is perhaps good in a long term battle, but i doubt the Axis will be waiting for that…

So i think that neutral attack is supposed to be part of a specific, risky, strategy

As for Jen’s tactics i assume she is talking about many turns in the game, not as a right-away tactic. or am i wrong there?

@Cmdr:

Okay, when attacking true neutrals you have to take certain things into account.

1)  Don’t EVER do this with an axis nation!  Unless you own E. USA, W. USA and C. USA, attacking a true neutral with an axis power is like handing the allies the game. 
2)  Spain is 1 movement from E. USA and E. USA is 1 movement form Spain.  If you wanted to go the conventional way, it would take 2 moves to get your units to France via England.  Attacking Spain basically cuts the needed transports by 33% and the movement time by 50% (and is a 2 IPC territory so you can put a complex there.)
3)  Either own Finland/Norway or be able to hit Sweeden the same round you hit Spain.  Why give them the free guys, especially when it’s not all that hard to line up an attack on Sweeden really.  (England in Norway with a large enough stack should be able to do it.)
4)  With English complexes in Iraq and C. Persia (where i normally have them) I generally get a pretty nice army to use to hit Turkey.  Far easier to walk to Greece than to have to walk to Jordan and load transports (that you have to protect) to land in Greece.  At 6 units a round, it takes 3 rounds to have enough units to take out Turkey - add in the rounds to get the complexes up, this is about round 6 or 7 when you are ready to hit Turkey - not that you have to do it then!
5)  Axis powers have no access to true neutrals if you hit Spain, Turkey and Sweeden.  They just dont.  So there’s no risk for the allies in hitting them!

But if the Allies own Norway and Finland and have the beef to capture Sweden and Turkey, haven’t the Axis already lost the game? Where is Germany?

@wheatbeer:

B. All strict neutrals that are not within a Block (SWI, SWE, SIE, LIB) 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 Sweden, Liberia remains a strict neutral.

Liberia and Sierra Leone should join the Iberian and colonies block.  They are near worthless territories other than as landing zones for planes.
C. The United States must include a 3 IPC expense in its Buy for each strict neutral or pro-axis neutral territory that it chooses to attack in Combat.
Here is the issue I see.  I had originally envisioned the other neutrals in the block to immediately join the other side if attacked.  This would allow the rest of the block to form a defense and possible attack out of these territories, making the conquest even harder.  That doesn’t work with the 3ipcs rule too well though.  US would pay 3 ipcs to invade Colombia, the rest of SAmerica would join Germany lets say and for 1-2 rounds Germany might collect some ipcs.  However now that the rest of the block is at war US wouldn’t need to pay the 3ipcs.  So really it was just to start the war on the block.  This gives the Axis some advantage because they collect ipcs and also prevents US from still gobbling up SAmerica because the axis can’t really reach there to liberate the new ‘pro-axis’ nations.

D. SETUP Neutral Air Forces
Turkey: 1 Fighter
Spain: 1 Fighter
Argentina: 1 Fighter
Sweden: 1 Fighter
Shouldn’t be aircraft in Samerica, the Axis might try and fly it back to the mainland. What about the idea of adding in some arty here and there, perhaps a tank to Spain?

Suggested:
E. SETUP Neutral Naval Forces
Turkey:  1 Cruiser, 2 Destroyers SZ 100
Spain: 1 Cruiser, 2 Destroyers SZ 104
Argentina:  1 Cruiser, 2 Destroyer SZ 66
Sweden: 1 Cruiser, 2 Destroyer SZ 114

Jeez that’s a lot of dds.  Remember Germany had a ton of dd’s too and they don’t start with any. I liked the Chile 1 dd Argentina 1 dd 1 CA idea because it means there’s a chance SAmerica might have fleet units left over after US attacks.  Spain could be 1 CA 1 DD 1 sub, but I think we should have small fleets, they are single neutral nations after all.

I am not too attached to the exact fleet sizes or exactly what units to use to beef up Turkey, Spain, Argentina, and Sweden.

If for simplicity’s sake Sierra Leone and Liberia go with Iberia, I also don’t mind too much since it doesn’t affect gameplay either way.

We would need to decide whether blocks simply turn pro-whatever or instantly join a particular Power before we decide if the 3IPC US penalty has a point.

Yes, special forces, I am talking about a strike somewhere between rounds 8 and 12.

As for Axis, I cannot ever see it being in their interests as it is now.  All those free British, Russian and American units and American cash?

@Cmdr:

Yes, special forces, I am talking about a strike somewhere between rounds 8 and 12.

As for Axis, I cannot ever see it being in their interests as it is now.  All those free British, Russian and American units and American cash?

It would indeed be suicide for Axis…

@wheatbeer:

I am not too attached to the exact fleet sizes or exactly what units to use to beef up Turkey, Spain, Argentina, and Sweden.

If for simplicity’s sake Sierra Leone and Liberia go with Iberia, I also don’t mind too much since it doesn’t affect gameplay either way.

We would need to decide whether blocks simply turn pro-whatever or instantly join a particular Power before we decide if the 3IPC US penalty has a point.

You guys do realize that beefing up neutrals and adding fleet discourages the whole neutral attack idea for both sides, right?

Uh, well, that was kind of what I liked about it!

@Cmdr:

Uh, well, that was kind of what I liked about it!

No problem for me, but i heard some voices that wanted to encourage it.

Also it’s getting quite complicated (with lists of units per country). I know it’s a fun thinking game (so sorry if i’m being the spoil sport again) but simply doubling the existing troops might already do the trick for that.

@special:

@Cmdr:

Uh, well, that was kind of what I liked about it!

No problem for me, but i heard some voices that wanted to encourage it.

Also it’s getting quite complicated (with lists of units per country). I know it’s a fun thinking game (so sorry if i’m being the spoil sport again) but simply doubling the existing troops might already do the trick for that.

I would prefer discouraging attacking neutrals, that is why I am for increasing their force pools.  However just because it is something that is discouraged doesn’t mean it can’t be possible to hit neutrals, and having regional/political blocks makes the most sense.

As for the list, it would be quite easy, right after listing the setup for all countries we list the setup for neutrals in case of attack.

A further discouragement from my consideration is making all other territories in the block immediately turn to the other side.  This might help to prolong the  struggle for Sameria or Iberia, and would help against an Axis breakout through turkey.  One question is to which country would the neutrals revert?  Closet axis/ally?  Players decide?

What if neutral attacks by Germany, Italy and Japan did not turn the world hostile?

My thinking is this:  If Spain was going to get all pissed off because Germany invaded a neutral country, it would have done so when Holland fell, when France fell, when Poland fell, etc.  So maybe the neutrals expect Germany to invade true neutrals and thus, are hoping that their neutrality might encourage the Germans not to attack?

The other idea:  What if Germany, Japan or Italy could invade a true neutral prior to America’s entrance into the war and instead of everyone going anti-Axis, it just allowed America and Russia to enter the battle on that map early?

My thinking is this:  America, irate at the blatant disregard of a nation’s neutrality decides that their own neutrality won’t be recognized and declares war on Germany (or whatever) in self defense.

In case the neutrals need just abit extra force, i have a relatively simple idea:

Add the IPC value of each territory in amount of extra INF to the existing army
(or differently phrased: Add an amount of INF, equal to the value of the invaded territory to it’s army)

For example Spain would be 6 (inf) + 2 (IPC value) = 8 inf defending when Allies (or Axis) invade it, or 6 + 3 inf if they invade Sweden.
But activating stays the same, so Sweden would defend with 9 inf, but when activated, there are just 6 inf that turn.
This way attacking a neutral becomes abit harder, yet the other party doesn’t get to have even extra benefits. Also it is very easy to use that system, after all, all the numbers are there on the board.

And if you feel Allies have it easier and Axis hard and there needs to be a bit of balancing, only use the adding INF system for the Allied side.

My phrasing is still not ok, but i hope you understand the idea…

edit: if you need a realistic excuse: partisans! ;)