I like James’ idea. I really think neutral forces need to be boosted to have any chance of balance.
Well, I don’t see how that “change” would make a difference on which rule was selected (voted on and won) so what do we say to having a binary vote on whether or not we incorporate JamesAlemans (gosh I hope that’s the right user name) idea of allowing them to spend what they “earned” for controlling their own territory?
@mantlefan:
If you want people to participate in the voting, please, for the love of all that is Axis & Allies, but the options in the first post of the thread.
Yes, waiting for Grasshopper to give me the go-ahead to create the poll on the proposed change from James. Once he says, go, I’ll put the options in the poll and in the first post of the thread. Simple binary, no 38 choices, just 2. Yes or No.
Well, I certainly agree that the neutral force pools need to be beefed up in order to strengthen the proposed Neutral block idea. His solution is simple too, I like that. I still think Mongolia should be a separate issue tied to the Jap/Rus border. Would his proposal work with neutral blocks? Without neutral blocks I foresee his addition cancelling any attacks on neutrals at all, that’s not something I am interested in. There should be room for neutral attacks in this game.
Well, I certainly agree that the neutral force pools need to be beefed up in order to strengthen the proposed Neutral block idea. His solution is simple too, I like that. I still think Mongolia should be a separate issue tied to the Jap/Rus border. Would his proposal work with neutral blocks? Without neutral blocks I foresee his addition cancelling any attacks on neutrals at all, that’s not something I am interested in. There should be room for neutral attacks in this game.
Well, there was my modification where annexing a neutral did not give you the money or extra units - they only sprang into being if you attacked them. That would mean you can attack one territory of a block and not drop 100 IPC worth of stuff on the board, but rather 10-20 IPC worth if you waited a long time to attack it.
If you guys want to add force pools to this rule because you can’t fix it without them…. than by all means, go ahead and try. Here’s the deal however, Version C of this rule was a clear favorite in the last poll, So, I’m not sure what there is to vote on if a new poll was created. Where are the new versions introducing force pools to this once simple idea? What would I be voting on? I suggest starting a new thread or poll where I can see all the valid suggestions for Neutral blocks.
I just want to say thanks to Vance for posting all the selections that were voted on, it looks as though this rule may go in a different direction beginning at square one.
Lets all remember that this rule was voted in on the merits of wheatbeer’s original entry along with the JimmyHat’s as well, but if I feel that democracy is compromised with a completely different rule after the fact… it will indeed need to survive another voting process back at the starting line.
so, where are the suggestions… James, wheatbeer, JimmyHat, Cmdr Jennifer?
Neutral Blocks Short-hand
Each block is assigned pre-determined unit additions to likely target areas in order to make an attack on any block difficult but not impossible. Once a block has been compromised all remaining units and territories immediately join the side against the invaders. They can move these units and collect ipcs from these territories while they survive.
This is all predicated on semi-historical neutral blocks and removing Switz/Sweden/Mongolia from the ‘strict neutral’ camp.
Here’s how I see it, YG:
Neutral Armies
Would you rather have option 1, or option 2.
1) Rule 1C + Each Attacked Neutral gets the number of rounds the game was played times their territory value worth of new units (chosen by whomever is the closest enemy nation)
or
2) Rule 1C + no changesNote, only the ATTACKED neutrals get bonus units equal to (X-Rounds)*(TT-Value). The rest of the block does not, unless one of the other territories in the block is also attacked during the same turn or thereafter (since it’s now an enemy neutral). Annexing a territory would give you the territory and the starting units, but nothing else.
I these suppose to be rule suggestions to be voted on?, because if these were entered into a published rule book, we would all be lost, and where are the bold red titles disguising them from other posts?
@Young:
I these suppose to be rule suggestions to be voted on?, because if these were entered into a published rule book, we would all be lost, and where are the bold red titles disguising them from other posts?
Vote on Rule 1, or Rule 2. Simple, easy, you dont have 400 choices (yea, I’m going to keep harping on that. lol.) I’ll amend it so there’s a red title for ya.
@Cmdr:
@Young:
I these suppose to be rule suggestions to be voted on?, because if these were entered into a published rule book, we would all be lost, and where are the bold red titles disguising them from other posts?
Vote on Rule 1, or Rule 2. Simple, easy, you dont have 400 choices (yea, I’m going to keep harping on that. lol.) I’ll amend it so there’s a red title for ya.
I must be in the twilight zone…… What am I voting on? Both these “rules” are just ideas, Nobody can tell me what will be added to what neutrals, am I to vote for 1 or 2 just to see neutral ships, strategical bombers and tanks pop up all over the board because Germany attacked Spain… I will not be pushed into voting for something that has less detail than a bubble gum wrapper. That’s how people impose their will and supersede protocol to get what they want.
No, I typed it out, but I will do so again:
Neutral Armies
If you vote yes: Take the IPC value of the neutral territory and multiply it by the number of rounds the game has been played. If this territory is attacked, then your opponent (or the one closest to this territory if more than one opponent) may use this money to purchase extra defenders for this (or these) territories. This does not effect territories that are not attacked or annexed due to being pro-Allies/Axis status.
If you vote no: Then there are no extra armies at all. What is on the board is on the board.
I’m tired and a bit tipsy from the wine I had with dinner right now. Basically, yes you get extra armies, no you dont. (See, it’s so easy I can say it while drunk - you can’t say its too hard to understand for someone who is just downloading the rules for the first time!) :evil:
I think James has written it out in more detail but I don’t remember where the thread is.
I don’t think there’s any danger to beefing up neutrals in this way. Worst case scenario, neutrals become prohibitive to attack and it’s no different than OOB/A2/A3 where they tend to be ignored anyways.
When a pro-neutral or strict-neutral is invaded: The defending player (decided by whoever is closer to that territory) multiplies the income value of the country by the turn number and builds the units desired to participate in the defense of the territory alongside the starting units posted on the board. Unspent income is kept as bonus IPCs plundered or taken by the future owner upon conversion.
When a pro-neutral is occupied during noncombat: As above, except the new owner must builds units in that territory using as much accrued income as possible, then only the fractional income that remains is sent to the capital during collect income phase.
I found the thread, it’s under “variants”
Much better detail, thank you.
FYI my current submission for consideration is back on page 7.
Except I don’t think you should get the IPC to spend if you annex a territory. There will be a lot more territories to annex in the neutral blocks and allowing this to be done (buying units for annexed territories) is going to have the opposite effect we want, it’s going to shut down attacking neutrals - even in the cases we do it now.
Keep the part where if you attack it then it gets extra units based on its “income” for the game - get rid of the rest.
When a pro-neutral or strict-neutral is invaded: The defending player (decided by whoever is closer to that territory) multiplies the income value of the country by the turn number and builds the units desired to participate in the defense of the territory alongside the starting units posted on the board. Unspent income is kept as bonus IPCs plundered or taken by the future owner upon conversion.
When a pro-neutral is occupied during noncombat: As above, except the new owner must builds units in that territory using as much accrued income as possible, then only the fractional income that remains is sent to the capital during collect income phase.
I found the thread, it’s under “variants”
Version 1C has won the vote for Neutral Blocks. Any setup changes, including those to Neutral armies, should be done after playtesting.
@Vance:
Version 1C has won the vote for Neutral Blocks. Any setup changes, including those to Neutral armies, should be done after playtesting.
I agree.
