Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

@ando101

I wasn’t saying that your idea was bad.

But yes, that makes sense.

I took another look at the house rules I’m considering, and hopefully will get a chance to test it out over the coming Christmas holidays. This mod is definitely intended for games with 4+ active players so that multiple people can be “active” at once and encourage a quicker, less downtime game.

If you only have 2 players, then of course use the the standard turn order.

My 2nd pass of writing it up has resulted with this. Rules/changes in bold, with discussion following.

-Start of game, the “one weird turn”: Russia and Britain take one simultaneous turn. Russia acts as normal. Britain only starts with 12 IPCs and can only move pieces from or into territories east of and including Persia. UK can only buy/place units on the pacific side of the board during this turn

-After this turn finishes, the turn order becomes: All axis powers followed by all allied powers

-The above change allows simultaneous turns while preserving the general flow of each theater and keeps the usual critical opening strikes intact.

Consequences and clarifications: A couple situations will pop up due to the changes.

1)Multinational attacks:
Still not allowed, instead if more than one nation attack a single territory, battles will be resolved one attacker at a time.

IE: If Russia, Britan and US all combat move to a single axis territory, the attacks happen one at a time. Russians fight untill they win/lose/retreat, followed by UK, followed by US. The allied player 2nd/3rd in line may decide to immediately retreat before dice are rolled if they don’t like the results of the previous players attack.

Can opening: No longer possible. Losing this “trick” is an acceptable loss IMO.(Personal taste: It’s very “gamey”)

Loss of landing planes/strait use. IE: US cant land planes on territory UK just conquered. In practicality, this is a minor nerf to allied KGF play.(landing planes in west europe. If there is an example of strait use that happens in a “typical” game I’m unaware). Is this a big enough deal to warrant additional changes? We will see. Easiest solution for balancing may be modifying the British “bid” introduced for first turn pacific spending.

Anything I missed?

NEUTRAL ITALY Variant:

Italy was clearly in the middle of everything at this time in world history.  Their strategic location in the Mediterranean Sea gave them a particular and peculiar place on who or how they would join in the coming war.  Italy chose neither side at the start - but events and pressures would soon change that course.

Use this rule to handle a weak and indecisive Italy  - which side will they JOIN?!

New power sequence:   (preferred but not necessary)
AH - Cannot attack Italy and must attack SER turn 1.
IT - Neutral turn 1.  Cannot move or build.
RU
GE
FR
OE
UK
US - Neutral until turn 4.

Procedure for Italy entering the war:
Italy was in the Triple Alliance (of 1882) at the start of the war; Austria, Germany, & Italy.  The Triple Entente; England, France, & Russia did much to “buy” Italy’s allegiance with promises of any territorial gains they may take in Austria, the middle East, and Africa.  If not for the death of the pro-CP Italian Foreign Minister, the Marquis di San Giuliano, the auction for Italy may not have occurred, and Italy may stayed out of the war longer, if not for the duration.  The Triple Entente had much to offer Italy, the Triple Alliance, very little.

Turn 1 - Italy cannot be attacked.
Turn 2+;  
a) At start of turn, roll 1d6.  1-2 = to CP; 3-4 = stays neutral;  5-7 = to AP; 8+ = stays neutral.
b) The Triple Entente can spend IPCs (from any treasury) to adjust that die roll.  For every 6 spent, add 1 to the roll.   This money does not go the Italian treasury.
c) While neutral, Italy will collect 50% of IPC values into their treasury.
d)  If the Italy joins a side due to this roll, the owning player can immediately spend 50% of treasury on units to be placed in any European Italian territory or sea zone adjacent to Rome.
e) While neutral, Italy can be attacked by any power, in which they would automatically join the other side.  1; If this occurs, they will mobilize 2 x IPC value of territor(ies) under attack, and regardless of the number of units mobilized, 50% of the treasury will be expended.  2; Mines are active against any amphibious or sea attacks.  
f) On Italy’s first active turn in the game, they can spend 50% of their treasury minus any amount that was pre-spent in step d.

Seems like a legit point, my thought was that it would put a little more pressure on the German opening, making the standard sz14 opening a bit more risky (if G elects to ignore the canal then UK can make a play for the med, if they go for it, that leaves Gibraltar open.) If Allies don’t want to trade the middle east, then Russia can defend Trans with the tank and 1 fighter (that can still attack W. Russia and make the landing). But to do that and secure Trans then the Soviets have to be involved. This would produce a 50/50 on the G1 attack, but it also means sacrificing a transport, or else risking the loss of the Battleship to a UK airstrike. So there is a definite risk there for both sides.

But somewhere in Sub Sahara Africa would work too. I think if doing that then Rhodesia would probably be the most fun, since it gives a spawn point in sz 33 and a target for G or J to gun for.

I think I will edit to Rhodesia, just to keep things straight forward. This would also be cool for a fighter spawn in sz 33, if UK wants to keep their carrier instead of sending it into an attack. Or as a tank slot, for a sz33 transport or to race up to Egypt in 1 move. If Axis take Rhodesia then it’s a bit easier for them to hold the southern section of Africa. It might also make a factory expansion in SA more attractive for either side, since they’d already have 1 production slot in place (similar to the way Finland makes an IC in Norway a bit more attractive.

Good call man I dig it, Rhodesia it will be. Edited above :)

@CWO:

@Young:

The problem as it is right now (if it actually is a problem) is that the Axis powers (Japan in particular) will absolutely profit the most for capturing enemy cities (Japan will essentially claim up to $9 for cities that are easy to take and hold), so to add a Chinese capital city for no reason but to give Japan yet another target to profit from may unbalance the game.

Fair enough.  As I said, it was just an idea that I tossed in for fun in case it it turned out to be worth considering.  It arose from the discussion of the player capitals versus the cities, and I didn’t scrutinize it in any detail because I wanted to leave it up to you to decide if it worked or not in the context of your house rules.  So I have no problem with the idea turning out to be problematic.

No problem, I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and there have been some great modifications because of them, I guess my problem is that I have played over in my head a lot of angles to these objectives, and it’s very easy to tip the scales of balance when restructuring an entire game mechanic like this.

Do you play it that Italy does nothing while neutral, i.e. Italy cannot buy new units or move what they already have?

In my view this is essential for a workable neutral Italy; as far as the powers of the day were concerned mobilization was the equivalent of a declaration of war, so as soon as a power starts moving and building it should be considered at war for all purposes.

Also, it’s rather unfair that Italy can build, yet Austria cannot attack it. Therefore, if Italy can build/move R1/2 then Austria has no reason not to attack Venice R1 to prevent an Italian buildup, which of course renders the rule obsolete.

If you’re going to make Italy neutral for two turns, then Turkey should be neutral at least until the beginning of its first turn.

Tanks don’t have to be adjacent to their attacking territory either. They can move 2 spaces to attack. For example, say you have a tank in Germany and you are attacking Baltic states. You can move through Poland with your tank and attack Baltic States.

thanks for the reply

don’t worry about the parade the dancing girls backed out anyway:)

doesn’t look like it would impact that much 
I think I’ll give it a go in the future