Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

The point of tying all of the neutrals together is to discourage attacking any of them.  If you break them up into blocks, it will be exploited badly.

If neutrals are to be broken into separate blocks then their force pools should increase as the game moves along.  Don’t you think Spain or Turkey would increase the size of their armies if a threat grows on their border?  The rest of the world is mobilizing HUGE armies, the neutrals should increase then as well.

First a word on Iberian feelings towards a successful Barbarossa.  In reality Spain was demoralized from their civil war, and more interested in rebuilding their industry and infrastructure than troops, however that means their troops were seasoned and probably would have fared better than other Axis allies.  The real reason I see for Franco to stay out of the war was that Spain was an easy target for Germany coming from the north and an alliance with Germany would mean the loss of Spain’s final overseas possessions, considering that for the past few hundred years France and UK had been snipping colonies from other powers.

Not sure how that political situation would play out in this game.  Also Portugal would have been force to side with Spain or be invaded.  Same problem with them of losing all their colonies if they joined the axis….and if they stayed neutral they make bank in trading luxury goods.

For gameplay’s sake perhaps adding in an ipc cost for US DOW’s on neutrals might do the trick?

@M7574:

The point of tying all of the neutrals together is to discourage attacking any of them.  If you break them up into blocks, it will be exploited badly.

If neutrals are to be broken into separate blocks then their force pools should increase as the game moves along.  Don’t you think Spain or Turkey would increase the size of their armies if a threat grows on their border?  The rest of the world is mobilizing HUGE armies, the neutrals should increase then as well.

I agree that their force pools should be increased, however I am leery of adding too many troops, I would rather prefer naval unit additions if it can be wrangled.  That is because the inf numbers are printed on the board and I would like to keep that information up to date.  I do however think adding an inf to Liberia might work within my proposal.

@JimmyHat:

For gameplay’s sake perhaps adding in an ipc cost for US DOW’s on neutrals might do the trick?

I quite like this idea to go with a strait-up neutral block system.  You could even call it the propaganda cost.

I am going to amend my idea slightly, adding in the US ipc cost of invading neutrals.

I also think it might be a good idea to have 2 or 3 options which people can playtest and report back on.  That is unless we get a consensus.

Should it be  considered that some strict neutrals could be pro axis or pro allies but have been left out, example, I have seen suggestions that Argentina should have been pro Axis. I dunno, if we are changing rules why not look into this.

That is certainly possible, you should flesh it out a bit and enter it as an idea.  That way when we start the voting people can vote on it.

Switzerland should be the only strict neutral that cannot be invaded. At all. Ever.

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.