Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

I guess I should not have said “stop” it, but maybe make it costly for the axis.  If they take Turkey, they get easy access to the middle east oil, Africa, and if Japan goes hard on India they can tag team up through to Stalingrad later.  I don’t think it’s a game breaker, but it allows a very different strategy (which is good).

@Vance:

I guess I should not have said “stop” it, but maybe make it costly for the axis.  If they take Turkey, they get easy access to the middle east oil, Africa, and if Japan goes hard on India they can tag team up through to Stalingrad later.  I don’t think it’s a game breaker, but it allows a very different strategy (which is good).

Plowing through 8 infantry and giving the allies freebies is not my definition of easy…I’d rather have America attack Spain, then go annex Turkey!  Else, I can just sit there with a complex or two on the Black Sea and get almost as easy access to the Middle East.

That’s very true, and there is also the possibility that Saudi Arabia can fall to US control.  If UK can reinforce it long enough for them to build an IC and start pumping out units on that side of the world, that’s potentially a bad deal for the axis.

By the way, I see that a certain someone has started another self-persecution thread on the Harris site.  I for one would encourage everyone to please refrain from stating the obvious and fanning the fire.  Please don’t provoke him.  Maybe if he is permanently down to one site, he will value not being banned there enough to curb his enthusiasm and make good thoughtful contributions without all the histrionics.

How about letting neutrals defend their country on 3 instead of 2?

edit: so basically a ‘new’ unit: True Neutral Inf: attack 0, defense 3 movement 0. When annexed turns into regular INF.
but that only works when turned true neutrals become instantly activated, of course.

@Cmdr:

Wait, we’re locked into 1C still, right?  It won the vote and I believe that was determined as done and over.  We’re just talking about added units and whether or not there should be any and if so, how those added units are, right?

Jim, you raise a good point on Sweeden.

However, keep in mind that America’s not going to be attacking S. America.  Why?  1)  They lose their 10 IPC sovereignty NO negating any benefit of attacking S. American territories income wise.  2)  They allow the Axis to land in S. America and annex territories.  3)  There is no utility for America by taking Chile, Venezuela or Argentina (and defeinitly not the no ipc, no army territories!)

Lastly, Germany can already attack Turkey and crush the 8 Infantry there.  Why is adding 2 Infantry and an AA Gun to Turkey going to make that bad - is it not enough?

It sounds like you think US won’t attack any true neutrals because of the loss of a 10 ipc NO.  I don’t like that but it can be adjusted after play testing if it turns out the US is out of the picture.

I have Turkey with an aa gun, a ftr and an atry I think, perhaps a tank.  I also added Turkish fleet units so that if Germany takes Turkey, Russia gets a fleet to help defend the Black Sea.  IF Russia attacks Turkey Germany gets some ships in the Black sea to compensate.

Also don’t get confused by how this works, you attack a neutral, and the rest of the block turns immediatly.  No ‘pro-axis’ or ‘pro-allied’.  That is because as you point out US can attack Colombia and if the rest turns pro-axis…well Axis won’t be ever getting near SAmerica again.

Current Neutral Blocks Proposal.

Neutral Blocks
SAmerica- all territories in Samerica minus Brazil.
Middle East-Turkey, Arabia, Afghanistan
Iberia and Colonies-Portugal, Spain,switzerland and all African neutral territories including Liberia and Sierra Leone.

Mongolia is removed from the ‘strict neutral’ camp and is added to the Japanese/Russia non-aggression pact.  If Russia attacks Japan, Mongolia remains neutral all game.  If Japan attacks Russia Mongolia immediately joins Russia, replace Mongolian troops with Russians and place control markers on Mongolian territories.

Sweden is removed from the ‘strict neutral’ camp.  It is now tied to the German NO for Swedish iron ore.  So long as Denmark and the Baltic Sea is free of allied units or control Germany collects a 5 ipc NO.  While Germany and Russia are neutral they do not block this convoy route, however once at war it can be blockaded by any ship, including subs or trns.  If Russia controls both Finland and Norway then Sweden will join the Axis at the beginning of Germany’s next turn.  Replace units with Germans.

Amended Force Pools for Neutrals
these units are in addition to the printed on infantry numbers located on the gameboard
Argentina) 1 aa gun, 1 artillery
Venezuela)1 artillery
Chile)1 artillery
sz65)1 dd
sz66)1 dd 1 CA
Turkey)2 artillery 1 armor 1 fighter
Arabia)1 fighter
sz100)1 dd 1 CA
Spain)1 aa gun, 1 fighter, 1 armor 1 artillery
Liberia)1 dd 1 sub
Mozambique)-1 artillery
Angola)- 1artillery 1 armor
sz91)1 dd
sz92)1 dd 1 CA 1 sub
Sweden)1 artillery 1 armor 1 fighter
sz114)1 dd 1 CA

Miscellaneous
When a neutral block is attacked, all other territories within that block immediately join the opposing side.  Players choose which power the entire block will join.  All units and territories are replaced with the new controlling power and they will collect ipcs for remaining territories in their next collect income phase.

Added Switz to Iberian block, added units to Safrican Neutrals, switched Liberian inf to dd/sub to represent interned Vichy ships.  Added units to Turkey and Arabia.

12/4 edited Swedish Iron Ore NO.
12/5 finalizing
Adding this to 1C we get additional rules;

US loses its 10ipc NO for controlling the US if it violates neutrality, this represents costs incurred by the US for setting up banana republics.

An attack by an Axis power on any strict neutral territory while the USA and/or USSR are not yet at war will result in USA and USSR given the option to declare war on any or all Axis powers.  This constitutes a provoked declaration of war and therefore would have no other ramifications in regards to other theatres.

If an axis power attacks Turkey when it is a strict neutral and Caucasus is not axis controlled, the Soviet Union preemptively destroys oil production facilities in Azerbaijan as part of its scorched earth policy. Germany may never again collect the 5IPC Caucasus oil NO, even if it controls Caucasus.

I think the best of both worlds would be 1C plus Jimmyhat’s force pools.

I would also like to see the Emergency Conscripts idea in poll 5 to resolve the Mongolia/nonagg pact issue, but wait and see how that vote goes (Emergency Conscripts is currently leading).

@Vance:

I think the best of both worlds would be 1C plus Jimmyhat’s force pools.

I would also like to see the Emergency Conscripts idea in poll 5 to resolve the Mongolia/nonagg pact issue, but wait and see how that vote goes (Emergency Conscripts is currently leading).

Thats where I was going.  A few issues arose however.

The Swedish Iron ore NO:  I was unhappy with the results of linking it directly to Sweden.  The allies /have/ to invade sweden to negate the NO then.  This IS historical, but made it too hard to disrupt.  Then I had the idea of moving the No to Denmark.  This is where most of the ore passed through, without control of Denmark a nation could blockade northern Germany and shut off the iron ore.  That’s why I moved it to Denmark.

Russian Caucasus NO:  This might be a good fix, I think however we shouldn’t require a Rus inf in Caucusus to destroy the oil wells.  Germ would probably try and take Turkey with a bit of surprise or trickery, and troops are really not needed for this mission, the citizens living in the area should do just fine.

YG’s Swedish proposal
I like the idea of Sweden being on its own separate from other blocks, but if Russia uses valuable resources to take Finland and Germany, why reward Germanys failure by automatically giving them Sweden and $3 extra dollars?

My suggestion is, who ever controls both Norway and Finland, controls Sweden and receives the $3 income. That would give Germany a small boost to begin the game after they take Finland. However, It’s up for the taking if the allies want to invest units to take Norway and Finland.

The 6 infantry should only be activated if Sweden is attacked out right by a side that does not control both Norway and Finland already.

***Sweden is in a bit of a confusing position.  The reason I added that they switch to Germany is to give the allies incentive to invade Norway before the Ruskies get to it.  If the western allies can reach Norway, then Sweden can breath easy, if Stalin takes Norway and Finaland, then Sweden declares war on Russia in a final bid to escape communism.

Going by you’re suggestion, most likely Soviets will take all of Scandinavia and then Sweden would fall to their camp.  It really is historically accurate to have most countries in Europe fearful of Stalinism, rightly I might add.

?  Sweden is never under Nazi rule.  They are neutral and providing Hitler with Iron Ore.  If Germany DOW’s sweden, they will have to defeat sweden’s decently large army and small fleet.  Plus considering the chance that Sweden may join Germany if it remains neutral, I think most Axis players are going to leave it be.

Historically Sweden remained Neutral throughout the war, but the SS recruited there and they freely traded with Germany.

EDIT***I also like how sweden is separated from the strict neutrals.  Its position in Scandinavia means it is already in the periphery, and like Mongolia the fact that it is surrounded by belligerents means it does not have the freedom to DOW other countries like SAmerica for example.  Taking it out of the ‘strict neutral’ camp and any blocks does mean it is vulnerable.  Beefing up its military is one solution, but this proposal also adds another solution which gives a ‘bonus’ to the surrounding powerhouses.  Germany wants to keep Sweden neutral in the hopes of gaining the Swedish military if the war starts to go against them.  Russia wants Scandinavia because it ‘potentially’ receives additional NO money from it.  UK/US are also vested in Scandinavia, if they can capture Norway before the Reds, Sweden will remain Neutral.

@Vance:

I would also like to see the Emergency Conscripts idea in poll 5 to resolve the Mongolia/nonagg pact issue, but wait and see how that vote goes (Emergency Conscripts is currently leading).

I didn’t vote for this because I don’t really understand it.  It seems to be similar to the 12ipc rule from A2 in that either side can receive troops.  This is different because in my version only Russia can receive Mongolia.  Not sure Japan needs the troops, I feel the Axis win by pressing Russia, and that will mean either attacking through Siberia or through the back of China, but either way Japan will be the aggressor.  That being said, I realize my strategy might not be best for everyone and having multiple options is FANTASTIC.  If my Mongolia idea isn’t used, a solution will have to be made for Mongolia in the neutral blocks.

I also will add that having Mongolia as a deciding factor between Russia/Japan aggression is historical, uses the ‘on game board’ information, and is very similar to A3’s Mongolia rule just less cluttered.

Something about the whole Sweden solution still feels very wrong to me.

Isn’t it better to make Sweden an absolute neutral? (not invadable) and change the NO to (for example) an Allies-free Baltic Sea? (abit like the italian Med NO), or possibly that + Axis ownership of Norway.

By the way, Sweden didn’t have that much of an army, i think…

Edit: or just add it to the Iberian block? I don’t see a problem when that would be the case (at least not right away)

Edit 2: abit insane idea: let Sweden chose the side of the richest side: count Allied and Axis combined income and once it goes over a certain amount, Sweden (and Switzerland?) will join that side. Economic opportunism!

just thinking out loud ;)

@Young:

@special:

Something about the whole Sweden solution still feels very wrong to me.

Isn’t it better to make Sweden an absolute neutral? (not invadable) and change the NO to (for example) an Allies-free Baltic Sea? (abit like the italian Med NO), or possibly that + Axis ownership of Norway.

By the way, Sweden didn’t have that much of an army, i think…

Edit: or just add it to the Iberian block? I don’t see a problem when that would be the case (at least not right away)

Edit 2: abit insane idea: let Sweden chose the side of the richest side: count Allied and Axis combined income and once it goes over a certain amount, Sweden (and Switzerland?) will join that side. Economic opportunism!

I like this a lot, but I would change the NO to $5 for control of the Denmark straight. If it were for no allied ships in the Baltic, Germany wouldn’t be able to collect it until they have dealt with the Russian cruiser and sub (not fair IMO). I would (like SF said) make Sweden a special Neutral that is uninvadvable as well as Switzerland.

Well… as long as they are not at war, Russia isn’t an Ally and doesn’t disturb that NO, i think.

Still, control of Denmark straight sounds good as well.

(possible option in case Denmark sounds too easy: control over Denmark + no enemy ships in SZ112 and 113. Dunno… better keep it simple, i guess)

@Young:

You are right about the Russian boats (tu-shay). I really like your idea about the NO for control of the straight + no allied boats in the Baltic… and here’s why…

I had a game yesterday where Germany and Russia were beating the hell out of each other and the Russian ships were ignored (very unrealistic). Germany could be forced to purchase a destroyer in order to get rid of the sub… I’m going to suggest it and call it both of ours (look for it in the Delta thread).

Great :)