Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

Welcome to the forums, DarkHand! I think you’re on the right track with some of these ideas- have you done a few searches for the existing A/C and other re-balance threads? There are a bunch of them, some absolutely massive, many still active, so calling yours “official” might be a bit of an overreach, but who knows? For example, here’s a thread with literally 1500+ posts that might steady you a bit or give you some inspiration: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26089/g40-redesign-currently-taking-suggestions

As for making your own suggestions, playtesting with a dedicated group (enough to figure out the ‘meta’ of a particular HR) is key, so this right here:

@DarkHand said in Official Aircraft Rework Discussion:

I have yet to play test this (or even play regularly really :white_frowning_face: ).

is probably going to be the only limit on what you’re able to come up with. Good luck!

There were a few wars fought in South America in the early 30’s. I don’t know who had who’s backing in those conflicts. There was the Guerra del 41 between Equador and Peru. I know the US supported Peru and Japan supported Equador, but I’m pretty sure that support was from the bleachers. The only equipment I can tell you for sure that was used was the Czech LTP (Panzer 38t). These were used by Peru.
Peru had all the gear. They actually prepared for war. This lead to Peru having a 3-4 to 1 advantage in men and equipment. Except for tanks. Equador had none. Peru had around 25. Take a wild guess at who won.

Do or die?  :-D haha

I guess it’d be rather like Classic then, where you had to save to invade neutrals, except in this case you’d be saving ipcs to have the option to retreat! Might be fun. I could see a way that might be worked in if the players were agreeable.

As for the standard bonus, depending on which board you wanted to try it on, the influx of cash can definitely make purchasing strategy more interesting out of the second round and on. I’ve tried it on Revised, 41, 42.2, AA50 etc as my most basic cash bonus and people seem to enjoy it. Makes the land grab and combats just that much more intense, since you always have the bonus buck in the back of your mind

Exactly, especially if you’re trying out Strategic Movement rules in the game. France can take Spain, and then immediately bring it’s troops to the front the next turn. Keep 4 IPCS that will never be contested for the remainder of the war? Why wouldn’t you do that?

I’d rather see further clarifications on certain territories that historically were aligned or owned by one of the alliances, like Greece, like Persia, just like Belgium, Albania, Bulgaria and Romania currently are, but still have stricter rules for invading the remaining True Neutrals. France takes Spain = Germany building a single transport and moving infantry over to claim Norway and Sweden for a free 8 IPCS and 16 additional units. It would keep the countries that were traditional out of the war to remaining there like it does in G40.

IDK, maybe you treat all true neutrals as independent nations (no blocks, or alliances w/other powers or neutrals). Mongolian tt aren’t included, they remain part of the NAP.

Pay 5 IPCs to roll a diplo dice. You can buy as many as you want (or maybe limit it to 1-2 per turn), but each one is dedicated to only one true neutral tt per turn, and you must be able to invade. State what true neutral nation you are trying to sway/invade (must have units dedicated to the invasion, and can’t make changes after dice is rolled). Once you start the process there is no turning back, you must follow through that turn.

Roll your diplo dice.

Roll 1 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), and the standing army joins you (immediately becomes your color) because you negotiated them to join your cause (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

Roll 2 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), but the standing army doesn’t join you (it is dissolved) because you negotiated a peaceful occupation, and they laid down their arms (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

Roll 3-4 tt becomes pro your enemy. You have to fight the standing army at least one round of battle and if you retreat any surviving units immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice of controlling power). Whom ever controls the tt will get the IPC value in their collect income phase.

Roll 5 and the standing army is doubled, you must again fight at least one round of battle, but then can retreat. You under estimated the resolve of the country and their will to fight. Any survivors from the standing army would immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice).

Roll 6 failed attempt. You lost your investment, and it was deemed not in the best interest to continue negotiations or attempt an invasion. This was a diplomatic process, so nothing changes, and the standing army stays intact.

As note #1 I also think that any neutral tt w/o standing army, or IPC value should be awarded 1 inf (maybe 2) so the US can’t just waltz down through say Columbia w/o resistance to get to the more valuable S American nations.  All the above would apply.

*As note#2 you could beef up the 3 major true neutrals to include better units in the standing army.

It’s simple, yet a bit more sensical than what we have now: In any turn you wish to attack strict neutrals, you have the option of “buying off” any remaining ones so that they stay neutral.

Case in point: Germany wishes to attack Sweden, but obviously doesn’t want to turn Spain or Turkey against them. To keep them as strict neutrals, Germany must pay 2 + 2 (the IPC values of each territory).

If it wants to include Afg. and Saudi Arabia, then 2 + 2 + 2 + (say a min of 1 IPC, for those territories with no IPC values).

These territories would also stay strictly neutral in the event of an Allied attack (although perhaps that can be debatable). Also, the IPC costs themselves: perhaps double the tt value would be better, but those are, of course, details.

Thoughts?

No, your comments are not in red!  You may have run afoul the “LIST” command (I did a lot, that’s why each blue line has it’s own start color and end color command.)

For now, as I mentioned in the Delta thread, if you choose to test technologies, use the aforementioned rule that JimmyHat quoted, except, instead of using the technology descriptions use the following:

TECH1:  Advanced Artillery + Improved Mechanized Infantry
TECH2:  Jet Fighters + Long Range Aircraft
TECH3:  Paratroopers + Heavy Bombers
TECH4:  Improved Industrial Complexes + War Bonds
TECH5:  Improved Shipyards + Super Submarines
TECH6:  Radar + Rockets

Technologies just like Larry’s rules without change.  The reduction to 6 and the combinations of which ones were already voted on.  It could change after we get testing back or have untested discussion, but at least it’s somewhere to start.    Note, IF YOU WANT TO TEST THEM, then you may.

Report games and specific issues and counter strategies seen in the Delta thread (for now, I may move them to their own thread later.)  We’ll reconvene in a few weeks.

On East and West, by Imp Games, each neutral country has a prearranged force setup as well. China, the Arab League, and the OAS all have different territories with a different amount of units. Just thought you’d like to know.