Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

What if neutral attacks by Germany, Italy and Japan did not turn the world hostile?

My thinking is this:  If Spain was going to get all pissed off because Germany invaded a neutral country, it would have done so when Holland fell, when France fell, when Poland fell, etc.  So maybe the neutrals expect Germany to invade true neutrals and thus, are hoping that their neutrality might encourage the Germans not to attack?

The other idea:  What if Germany, Japan or Italy could invade a true neutral prior to America’s entrance into the war and instead of everyone going anti-Axis, it just allowed America and Russia to enter the battle on that map early?

My thinking is this:  America, irate at the blatant disregard of a nation’s neutrality decides that their own neutrality won’t be recognized and declares war on Germany (or whatever) in self defense.

In case the neutrals need just abit extra force, i have a relatively simple idea:

Add the IPC value of each territory in amount of extra INF to the existing army
(or differently phrased: Add an amount of INF, equal to the value of the invaded territory to it’s army)

For example Spain would be 6 (inf) + 2 (IPC value) = 8 inf defending when Allies (or Axis) invade it, or 6 + 3 inf if they invade Sweden.
But activating stays the same, so Sweden would defend with 9 inf, but when activated, there are just 6 inf that turn.
This way attacking a neutral becomes abit harder, yet the other party doesn’t get to have even extra benefits. Also it is very easy to use that system, after all, all the numbers are there on the board.

And if you feel Allies have it easier and Axis hard and there needs to be a bit of balancing, only use the adding INF system for the Allied side.

My phrasing is still not ok, but i hope you understand the idea…

edit: if you need a realistic excuse: partisans! ;)

Here’s why I think there needs to be neutral blocks, and why I suggest what I do in regards to them.

1)  It’s unrealistic as HELL that America can become a beligerant nation.
2)  The allies are incredibly rewarded for attacking true neutrals, this should be the opposite - the axis should be rewarded!
3)  Germany and Japan were the beligerants, (Italy too, but really, Italy’s a historic joke, almost as bad as historic France, need we go there?)

Perhaps we need to go in the opposite direction?  Germany, Italy and Japan have a +3 land value increase for any true neutral they take over, they may use this increase to build major complexes as if these were originally owned territories.

Now the Axis have a great incentive to attack True Neutrals and the Allies can reap a pretty hefty reward for it (4 Infantry in Afghanistan, 4 Infantry in Africa, 8 Infantry in S. America…plus any increased units we give these neutrals.)  However, we are not stopping anyone from attacking true neutrals. (Just if America attacks spain, Germany gets turkey AND 3 IPC extra for having it.)

Excluding USA from attacking any neutrals* does sound logical.

*including not yet activated true neutrals turned pro-axis because Russia or UK attacked a true neutral.

I was just thinking it’s not nice to ban someone from doing something.  So allowing the Axis to attack true neutrals without any penalty at all (and give them the Russian NO to boot for it!) would effectively do this.

Maybe if the allies attack a true neutral, any pro-allied neutral, that is not currently owned by the allies, would go true neutral?

The axis could still attack the neutral without penalty as per normal, but now the other neutrals of the world would thumb their collective noses at the allies, instead of being allied leaning?

Sequence:

America attacks True Neutral Spain.
True neutrals of the world go pro-axis immediately
Pro-Allied neutrals go true nuetral, immediately
Pro-Axis neutrals join Germany (there are no pro-axis neutrals on the Pacific map.)  - al le Mongolian style rules.

I disagree, we went on a recruiting drive towards the end of the war, I believe Colombia and Cuba joined the war, I bet there were others.

Adding ipcs to territories that the Axis take could work, although that might end up enticing us all to a Neutral crush strategy.

@Cmdr:

Maybe if the allies attack a true neutral, any pro-allied neutral, that is not currently owned by the allies, would go true neutral?

But which pro-Allied neutral would still not be activated by the time a neutral crush would take place?

@JimmyHat:

I disagree, we went on a recruiting drive towards the end of the war, I believe Colombia and Cuba joined the war, I bet there were others.

Adding ipcs to territories that the Axis take could work, although that might end up enticing us all to a Neutral crush strategy.

Yes, but we didn’t attack Spain either!

Think about it, how would the League of Nations reacted to the US Ambassador if Eisenhower had directed an amphibious assualt against the Spanish government solely because it was more fuel efficient for his transport ships?  I dare think they would have at least entertained the German embassadors, if not covertly sent them aid and comfort.

That’s the feel I am going for.  The world, shocked and appalled about how democratic nations (Congress / Parliament) invade nations who just want to be left alone, turn on the former trading partners - economically, if not militarily.

The other thing I wanted to consider is not restricting a person’s ability to prosecute the war as they see fit.  If we have to Ban America from invading a neutral, then fine, but I’d rather just severely punish them, instead of ban them.

I just thought of this, what if the allies take a true neutral, the United States immediately and forever loses their 10 IPC NO for the Continental United States?  I never liked that one anyway and it would be fitting punishment.  Call it loss of trade revenues with neutral nations - economic sanctions by the League of Nations (dont care if they could do that or not, they could make an agreement to stop trading with the US!).

The allies can still attack neutrals, but wouldn’t dare do it until such time as they feel secure that they are going to win.  The axis can still attack neutrals as well - and only those in the block would go pro-allied so it’s no big harm if Turkey falls, since the US does not get the 8 infantry in S. America.

@special:

@Cmdr:

Maybe if the allies attack a true neutral, any pro-allied neutral, that is not currently owned by the allies, would go true neutral?

But which pro-Allied neutral would still not be activated by the time a neutral crush would take place?

Ireland, Crete…ok fine!  You make a point!

BTW, the idea of taking an NO away because an ally does something is not new!  You lose the SZ 125 NO if America or England lands a plane on your territory, even if you did not give them permission to do so!

@Cmdr:

I just thought of this, what if the allies take a true neutral, the United States immediately and forever loses their 10 IPC NO for the Continental United States?  I never liked that one anyway and it would be fitting punishment.  Call it loss of trade revenues with neutral nations - economic sanctions by the League of Nations (dont care if they could do that or not, they could make an agreement to stop trading with the US!).

Not a bad idea at all!

@Young:

@special:

@Cmdr:

I just thought of this, what if the allies take a true neutral, the United States immediately and forever loses their 10 IPC NO for the Continental United States?  I never liked that one anyway and it would be fitting punishment.  Call it loss of trade revenues with neutral nations - economic sanctions by the League of Nations (dont care if they could do that or not, they could make an agreement to stop trading with the US!).

Not a bad idea at all!

Will the US be able to invade neutrals if they endure this penalty…… I would hope so.

i think so, basically they can harvest about 10 IPC’s in true neutrals, so with some effort (and time) they can neutralize the penalty (which is not bad, since the USA is often found to be too powerful, this way neutral crush won’t happen for economical gain).

Correct.  I foresee the US sending a small contingent to Samerica.  Grabbing Brazil and hitting Venezula will get you 4 ipcs and even on infantry.  That will leave 4 inf 2 art under my current iteration to counter, spread in Chile and Argentina.  Axis will probably coalesce or perhaps take Brazil, but the main issue the allies will have to deal with is the 3 new axis ships.  I thought about adding a sub to SAmerica but I feel a roving axis sub could make its money back and then some in the SAtalntic/Indian Oceans.

Germany will probably collect on Samerica for a turn, and then US will most likely mop up the rest.

In Europe, we have two scenarios to consider, Germany attacking Iberia to control Gib, this would probably be in conjunction with a pure barbarossa campaign.  Secondly is the Allies(US) taking it to open a new front in Europe while threatening all of Italy.  This is where the playtesting will come in.

Turkey and the middle East I feel is really only under threat from the Axis, can anyone see a reason the Allies would break neutrality that makes sense?  The Turkish fleet might survive and if it does it is safe in the Black sea.  SaudiArabia and Afghanistan provide boots on the ground immediately and 2 ipcs to UK provided London is not captured.

Yes, I think it would be up to the American player to figure out if he wanted to garb S. America to recover the lost revenue and if so, how.

I can see two methods:

1)  Set up a few transports so you can hit all but Argentina in one round (it’s the only one you cannot get too from E. USA by my count.)  Perhaps by setting it up from the get go, just having the transports and troops ready to deploy immediately.

2)  Go back with a transport and an aircraft carrier and snipe the territories as needed.    In this case, Argentina would be the hard one, but could be done.

Of course, who’s to say you give it all to America???  Perhaps you want ANZAC to take Argentina, Chili and Brazil, huh?

Here’s another idea:
    If one of the strict neutrals in a block is attacked, the others not only become Pro-Axis, but those which are still neutral get an infantry bonus. For example, If US attacks Venezuela, then Argentina and Chile both get an extra 1-4 infantry, due to local resistance to American forces. If Italy attacked, the same thing would happen.

Current Neutral Blocks Proposal.

I am going to lay my proposal out in full, this is the ‘official’ proposal however if anyone else has their own ‘official’ proposal it will be entered into consideration.  Please be thorough.

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

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 Sweden is not controlled by the Allies Germany collects a 5 ipc NO.  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
Argentina) 1 aa gun, 1 art
Venezuela)1 art
Chile)1 art
sz65)1dd
sz66)1 dd 1 CA
Turkey)2 art 1 ftr
sz100)1 dd 1 CA
Spain)1 aa gun, 1 ftr, 1 arm
Liberia)1 inf
sz91)1 dd
sz92)1 dd 1 CA 1 sub
Sweden)1 art 1 arm 1 ftr
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.

If Germany attacks say, Turkey, on G3 does that immediately bring USA and USSR into the war?  Can USA attack Spain then?