Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

@Young:

@Vance:

Version 1C has won the vote for Neutral Blocks.  Any setup changes, including those to Neutral armies, should be done after playtesting.

I agree.

Yes, the armies were assuming 1C rules, just an extra poll to determine if they are included or not.

I would say the answer to that is No because that’s not what people voted for.  There are no setup changes specified.

@Vance:

I would say the answer to that is No because that’s not what people voted for.  There are no setup changes specified.

I said to have another vote, take rule 1C as the base.  Then allow people to vote on adding armies to those neutrals that are attacked.  It’s a simple binary vote: 
A)  Yes - If a true neutral is attacked, then the side that did not initiate the attack may purchase extra units in the amount of the territory value times the number of rounds before the territory was attacked in the territory. 
B)  No.  They get what’s printed on the board, nothing more, nothing left in perpetuity.

OK I will post that as a rule proposal in the main delta thread and people can vote for or against the idea.

@Vance:

OK I will post that as a rule proposal in the main delta thread and people can vote for or against the idea.

Sounds good.  I’ll be happy either way, but I saw his rule and said “Hey…now that’s something we should at least consider in Delta!”

@Cmdr:

@Vance:

I would say the answer to that is No because that’s not what people voted for.  There are no setup changes specified.

I said to have another vote, take rule 1C as the base.  Then allow people to vote on adding armies to those neutrals that are attacked.  It’s a simple binary vote:  
A)  Yes - If a true neutral is attacked, then the side that did not initiate the attack may purchase extra units in the amount of the territory value times the number of rounds before the territory was attacked in the territory.  
B)  No.  They get what’s printed on the board, nothing more, nothing left in perpetuity.

umm, I don’t like this but it is at least a direction.

How do we know option 1C needed troops?  If we are considering adjusting force pools for neutrals, then who is to say one of the other options isn’t better?  Layering rules is going to end up with page upon page of little exceptions and rule addendums.

If the issue is that neutrals need a force pool adjustment,(which I believe they do) then perhaps we should look at that when voting for proposals?  Only reason I suggest this is because it seems my proposal is simple, clear, and has precedent if not in other Larry Harris games than at least Xeno.  Perhaps we should vote on which version of neutral force pools we want to add.

Blocks to be decided but are considered essential
1.  Listed force pools in the index after nation setup.
2.  Have force pool adjusted by multiplying the ipcs of the territory by the number of turns.
3. Have force pool adjusted by adding inf equaling the value of the territory in ipcs.
4. Random roll for unit additions.
5.  Assign force pool additions based on the value of the territories name, where A=1 inf, B= 1 art, C= 2 inf…etc.
6.  No addition to neutral force pools.

Notice how some of these options are far more confusing, muddling, and too much like homework to be added into a table top game played by friends with beer and pretzels on hand?

I vote simple.

@JimmyHat:

Notice how some of these options are far more confusing, muddling, and too much like homework to be added into a table top game played by friends with beer and pretzels on hand?

I vote simple.

Simple is good!

Especially for something that should not be a primary strategy.

Jim,

Really, we cannot justify taking 1C away now that it is the clear winner.  So all we can really do is vote on adding too 1C or not adding anything to 1C.

That’s all I really want, personally.  I cannot speak for anyone else as to whether or not they think it’s important enough to add this modification to the rule or not.  I, personally, see no harm in allowing a vote to add a new condition to 1C or leave it off.  If there are enough people who want to add something, then it should be added, if not, then it should not be added.

There was a lot of talk about adding defensive firepower to neutrals.  JamesAmeman’s idea was a really good and well thought out idea on how to do that.

Obviously, 1C won, so 1C is in the ruleset for Delta +1.   That won’t change either way.

@Cmdr:

There was a lot of talk about adding defensive firepower to neutrals.  JamesAmeman’s idea was a really good and well thought out idea on how to do that.

Ok, well its cool you like his idea.  I thought it was rather prohibitive because it did not specify neutral blocks, and therefore would punish an attack on neutrals even more than it is now by adding various units.

The only thing I did like about it was the availability to change the neutral force pool by deciding what units you wanted to add based on the incoming attack force.  However this was pointed out to be a failing because people could build aa guns if being attacked by air for example.

SO, lets see what we have here.  If we add James idea to Vances proposal we can see that SAmerica will probably never be attacked.  If US attacks Venezuela on US 4, then the SAmerican block would get what…20ipcs of units added?  24?  And so america will never attack SAmerica.

If German decides they want to invade neutrals, and head for Turkey G2 or G3, they are going to be facing 6 more ipcs of units to defend Turkey?  Scary.   At least UK gets an additional…6 ipcs of units to help defend from Arabia.

Oh and Sweden?  In James incantation (married with blocks) no one would be foolish enough to ever threaten it.

Its a bad plan.  It doesn’t go with the neutral blocks we have already ironed out, and its complicated.  Now you sell me on why its sooo hot.

It is cool thought that at least people are realizing that neutrals need additional units, especially if segregated into neutral blocks.  The only issue people had with my proposal was that it might be too tempting for the Axis to hit Turkey, if that is the case then negating the Caucusus NO would fix that, although I don’t think that will be necessary.  The additional forces added and the fact that the remaining territories in the block immediately join the other side will do the trick.

Since nobody can tell me why my proposal is bad I’m going to stick to it.  1C is great and all but the 10 ipcs the US has to pay is silly because its singling out 1 nation over the others.  Also it doesn’t include even rudimetnary force pool additions which I feel are going to be the simplest and also easiest way to balance the blocks.

@JimmyHat:

It is cool thought that at least people are realizing that neutrals need additional units, especially if segregated into neutral blocks.  The only issue people had with my proposal was that it might be too tempting for the Axis to hit Turkey, if that is the case then negating the Caucusus NO would fix that, although I don’t think that will be necessary.  The additional forces added and the fact that the remaining territories in the block immediately join the other side will do the trick.

Since nobody can tell me why my proposal is bad I’m going to stick to it.  1C is great and all but the 10 ipcs the US has to pay is silly because its singling out 1 nation over the others.  Also it doesn’t include even rudimetnary force pool additions which I feel are going to be the simplest and also easiest way to balance the blocks.

Might have a Turkey fix for you…

I looked over the 1C, and, while not having read all pages in this topic (and still favoring the original non-block rules) i’d say:

1. Add Africa to the Arab block. (Makes Turkey a little bit more costly for Axis)

2. Join Spain, Sweden and Switzerland to 1 European block (Africa is not gonna stop USA from taking Spain), and add turkey to it too.

3. (is 1 + 2)
Add Turkey to the Arab block as well as to the Eureopean block.

Results:
Someone attacks Europe, the Europe block + Turkey turn against them.
Someone attacks an arab or african nation: arab/african block + Turkey turns against them.
Someone attacks Turkey: Both Europe + Arab/African blocks turn against them

(since Turkey is an important strategic place, having 2 blocks turned against would be fair)

Another general option could be to add 1 AA to EACH attacked neutral.

It’s late and i’m sleepy and slightly drunk, so forvive me if i am insane, but with this block:

2. Iberia & Africa (SPA, POR, ANG, MOZ, RDO, PRG, SIE, LIB)

Why wouldn’t i attack this as Allies? Even if they turn in active Axis right away, i see only Allied benefits in attacking them. Big scale attack on Spain (and perhaps also Portugal), the African countries have either no units or are easy to deal with (2 INF Angola, 2 INF Mozamb), given abit of planning and preparation.

The allies wouldn’t attack spain unless they could keep Saf safe as well.  Also I added 1 inf to Liberia so that the allies have to worry about that as well.

If Turkey seems like a weak spot, how about amending the force pools for the other neutrals in its block?  We can add 1 art 1 ftr to Arabia for instance.  Or perhaps a dd?  That seems much easier than having territories that can influence mutliple blocks.

Also I agree with adding an aa gun to Turkey, I think I did that.

@JimmyHat:

The allies wouldn’t attack spain unless they could keep Saf safe as well.  Also I added 1 inf to Liberia so that the allies have to worry about that as well.

Okay, 1 INF to Liberia may be counter productive for Axis, as taking FWA from France makes it a potential +1 IPC for USA to come grab.
And yes, Allies need to check S.AF, but that is what i meant with some planning and preparation, should be not that difficult to deal with. Surely worth dealing with if you can have Spain for it.

Even risking S.AF in return for Spain would be ok for some players, i think… (and 4 INF can’t do that much in attack…)

If Turkey seems like a weak spot, how about amending the force pools for the other neutrals in its block?  We can add 1 art 1 ftr to Arabia for instance.  Or perhaps a dd?  That seems much easier than having territories that can influence mutliple blocks. 
Also I agree with adding an aa gun to Turkey, I think I did that.

Well, the good part of the original neutral rules were that things happened out of your reach, so while i am certainly not against adding an AA to turkey (and yeah maybe you already added an AA, i just checked the texts on page 11, or 10), there should be longer-distance consequences to taking Turkey as well. Things too far for a side to control (that is why i’d let Turkey overlap the neutral venndiagrams)

@special:

@JimmyHat:

The allies wouldn’t attack spain unless they could keep Saf safe as well.  Also I added 1 inf to Liberia so that the allies have to worry about that as well.

Okay, 1 INF to Liberia may be counter productive for Axis, as taking FWA from France makes it a potential +1 IPC for USA to come grab.
And yes, Allies need to check S.AF, but that is what i meant with some planning and preparation, should be not that difficult to deal with. Surely worth dealing with if you can have Spain for it.

Even risking S.AF in return for Spain would be ok for some players, i think… (and 4 INF can’t do that much in attack…)

If Turkey seems like a weak spot, how about amending the force pools for the other neutrals in its block?  We can add 1 art 1 ftr to Arabia for instance.  Or perhaps a dd?  That seems much easier than having territories that can influence mutliple blocks. 
Also I agree with adding an aa gun to Turkey, I think I did that.

Well, the good part of the original neutral rules were that things happened out of your reach, so while i am certainly not against adding an AA to turkey (and yeah maybe you already added an AA, i just checked the texts on page 11, or 10), there should be longer-distance consequences to taking Turkey as well. Things too far for a side to control (that is why i’d let Turkey overlap the neutral venndiagrams)

good analysis.  I see you’re points about Liberia and Saf…

It would be just as easy though to add an art or perhaps tank to Mozambique/Angola to increase the cost of attack.  Also don’t forget that Iberia got defensively increased as well so it is not as easy for anyone to take.

You make a great point about FWA and the Liberian inf.  I think you broke it!:(  It defeats the purpose to place the inf there if it ends up benefiting the allies in the long run.  Perhaps a significant increase to Mozambique/angola would do the trick instead?  That or adding 1 dd 1 sub to Liberia instead.  Now an attack on Spain would require neutralizing those SAtantic raiders as well.

@JimmyHat:

good analysis.  I see you’re points about Liberia and Saf…

It would be just as easy though to add an art or perhaps tank to Mozambique/Angola to increase the cost of attack.  Also don’t forget that Iberia got defensively increased as well so it is not as easy for anyone to take.

yea, I didn’t take reinforcement changes into account (but that probably won’t stop USA, maybe delay it for a turn, or 2. they have the money to make it happen), but if only a few African countries are the price, Spain still looks mighty attractive to me from a US point of view. That’s why i think Spain needs to stay linked to Turkey (nasty if Axis have that shortcut + extra boost of troops) and Sweden.

You make a great point about FWA and the Liberian inf.  I think you broke it!:(

Sorry  :-D

It defeats the purpose to place the inf there if it ends up benefiting the allies in the long run.  Perhaps a significant increase to Mozambique/angola would do the trick instead?  That or adding 1 dd 1 sub to Liberia instead.  Now an attack on Spain would require neutralizing those SAtantic raiders as well.

satanic raiders? :)

Could work, will need some more beer to think about that, though …

haha!

erp, SAtlantic!

hmmmm, Perhaps Switzerland should join Iberian block?  There is also an option to have US pay ipcs to violate neutrality, although I would rather not use that rule. US designs on Iberia is one of the things I am worried about, as well as all usage of Turkey.  I still think that by beefing up the defense we can make it hard for US.  Spain also had relatively modern weapons so increasing their force pool is historically accurate as well.  I would like to playtest this, anyone want to try and start a game this weekend?  Sunday works best for me but also Saturday around noon-4 CST.

@JimmyHat:

haha!

erp, SAtlantic!

hmmmm, Perhaps Switzerland should join Iberian block?

Certainly they should! Maybe even join every block. As the knights of neutrality! (yea, that made no sense :) )

There is also an option to have US pay ipcs to violate neutrality, although I would rather not use that rule. US designs on Iberia is one of the things I am worried about, as well as all usage of Turkey.  I still think that by beefing up the defense we can make it hard for US.  Spain also had relatively modern weapons so increasing their force pool is historically accurate as well.

I’m not sure about how to fix it, but i do think 6 INF for Spain is not nearly enough, considering its crucial strategic position in the game.

Confused, Jim.

Only the territory attacked gets extra units - and only if it is actually attacked…if it is annexed, you get nothing.  So why does, for instance, Argentina get an extra 20-24 units when Chile is attacked again?