@Young:
Instead of a continent NO, for the States, we could call it a world trade NO, and it would rely on America not attacking neutrals.
Aye.
@Vance:
If Germany attacks say, Turkey, on G3 does that immediately bring USA and USSR into the war? Can USA attack Spain then?
Interesting.
However, America could take these territories and then what? Germany could attack and bring America into the war, or watch America put a complex down and build units ready to make an attack? Or just fret over having Americans on Continental Europe early.
Sweden is removed from the ‘true neutral’ camp. It is now tied to the German NO for Swedish iron ore. If Sweden is neutral or controlled by the axis Germany collects 5 ipcs. 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.
I have a few comments. First, I would change the language to “strict neutral” following the original rules (I am sure everyone knew what you meant, but players involved in rules disputes can get very nitpicky. More importantly, by saying the are removed from the true (strict) neutral camp, what does that mean? Can any power attack Sweden or Mongolia before your conditions take place? Since you are giving Sweden some unnamed exceptional status at the start of the game, your NO would better read, “If Sweden is not controlled by the Allies then Germany collects 5 IPCs.”
Miscellaneous
When a neutral country 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.
Here, I highly recommend being more specific about which player chooses. I assume you mean that if the Allies are attacking a block, block control is decided by the Axis (and vice versa).
Is this rule close to a consensus?
I think it is very good, but I would like to see a statement that any attack by an axis power on any Strict Neutral territory or its ships while the USA and/or USSR are neutral will result in USA and USSR immediately joining the Allies. That would allow USA to attack Spain and USSR to counterattack Turkey if Italy and Germany try to tag team the middle east before America wakes up (imagine what such a strategy would do if Japan also hits India early).
Simplified Collaborative Neutral Rules
A. An attack by any Axis power upon any territory within a Neutral Block will result in all territories and armies within that Block immediately joining whichever Allied power the Allied player chooses. An attack by any Allied power upon any territory within a Neutral Block will result in all territories and armies within that Block immediately joining whichever Axis power the Axis player chooses. The six Neutral Blocks are:
1. South America (VEN, COL, ECU, PER, BOL, PAR, CHI, ARG, URG)
2. Iberia & Africa (SPA, POR, ANG, MOZ, RDO, PRG, SIE, LIB)
3. Islamic (TURK, SAUD, AFG)
4. Mongolia (OLG, DZA, TSA, CMO, ULA, BUY)
5. Sweden (SWE)
6. Switzerland (SWI)
B. The United States Continental NO is now called the World Trade NO. If the United States attacks any strict neutral, it may never again collect this NO.
C. 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 immediately joining the Allies.
Strongly Suggested:
D. Adding aa guns, artillery, fighters, and possibly naval units to selected strict neutral territories to help balance. In particular, Turkey and Spain. This will be determined collaboratively if this variant of neutral block rules is accepted.
@Vance:
I think it is very good, but I would like to see a statement that any attack by an axis power on any Strict Neutral territory or its ships while the USA and/or USSR are neutral will result in USA and USSR immediately joining the Allies. That would allow USA to attack Spain and USSR to counterattack Turkey if Italy and Germany try to tag team the middle east before America wakes up (imagine what such a strategy would do if Japan also hits India early).
I think this is something I would add after playtesting. I don’t think we will need the Allies to DOW the axis in this case if it proves to not be game changing. We should keep this in the back pocket though in case this issue arises we got the fix.
Quote from Wheatbeer
Here, I highly recommend being more specific about which player chooses. I assume you mean that if the Allies are attacking a block, block control is decided by the Axis (and vice versa). The idea behind letting the defending side choose its leader is that allows the defending team to decide who is going to get those few ipcs, but also the ships and units. I thought about going with closest ally, but letting the alliance choose gives the players variable experiences. It shouldn’t affect balance.
Sweden is removed from the ‘true neutral’ camp. It is now tied to the German NO for Swedish iron ore. If Sweden is neutral or controlled by the axis Germany collects 5 ipcs. 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.
I have a few comments. First, I would change the language to “strict neutral” following the original rules (I am sure everyone knew what you meant, but players involved in rules disputes can get very nitpicky. More importantly, by saying the are removed from the true (strict) neutral camp, what does that mean? Can any power attack Sweden or Mongolia before your conditions take place? Since you are giving Sweden some unnamed exceptional status at the start of the game, your NO would better read, “If Sweden is not controlled by the Allies then Germany collects 5 IPCs.”
On sweden. Not sure I understand, Sweden is removed from the strict neutral camp at the beginning of the game, there is no ‘before’.
The idea behind letting the defending side choose its leader is that allows the defending team to decide who is going to get those few ipcs, but also the ships and units. I thought about going with closest ally, but letting the alliance choose gives the players variable experiences. It shouldn’t affect balance.
I agree entirely with the idea. I was just suggesting you make your wording more specific so it is clear that its the non-aggressor who gets to choose (even if it seems obvious).
As for Sweden and Mongolia under your rules, I am just curious what happens if Germany attacks Sweden on turn 1? Or what happens to Mongolia if the USSR or Japan attack it on turn 1?
Simplified Collaborative Neutral Rules
Strongly Suggested:
D. Adding aa guns, artillery, fighters, and possibly naval units to selected strict neutral territories to help balance. In particular, Turkey and Spain. This will be determined collaboratively if this variant of neutral block rules is accepted.
Neutral blocks is already accepted as a Delta+1 rule (in principle). However, this suggestion is to radical from the original neutral blocks suggestion that was voted for in poll #1. All standing armies for neutrals will remain as is, unless suggested in a different poll, under a different rule suggestion, to be voted on later. The winning “Neutral Blocks” rule will consist of grouping the strict neutrals into geographical blocks, so if one is attacked it will trigger only the strict neutrals within that block, and not others on the far side of the world. Ideas of adding standing land/sea/air units to Neutral territories and/or their adjacent sea zones, may not be used within the “Neutral Blocks” rule. If you tell us that “Neutral Blocks” is absolutely broken without adding units to a neutrals standing army, than a few infantry will be considered, but absolutely no sea or air units allowed under this selected rule.
@Young:
Simplified Collaborative Neutral Rules
Strongly Suggested:
D. Adding aa guns, artillery, fighters, and possibly naval units to selected strict neutral territories to help balance. In particular, Turkey and Spain. This will be determined collaboratively if this variant of neutral block rules is accepted.Neutral blocks is already accepted as a Delta+1 rule (in principle). However, this suggestion is to radical from the original neutral blocks suggestion that was voted for in poll #1. All standing armies for neutrals will remain as is, unless suggested in a different poll, under a different rule suggestion, to be voted on later. The winning “Neutral Blocks” rule will consist of grouping the strict neutrals into geographical blocks, so if one is attacked it will trigger only the strict neutrals within that block, and not others on the far side of the world. Ideas of adding standing land/sea/air units to Neutral territories and/or their adjacent sea zones, may not be used within the “Neutral Blocks” rule. If you tell us that “Neutral Blocks” is absolutely broken without adding units to a neutrals standing army, than a few infantry will be considered, but absolutely no sea or air units allowed under this selected rule.
We just went through 8 pages of dialogue and came up with these unit numbers. My neutral block proposal needs troops because as Special Forces put it without beefing up the Neutrals we are in fact weakening them by splitting them into blocks. What I am saying is a neutral block rule would not be balanced without beefing up their armed forces.
Secondly, if we are not making setup changes to neutrals, then how are we going to do so later in the development process? If we find that units are needed then one would assume we would then have to revisit the Neutral Blocks rule.
The original poll I thought was to find the topics that people want included, then those topics get their own thread for the hashing out of the details. Lastly, once the rule is finalized we have to playtest it to see if any adjustments need to be made. (this is where unit adjustments come in)
If you feel we should be separating the ‘Neutral Blocks’ and ‘Neutral Force Pools’ could you give us a few reasons why? I feel we cannot do neutral blocks without additions to their military because in essence we are weakening the strict neutral block we have now.(which is all of them)
Jimmy,
Just write up a “poll” with the rule name in bold red and the details below. Shouldn’t require more than just copy/pasting your changes into the new setup.
If you look at the original neutral blocks rule, it is a very simple idea that does not mention anything about adding sea or air units to territories, that said, I do realize that any ideas that are voted in, are very raw and need discussion for refinement. However, if I don’t question drastic changes in the process, than ideas accepted by democracy become unrecognizable to the members who voted for the rule in the first place.
The reason why I need to question and even reject suggestions made to Delta+1 rules in their final stages, is to guard them from members wishing to exploit winning rules in order to push in their more radical ideas into Delta, ideas that may not sit well with most members who are involved in this project. I am not suggesting at all that you are such a member, but I’m sure you can appreciate the risk of not filtering out ideas that are completely in left field from the original.
That said, looking at the suggestions to re-write almost all the standing armies for every strict neutral on the board, and the amount of layers added to the original suggestion, to say that “neutral blocks” is impossible without adding ships and planes, is disappointing. I guess my question is, can it be done with just infantry and artillery?
@Young:
If you look at the original neutral blocks rule, it is a very simple idea that does not mention anything about adding sea or air units to territories, that said, I do realize that any ideas that are voted in, are very raw and need discussion for refinement. However, if I don’t question drastic changes in the process, than ideas accepted by democracy become unrecognizable to the members who voted for the rule in the first place.
The reason why I need to question and even reject suggestions made to Delta+1 rules in their final stages, is to guard them from members wishing to exploit winning rules in order to push in their more radical ideas into Delta, ideas that may not sit well with most members who are involved in this project. I am not suggesting at all that you are such a member, but I’m sure you can appreciate the risk of not filtering out ideas that are completely in left field from the original.
That said, looking at the suggestions to re-write almost all the standing armies for every strict neutral on the board, and the amount of layers added to the original suggestion, to say that “neutral blocks” is impossible without adding ships and planes, is disappointing. I guess my question is, can it be done with just infantry and artillery?
You’re like a Thomas Jefferson for these Delta rules.
I think the rule can stand as is, but we should open the discussion to changing armies to “balance” it. And yes, I think that should be a seperate poll.
Neutrals are going to be targetable for most games now, that’s a dynamic shift in the game that should be looked at a bit more in depth, I feel. Yes, the rule is in, but now we need to discuss how to adjust the game board to make up for the new dynamic.
@Cmdr:
I think the rule can stand as is, but we should open the discussion to changing armies to “balance” it. And yes, I think that should be a seperate poll.
Neutrals are going to be targetable for most games now, that’s a dynamic shift in the game that should be looked at a bit more in depth, I feel. Yes, the rule is in, but now we need to discuss how to adjust the game board to make up for the new dynamic.
We must tread lightly, after the written Delta+1, the practical play testing stage of Delta+2 will maybe shed a lot of light on dramatic changes. I would like to avoid radical ideas before we get there.
@Young:
@Cmdr:
I think the rule can stand as is, but we should open the discussion to changing armies to “balance” it. And yes, I think that should be a seperate poll.
Neutrals are going to be targetable for most games now, that’s a dynamic shift in the game that should be looked at a bit more in depth, I feel. Yes, the rule is in, but now we need to discuss how to adjust the game board to make up for the new dynamic.
We must tread lightly, after the written Delta+1, the practical play testing stage of Delta+2 will maybe shed a lot of light on dramatic changes. I would like to avoid radical ideas before we get there.
Agreed. However, the neutral block rule is pretty radical. One of the major reasons neutrals are only defended lightly is because they are rarely invaded and the penalty is not lost men and machines, but rather the risk your opponents get free men and machines. Removing this penalty may mean adding more threat to your men and machines to compensate.
@Cmdr:
I think the rule can stand as is, but we should open the discussion to changing armies to “balance” it. And yes, I think that should be a seperate poll.
Neutrals are going to be targetable for most games now, that’s a dynamic shift in the game that should be looked at a bit more in depth, I feel. Yes, the rule is in, but now we need to discuss how to adjust the game board to make up for the new dynamic.
First let me say I think you’re right Grasshopper, and any proposal will have to be available to refinement as the process goes along because a later change might effect an earlier one. That was my point earlier about trying to pick foundation topics to hash out first. If a topic goes to its own thread, then it is during that process that members have the best chance to point out possible errors or balance issues. We leave those threads up for a while so that hopefully all areas are covered. Once the ‘final’ rule is completed, it then should be added to the current rules iteration.(which I think should be a locked sticky on the main page for reference and to promote cross-board traffic) Once we have a few rules up there we should get an idea of if we have something or not. Of course once a rule gets posted to the sticky it can be called out further in other threads if someone sees a problem. In fact I would put that in the opening post, that if at anytime someone wants to question or get clarification on a Delta rule they just make a post.
Secondly, now is a great time to talk about neutral force pools, I know there was some ideas on increasing the various fleets, but I felt it would be easier to see missing ships than it would be to remove them. As far as ground units go, the reason I added armor to Sweden and Spain was to increase defense, same with the ftrs. The aa gun in Argentina will hopefully dissuade US from coming in lightly. In fact beefing up the armies in such a way seems to me to discourage a neutral crush strategy, however it needs to be playtested to find out. I played with the idea of only adding infantry, but that would mean disregarding the printed inf numbers on the board and I felt trying to keep as much information with the board the same was important.(I don’t see Larry commissioning a new board like I do see him changing rules or perhaps releasing aa gun molds)
Based on that, I tried to add the least amount of troops possible but still give the defender an ‘army’ with which to delay the invader. I also took into consideration movement and that is why there are so few mechanized units and the aircraft are located in target areas, most likely to die in the initial invasion.
If it were to be done with just inf and art, we would need many more units. In regards to the fleets, it would be possible to try without them, although I think it is best to look at each fleet separately.
Turkish fleet: this is placed more as a disincentive for the Axis to attack Turkey without sending their aircraft to die against these ships. If the Allies take Turkey then this fleet would be near useless for the Axis as it is located in the Black sea, this is their historic berth, Turkey tried to contest the Black Sea because it was no contest in the Med against Italy/France/UK.
Swedish fleet: located in defense of Stockholm, this fleet cannot really defend its coast, but is also an incentive for Germany not to attack Sweden and also for the Allies to split control of Scandinavia and get the US in the North Atlantic.
Iberian fleet: Portuguese dd and Spanish fleet is designed to prevent bombards on the invasion if coming from the US. It also will possibly buff the axis Med fleet if US moves on Spain heavily. It also serves as a deterrent to the Axis to invade, including the african troops.
SAmerican fleet: Chilean dd is there to block movement and prevent bombards, Argentina fleet also protects bombards and if these ships are not destroyed they can become a real pain to the Allies.
I went conservative and left the fleets tiny, I expect playtesting to finalize the force pools.
Here is a simple solution:
When an axis power attacks a true neutral territory, all remaining true neutrals within that block become pro-allies. Any IPC value of a true neutral teritorry is a one time bonus only, to the invading power at the time of occupation. This IPC value may never again be collected in the game regardless of how many times the territory is captured or recaptured.
This way, the reasons for over taking a true neutral are strategical and not a shameless money grab, also, there is no reason to balance the blocks with massive neutral armies if the territories are worthless.
This is just a simple idea I had, and I don’t mean to undermine the great work that has been done up to this point. I just don’t see how force pools help balance Alpha+2, if it’s just a bandaid for the neutral blocks rule.
I wouldn’t call it a band aid so much as the solution to a neutral crush strategy.
I do see where you are coming from, neutrals are a peripheral subject, what is the value in bringing them into play in the first place. The game can certainly be played without them, perhaps it might be best to say each of these Delta rules can be used singly or in groups…I don’t know. This was the subject voted on so this is the one I have been working on. I do feel personally that the current A2 neutral rules are silly, for instance the first game I ever played as UK I invaded Crete, thereby unlocking Greece for the allies…er, no.
Putting them in realistic political blocks weakens the neutrals overall, but there is another realistic solution and that is to add other types of units besides infantry to Neutrals. Spain had a huge fleet and they had left over weapons from the Civil war, Sweden had a nice army and good defensible terrain, Turkey rivaled Russia for control of the Black sea. Giving these neutral nations slightly larger armies gives them a bit more flavor if you ask me and a chance for the true nerds out there to model an Argentinean aa gun and such…pointing no fingers.
Of course I could be totally wrong, I think I have a solid proposal though and intend to playtest the heck out of it after the family leaves town, perhaps even this weekend.
