@The-Captain You’re absolutely right, but as the Russian player I’ve been glad to see those factories bombed out. Germany has moved the Southern Italy, Berlin, and Paris factories underground as they consider those the main factories they’ll be producing from. The Allies learned this the hard way too the India Industrial Complex took a lot of bombing damage. It’s kind of late but UK may finally put that factory underground.
AARHE: Phase 2: Neutrals
-
Well if the mountains are impassable by land, then yes they technically are “neutral”… Sahara is not…
GG
-
@Imperious:
sounds good. 2 inf plus ability for Soviets to reinforce. If Japan invades Mongolia is automatically a soviet satalite possibly allowing some forces to join before the battle
ok back to 2 INF for Mongolia
as for Mngolia joining Soviet on Japanese invasion…yes this is part of the standard neutrals rule…if one team invades Mongolia it joines the other team
but as for reinforcing we have to look in that, don’t want it to get complicated
for starters we could extend the defensive air support rule for you to reinforce neutrals with your air units when they are attacked by the other team
air units are fast so thats certainly realistic -
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Jul 25, 2006, 8:36 PM
ok done add that to the list.
-
Desert terrain (Sahara, Saudi Arabia)
*All land units must stop on entering a desert terrain. Pay 1 IPC in Collect Income phase for every unit occupying a desert terrain. (Italian NA can reduce this.)Snowy terrain (Greenland, Alaska, Soviet Far East)
*All land units fighting in a snowy terrain fight with -1 modifier, but not reducing below 1.Mountainous terrain (Southern Europe, Turkey, Mongolia, Persia, Afghanistan)
*ARM units may not enter mountainous terrain (is this too drastic?)Some terrain maps
http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/countries_map/map-picture/asia_ref802643_99.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Europe_terrain.jpg/500px-Europe_terrain.jpg
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/afnewlndcn.gif
http://www.mapresources.com/Lrs//CONT/MES/M-EAST-952863_L.JPGSome climate maps
http://www.wunderground.com/data/images/world_highs24.gif
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/images/climate_map.gif -
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Jul 26, 2006, 11:36 PM
Mountainous terrain (Southern Europe, Turkey, Mongolia, Persia, Afghanistan)
*ARM units may not enter mountainous terrain (is this too drastic?)Yes totally! It should be exactly like snow same move restriction, same combat restriction. easy to remember
-
so more like…
All land units must stop on entering the following terrains.
Desert terrain (Sahara, Saudi Arabia)
*Pay 1 IPC in Collect Income phase for every unit occupying a desert terrain. (Italian NA can reduce this.)Snowy terrain (Greenland, Alaska, Soviet Far East)
Mountainous terrain (Southern Europe, Turkey, Mongolia, Persia, Afghanistan)
*All land units fighting in a snowy terrain fight with -1 modifier, but not reducing below 1. -
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Jul 27, 2006, 5:13 PM
yes add that to the draft. good.
-
ok
-
currently
Power Diplomacy Rolls
Germany 2
Italy 0
Japan 1
USSR 1
UK 1
US 2shall we make it one dice for every 20 IPCs?
the starting values would remain the same
but as Japan gains IPC it’ll have more political power
as Germany loses IPC it’ll lose political power -
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 24, 2006, 6:45 PM
Thats a nice idea. I think its better to have this on the allowable buys… every 20 IPC above what you started with you can buy one additional tech roll. The problem with the other idea is the game favors the ability of Japan to gain faster money than Germany and this is not historical… the Historical based free rolls must be maintained, while this new idea still has play under the system. The key thing is “every 20 IPC above what you started with” this idea is important but the value ( should it be 20 or 10?) is the matter at hand.
-
so you like increasing diplomactic powers
but not decreasing diplomatic powers? -
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 26, 2006, 12:06 AM
Well its a balance of history and game balance. The allies have a slight advantage but the axis can equalize with the additional ability to buy more tech if they perform well. Otherwise the allies maintain a slight advantage. This situation reflects well.
-
so you saying let players buy more diplomatic rolls?
I think its better you just get the starting values
and 1 additional roll for every 10 IPC above starting incomeP.S. specifically, is it realism or gameplay that we should not have a possible decline of diplomatic powers?
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 26, 2006, 6:49 PM
I think its better you just get the starting values
and 1 additional roll for every 10 IPC above starting incomeThats exactly what i just said except it wasnt 20 IPC ( i was just using that number)
10 IPC is fine… every 10 more than what you start with you gain the ability to buy one more tech roll. THis has nothing to do with the rolls you naturally start with.
P.S. specifically, is it realism or gameplay that we should not have a possible decline of diplomatic powers?
WAIT: i was talking about tech rolls… not diplomatic rolls Woops!!!
OK i spaced out… my entire input was dealing with tech rolls and the possiblity of getting additional tech buys based on increased income…
The idea your talking about is diplomatic roles and i feel no changes respective of income should be made. Income has little to do with the ability to get allies.
IN the earlier posts on diplomacy we discussed a number of modifiers that make neutrals easier to change and this alone should be the determining factor on this problem.
-
ok then
-
One question, is it your intention that if a Player invades Spain from the sea they are required to clear the Spainish fleet prior to landing? I went with that in my last game, it wasn’t dificult fo rthe US, but it was an influence to wait a turn.
From the “Phase 2 Released” thread.
Where should the Spainish fleet be?
SZ 12? SZ 13? Or spread?And if you don’t have to engage the Spanish fleet before amphibious assault…where should the Spanish fleet be placed after the battle is over?
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Jan 11, 2007, 8:43 PM Jan 11, 2007, 8:41 PM
The fleet deployment is the decision of the controling player as long as the fleet is placed in a sea zone adjacent to the neutral. Once the declaration is made which is before movement the neutral is set up then that player who performed a DOW can then move.
BTW we have a mistake on the modifiers for rolling to convert neutrals. it should read -1 rather than +1 on all the modifiers and secondly the -3 is too much for a modifier ( which says -3 if you control the enemy capital. I would eliminate this.
-
@Imperious:
The fleet deployment is the decision of the controling player as long as the fleet is placed in a sea zone adjacent to the neutral. Once the declaration is made which is before movement the neutral is set up then that player who performed a DOW can then move.
Ok.
So Spain can deploy its fleet in SZ 12 or SZ 13.
If Allies invade Spain via Sea, Axis can use Spanish fleet to try to prevent the landing…or try to save the fleet.BTW we have a mistake on the modifiers for rolling to convert neutrals. it should read -1 rather than +1 on all the modifiers and secondly the -3 is too much for a modifier ( which says -3 if you control the enemy capital. I would eliminate this.
Oh. So easier or harder to convert a neutral to your team after your team controls an adjacent territory not controlled originally?
Ok I remove the +3 capital modifer.
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Jan 12, 2007, 7:13 PM
yes and make the +1 or +2 into -1 and -2
the hit required is one and the modifiers are going the wrong way.
-
I tend to ask multiple questions in a post
and I tend to be uncertain which you are answering when you don’t quote meI thought the modifiers are going the right way
its hits on 1, so +1 and +2 makes it hit on “2 or less” and “3 or less” respectivelyspecifcially, you want it easier or harder to convert a neutral after your team has taken an adjacent territory?
eg. Allies taken Southern Europe. Easier or harder for Allies to convert Spain?
(further, easier/harder for Axis to convert Spain in the above case?)
Suggested Topics
