Lets Talk Neutrals!

I would only allow neutrals to join the war if they are directly attacked.

Spain wasn’t going to join the axis after Italy messed up in greece and Turkey wasn’t going to fight on either side onless the other side attacked them.

I dont think IPCs should tranlate into diplomatic power. maybe if there was a political currency added to the game. but that is complicated.

Some territories, like Spain and Sweden I think should be given a diplomatic roll before attacking, sorta a last ditch effort to swing support while we are on your border with bayonets fixed… but beyond that I think you setup numbers of troops and let them go at it to win.  If they completely conquered, I think you refit the neutral to what they had and continue on.

I think lots of House Rules use diplomacy on a sliding scale.  Say, +10 equals converts to allies, -10 equals conversion to axis.  Spain may start with a -3, for example.

Each player either gets a free diplomacy role at the beginning of their turn, or buy it for 5 IPCs, or something, and target a nation for diplomacy.  A Role of 6 moves that nation further towards your side on the scale by 1 (a chart would be needed, of course).

Invading any neutral country will move all neutrals 3 points towards the other side.

A Fifth Column Tech could be used as well.

Also, some “Victory Point” type system could be used as well, where neutrals will begin to lean towards the winning side.

I’m sure that a 20-point sliding scale can work, but it just seems to bring a surpassing depth that the abstractness of the rest of the game then lacks…

you’d have to limit the roll to one focused nation or charge per roll or else everyone will spend time rolling for every neutral on the board.

personally, i don’t think it would be bad to mod the Classic rules, they were pretty simple for the level of the game.  The bad thing is really no need for new pieces.  The big thing would be assigning IPC values to each neutral, then the need to attack with a number of units equal to the value and pay the value/or difference…

maybe just a rambling thought…

Certainly if FMG came out w/ other nation pieces, each nation would have to have a certain standing army.  Turkey, for example, may have 5 inf, 1 tank, and 1 fighter.  A violation of SZ 16 could either be seen as an act of war, or simply push turkey towards the other side.

A big issue is neutral control.  I propose 2 types.

1. You invade and conquer the neutral.  The territory simply gives you IPCs.

2. You convert it. Control that nation as US controls China.

@LuckyDay:

I’m sure that a 20-point sliding scale can work, but it just seems to bring a surpassing depth that the abstractness of the rest of the game then lacks…

there is no depth in system like that, it is complicated, random, and unhistorical.
How does industrial production translate directly to political power. You gain political power mainly by winning battles and winning wars.

And all of the neutrals on the map stay effectivly neutral the whole war  and there was no chance that they would enter 1941 onwards unless they were directly attacked, so it does not make a whole lot of snece to add a diplomatic system that needs its own chart

@Emperor_Taiki:

@LuckyDay:

I’m sure that a 20-point sliding scale can work, but it just seems to bring a surpassing depth that the abstractness of the rest of the game then lacks…

there is no depth in system like that, it is complicated, random, and unhistorical.

another word for depth is ‘complicated’.  Hello!  that’s the point, it makes it too complicated.

@Emperor_Taiki:

And all of the neutrals on the map stay effectivly neutral the whole war  and there was no chance that they would enter 1941 onwards unless they were directly attacked, so it does not make a whole lot of snece to add a diplomatic system that needs its own chart

I agree that adding a whole diplomatic system is too in-depth and overcomplicates things, but it is worth noting that not all of the neutrals on the board stayed effectively neutral the whole war or even ‘neutral’ at all.  Many jumped on board with the Allies before it all ended to get a better spot at the table of the UN.  To truly define neutral you need a country like Switzerland who routinely shot at both sides when they violated their territory and held POWs from both sides as well.

@LuckyDay:

Many jumped on board with the Allies before it all ended to get a better spot at the table of the UN.

effectivly a country like that is still neutral

I like the random army idea.  You could have both: A chart for standard play, and an alternate random system.  That would be funny if Switzerland ended up with a huge air force out of nowhere.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

if Switzerland ended up with a huge air force out of nowhere.

funny

@Imperious:

Just do neutrals like technology. You invest 5 IPC as an economic package to get the neutral to be more towards your side.

You assign all neutrals into “blocks” :

South American
Middle East
Africa and Spain
Asia

You assign diplomats for 5 IPC each and they roll out each turn. The neutral is converted on rolls of 6, then you index the neutral within the block and roll again:

Example: Germany want to get Spain. She spends 5 IPC and after 3 turns of rolling gets the 6 result. The index shows to get spain a 3 result is made, but Germany rolls a 5 and Angola is now her ally. Eventually like techs they will be easier to convert.

The problem is the obvious issue with the allies now getting a better hold on converting Spain, which does not make sence….

So know that i suppose a player gets to choose the neutral they want to convert, so it becomes a race to convert the neutrals or occupy them in the result they turn against you… I prefe this approach and yes IT IS SIMPLE.

i think you summed it up, let’s go with that.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@LuckyDay:

Many jumped on board with the Allies before it all ended to get a better spot at the table of the UN.

effectivly a country like that is still neutral

wow….that’s profound.  wrong, but profound.

@LuckyDay:

@Emperor_Taiki:

@LuckyDay:

Many jumped on board with the Allies before it all ended to get a better spot at the table of the UN.

effectivly a country like that is still neutral

wow….that’s profound.  wrong, but profound.

In what way is that wrong?
and if it is wrong how is it profound?

A country that declares war but adds no IPCs or units or anything connected to the game has not joined the war in a way the is relavent to Axis and Allies.

South American Block
                                  IPC      Military
Northern South America    1        1 Inf, 1 fighter, 1 crusier

Peruvian Central              0        none

Argentina Chili                3        2 Inf, 1 fighter, 1 crusier

Spain and Portugal plus territroies block
        IPC  Military
Spain  2    2 Inf 1 crusier and 1 destoryer

Everything else is worth nothing and has no forces in it

Northern European Block

IPC        Military
Sweden          2          1 Inf, 1 fighter, 1 Battleships or 2 Crusiers
Switzerland      1          1 Inf 1 fighter

Turkey is its own block

IPC  Military
Turkey  2      3 Inf, 1 art, 1 fighter, 1 crusier

All the other asian neutrals are not worth anything and and have no military

The himalayas are immpassable and the sahara is either impassable or has other movement restrictions.
the movement restirictions of the sahara should also aply to mongolia. Afghanistan is perhaps immpassable as well.

just what i think

I was watching an episode of Battlefield II describing the battle of the Crimea, and how winning there and moving onto the Caucuses, Germany hoped to convert Turkey to the Axis.  As the war began to turn, Germany was concerned about Turkey joining the Allies.  How about some neutrals have victory requirements?

For example, if either side controls Bulkans, Bulgaria-Romania, Ukraine, and Caucuses, Turkey will convert to that side.

Spain will convert to Axis if Axis controls all the “Living Space Territory” (that is, both Karelia and Caucuses, not either or).  That reflects how Spain wanted X amount of grain to convert to Axis, and how Germany is now able to meet that demand.

you got rid of my crusiers and battleships!

i dont think neutrals should have transports and tanks and to much artillery, those are all mainly offensive weapons so neutrals would not want those. there should be more fighters

I mentioned all the neutrals except saudi arabia, i dont think it has any IPCs or military so i dont see why it needs to be in a block, because if you want to invade it  or make it your ally you just send troops in.