Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

[wheatbeer]

I am not too attached to the exact fleet sizes or exactly what units to use to beef up Turkey, Spain, Argentina, and Sweden.

If for simplicity’s sake Sierra Leone and Liberia go with Iberia, I also don’t mind too much since it doesn’t affect gameplay either way.

We would need to decide whether blocks simply turn pro-whatever or instantly join a particular Power before we decide if the 3IPC US penalty has a point.

[Jennifer]

Yes, special forces, I am talking about a strike somewhere between rounds 8 and 12.

As for Axis, I cannot ever see it being in their interests as it is now.  All those free British, Russian and American units and American cash?

[special forces]

@Cmdr:

Yes, special forces, I am talking about a strike somewhere between rounds 8 and 12.

As for Axis, I cannot ever see it being in their interests as it is now.  All those free British, Russian and American units and American cash?

It would indeed be suicide for Axis…

@wheatbeer:

I am not too attached to the exact fleet sizes or exactly what units to use to beef up Turkey, Spain, Argentina, and Sweden.

If for simplicity’s sake Sierra Leone and Liberia go with Iberia, I also don’t mind too much since it doesn’t affect gameplay either way.

We would need to decide whether blocks simply turn pro-whatever or instantly join a particular Power before we decide if the 3IPC US penalty has a point.

You guys do realize that beefing up neutrals and adding fleet discourages the whole neutral attack idea for both sides, right?

[Jennifer]

Uh, well, that was kind of what I liked about it!

[special forces]

@Cmdr:

Uh, well, that was kind of what I liked about it!

No problem for me, but i heard some voices that wanted to encourage it.

Also it’s getting quite complicated (with lists of units per country). I know it’s a fun thinking game (so sorry if i’m being the spoil sport again) but simply doubling the existing troops might already do the trick for that.

[Young Grasshopper]

I agree with special forces, less is more.

[JimmyHat]

@special:

@Cmdr:

Uh, well, that was kind of what I liked about it!

No problem for me, but i heard some voices that wanted to encourage it.

Also it’s getting quite complicated (with lists of units per country). I know it’s a fun thinking game (so sorry if i’m being the spoil sport again) but simply doubling the existing troops might already do the trick for that.

I would prefer discouraging attacking neutrals, that is why I am for increasing their force pools.  However just because it is something that is discouraged doesn’t mean it can’t be possible to hit neutrals, and having regional/political blocks makes the most sense.

As for the list, it would be quite easy, right after listing the setup for all countries we list the setup for neutrals in case of attack.

A further discouragement from my consideration is making all other territories in the block immediately turn to the other side.  This might help to prolong the  struggle for Sameria or Iberia, and would help against an Axis breakout through turkey.  One question is to which country would the neutrals revert?  Closet axis/ally?  Players decide?

[Jennifer]

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.

[special forces]

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! ;)

[Young Grasshopper]

Don’t blow it up and start over, I find in the creative thought process, it helps to step back and think about the original idea, than begin once again adding important layers.

[Jennifer]

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.)

[special forces]

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.

[Jennifer]

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.

[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.

[special forces]

@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?

[Jennifer]

@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.

[Jennifer]

@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!

[special forces]

@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 Grasshopper]

@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.

[special forces]

@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).