Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

[special forces]

@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 …

[JimmyHat]

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.

[special forces]

@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.

[Jennifer]

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?

[JimmyHat]

Your confused because we are no longer talking about James idea, due to the reasons I gave earlier.

[Jennifer]

@JimmyHat:

Your confused because we are no longer talking about James idea, due to the reasons I gave earlier.

Okay, not sure what your reasons were - I was dealing with some ugly business and really did not want to read through the whole page. (That makes me a bad person by my own definition, I know.)

Here’s what I was under the impression was on the table:

If you attack a true neutral or one that is pro-your enemy, then the closest enemy nation - that is at war, adds (territory-value)(number of rounds) worth of units to that specific territory or territories that are currently under attack.

That does not say anything about other nations in the block.  The other nations - per the voted on rule - become pro-the other side.  However, annexed territories do not get effected by that rule, so it really does not reward the other annexing nations…I thought your issue was that you thought America would suddenly get like 20 or 24 Infantry in Germany happened to attack Argentina…

---

If I am incorrect, please enlighten me as to what the issue is.  I might agree with you.  It could rip assunder the space time continuum and destroy all life as we know it - but I’m willing to take that risk!

[JimmyHat]

@JimmyHat:

@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.

here it is again why James idea doesn’t work.  I’ll break it down further.

US on Samerican block:
  US cannot declare war on these countries until it is at war, the Axis get to decide when US is at war.  Lets say the are at war US3.  That means if US intends to invade Samerica(the block) they will have to fight 6 ipcs X3(Samerica is worth 6 ipcs, over 3 rounds)  That means the Us needs to beat 6 additional infantry to the one’s already in the target zone.

Germany on Turkey:
  Germ declares war on Turkey G3 and hits it heavy.  Turkey is now reinforced with 12ipcs worth of additional units, lets say 1 aa gun 2 inf?  Either way it is nothing compared to the hurt Germany puts on Turkey in preperation for an attack on the Caucusus G4.

Russia on Sweden:
  If Russia ever got close to sweden it will be too late.  3ipcs over x rounds is going to make it impregnable.

The other option is by territory, in which case Turkey is now a breeze for Germany and SAmerica is a quagmire.  I didn’t even get to Iberia and the fact that after Turn 5 or 6 it is undefeatable.

[Young Grasshopper]

Jimmy,

You are extremely invested in this rule and your opinion in this discussion is valuable, using all the info in this thread and without thinking about what others want, please tell me how you envision neutral blocks. forget everyone else a please write a neutral blocks rule that you think is good. use as many different ideas that you have heard here, just tell me your favorite neutral blocks suggestions…… no explanation required… we will use what you write as a framework for future discussion, so try to be a specific as possible. Thank you.

[JimmyHat]

Ok, haven’t gotten input from Mantlefan yet but I hear he’s banned again so not sure when/if he’ll be able to contribute.

I have an idea of where it will go but Special forces keeps poking holes in it!  Darn him!

[Young Grasshopper]

@JimmyHat:

Ok, haven’t gotten input from Mantlefan yet but I hear he’s banned again so not sure when/if he’ll be able to contribute.

I have an idea of where it will go but Special forces keeps poking holes in it!  Darn him!

I’m not looking for anyones input but yours, and don’t worry about perfection, just lay it on us.

[Jennifer]

Wait, we’re locked into 1C still, right?  It won the vote and I believe that was determined as done and over.  We’re just talking about added units and whether or not there should be any and if so, how those added units are, right?

Jim, you raise a good point on Sweeden.

However, keep in mind that America’s not going to be attacking S. America.  Why?  1)  They lose their 10 IPC sovereignty NO negating any benefit of attacking S. American territories income wise.  2)  They allow the Axis to land in S. America and annex territories.  3)  There is no utility for America by taking Chile, Venezuela or Argentina (and defeinitly not the no ipc, no army territories!)

Lastly, Germany can already attack Turkey and crush the 8 Infantry there.  Why is adding 2 Infantry and an AA Gun to Turkey going to make that bad - is it not enough?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cmdr:

Wait, we’re locked into 1C still, right?  It won the vote and I believe that was determined as done and over.  We’re just talking about added units and whether or not there should be any and if so, how those added units are, right?

Jim, you raise a good point on Sweeden.

However, keep in mind that America’s not going to be attacking S. America.  Why?  1)  They lose their 10 IPC sovereignty NO negating any benefit of attacking S. American territories income wise.  2)  They allow the Axis to land in S. America and annex territories.  3)  There is no utility for America by taking Chile, Venezuela or Argentina (and defeinitly not the no ipc, no army territories!)

Lastly, Germany can already attack Turkey and crush the 8 Infantry there.  Why is adding 2 Infantry and an AA Gun to Turkey going to make that bad - is it not enough?

I just want to know jimmyhats opinion, we can talk about it afterwards.

[Guest]

The forces that might be added to Neutrals is a separate issue from the Neutral Blocks rule itself, and figuring out the best additions to neutrals (if any) should come after everyone has played the game with Delta rules a few times.

Having said that, here is one scenario involving Turkey:
Round 1: Germany builds an IC in Romania; Italy takes Greece
Round 2: Germany build transports in z100; Bulgarian inf, yugo armor & 3 planes to Greece; Italy builds Greece airbase, attacks Turkey from land, sea and air
Round 3: Germany reinforces Turkey (or takes it if Italy had bad dice)

You will need like 50 inf on Turkey to stop that.

[Jennifer]

@Vance:

The forces that might be added to Neutrals is a separate issue from the Neutral Blocks rule itself, and figuring out the best additions to neutrals (if any) should come after everyone has played the game with Delta rules a few times.

Having said that, here is one scenario involving Turkey:
Round 1: Germany builds an IC in Romania; Italy takes Greece
Round 2: Germany build transports in z100; Bulgarian inf, yugo armor & 3 planes to Greece; Italy builds Greece airbase, attacks Turkey from land, sea and air
Round 3: Germany reinforces Turkey (or takes it if Italy had bad dice)

You will need like 50 inf on Turkey to stop that.

We don’t really want to STOP the attack on Turkey.  We want the other side to be compensated for being unable to defend Turkey from attack.

Honestly, for Germany I see no reason to attack turkey.  2 Minors in Greece/Romania allows you to get fleet units there and reinforcements for the front lines pretty quickly.  If Russia wants to kill those transports, they’re going to end up needing more than the 3 planes they have. (3 Fighters scrambling, 2 transports and a destroyer along with an Airbase opens up Caucasus, S. Ukraine, Rostov).  I am more worried about Russia attacking Turkey to get an end run into the juicy Balkan States.

[Guest]

I guess I should not have said “stop” it, but maybe make it costly for the axis.  If they take Turkey, they get easy access to the middle east oil, Africa, and if Japan goes hard on India they can tag team up through to Stalingrad later.  I don’t think it’s a game breaker, but it allows a very different strategy (which is good).

[Jennifer]

@Vance:

I guess I should not have said “stop” it, but maybe make it costly for the axis.  If they take Turkey, they get easy access to the middle east oil, Africa, and if Japan goes hard on India they can tag team up through to Stalingrad later.  I don’t think it’s a game breaker, but it allows a very different strategy (which is good).

Plowing through 8 infantry and giving the allies freebies is not my definition of easy…I’d rather have America attack Spain, then go annex Turkey!  Else, I can just sit there with a complex or two on the Black Sea and get almost as easy access to the Middle East.

[Guest]

That’s very true, and there is also the possibility that Saudi Arabia can fall to US control.  If UK can reinforce it long enough for them to build an IC and start pumping out units on that side of the world, that’s potentially a bad deal for the axis.

By the way, I see that a certain someone has started another self-persecution thread on the Harris site.  I for one would encourage everyone to please refrain from stating the obvious and fanning the fire.  Please don’t provoke him.  Maybe if he is permanently down to one site, he will value not being banned there enough to curb his enthusiasm and make good thoughtful contributions without all the histrionics.

[special forces]

How about letting neutrals defend their country on 3 instead of 2?

edit: so basically a ‘new’ unit: True Neutral Inf: attack 0, defense 3 movement 0. When annexed turns into regular INF.
but that only works when turned true neutrals become instantly activated, of course.

[JimmyHat]

@Cmdr:

Wait, we’re locked into 1C still, right?  It won the vote and I believe that was determined as done and over.  We’re just talking about added units and whether or not there should be any and if so, how those added units are, right?

Jim, you raise a good point on Sweeden.

However, keep in mind that America’s not going to be attacking S. America.  Why?  1)  They lose their 10 IPC sovereignty NO negating any benefit of attacking S. American territories income wise.  2)  They allow the Axis to land in S. America and annex territories.  3)  There is no utility for America by taking Chile, Venezuela or Argentina (and defeinitly not the no ipc, no army territories!)

Lastly, Germany can already attack Turkey and crush the 8 Infantry there.  Why is adding 2 Infantry and an AA Gun to Turkey going to make that bad - is it not enough?

It sounds like you think US won’t attack any true neutrals because of the loss of a 10 ipc NO.  I don’t like that but it can be adjusted after play testing if it turns out the US is out of the picture.

I have Turkey with an aa gun, a ftr and an atry I think, perhaps a tank.  I also added Turkish fleet units so that if Germany takes Turkey, Russia gets a fleet to help defend the Black Sea.  IF Russia attacks Turkey Germany gets some ships in the Black sea to compensate.

Also don’t get confused by how this works, you attack a neutral, and the rest of the block turns immediatly.  No ‘pro-axis’ or ‘pro-allied’.  That is because as you point out US can attack Colombia and if the rest turns pro-axis…well Axis won’t be ever getting near SAmerica again.

[JimmyHat]

Current Neutral Blocks Proposal.

Neutral Blocks
SAmerica- all territories in Samerica minus Brazil.
Middle East-Turkey, Arabia, Afghanistan
Iberia and Colonies-Portugal, Spain,switzerland and all African neutral territories including Liberia and Sierra Leone.

Mongolia is removed from the ‘strict neutral’ camp and is added to the Japanese/Russia non-aggression pact.  If Russia attacks Japan, Mongolia remains neutral all game.  If Japan attacks Russia Mongolia immediately joins Russia, replace Mongolian troops with Russians and place control markers on Mongolian territories.

Sweden is removed from the ‘strict neutral’ camp.  It is now tied to the German NO for Swedish iron ore.  So long as Denmark and the Baltic Sea is free of allied units or control Germany collects a 5 ipc NO.  While Germany and Russia are neutral they do not block this convoy route, however once at war it can be blockaded by any ship, including subs or trns.  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.

Amended Force Pools for Neutrals
these units are in addition to the printed on infantry numbers located on the gameboard
Argentina) 1 aa gun, 1 artillery
Venezuela)1 artillery
Chile)1 artillery
sz65)1 dd
sz66)1 dd 1 CA
Turkey)2 artillery 1 armor 1 fighter
Arabia)1 fighter
sz100)1 dd 1 CA
Spain)1 aa gun, 1 fighter, 1 armor 1 artillery
Liberia)1 dd 1 sub
Mozambique)-1 artillery
Angola)- 1artillery 1 armor
sz91)1 dd
sz92)1 dd 1 CA 1 sub
Sweden)1 artillery 1 armor 1 fighter
sz114)1 dd 1 CA

Miscellaneous
When a neutral block 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.

Added Switz to Iberian block, added units to Safrican Neutrals, switched Liberian inf to dd/sub to represent interned Vichy ships.  Added units to Turkey and Arabia.

12/4 edited Swedish Iron Ore NO.
12/5 finalizing
Adding this to 1C we get additional rules;

US loses its 10ipc NO for controlling the US if it violates neutrality, this represents costs incurred by the US for setting up banana republics.

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 given the option to declare war on any or all Axis powers.  This constitutes a provoked declaration of war and therefore would have no other ramifications in regards to other theatres.

If an axis power attacks Turkey when it is a strict neutral and Caucasus is not axis controlled, the Soviet Union preemptively destroys oil production facilities in Azerbaijan as part of its scorched earth policy. Germany may never again collect the 5IPC Caucasus oil NO, even if it controls Caucasus.