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.
Somehting that just popped into my mind (abit similar to something i proposed before)
Each true neutral (even after turning pro-some camp) that gets attacked gets 1d6 extra inf (partisans).
So you can get 1 up to 6 extra inf per country, not knowing which neutral will fight back fiercely and which one will give in easily.
As they are civilians, these are ONLY for defence, when a turned neutral gets activated, only the amount of soldiers indicated on the board get drafted.
It can be called “neutral partisans”
Edit: …i guess this means if for example Russia attacks Turkey (Stalin wanting kebab) and all the other neutrals (blocks or not) turn pro-axis, the axis can chose NOT to activate Spain, forfeiting the 2 IPC income but gambling to have up to 6 INF extra in case it gets attacked. Might be interesting in certain cases.
@Young:
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 kinda like this idea. But this means that for example S.America will completely be out of the game, as it has almost no strategic value whatsoever.
In fact only Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Saoudi Arabia will remain in the running. Is that a good or a bad thing? I don’t know…
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.
A practical question: those neutral naval units, which miniatures are players going to use for them?
@special:
@Young:
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 kinda like this idea. But this means that for example S.America will completely be out of the game, as it has almost no strategic value whatsoever.
In fact only Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Saoudi Arabia will remain in the running. Is that a good or a bad thing? I don’t know…
It’s a good thing, the more I think about this solution the more it makes sence. If we bang our heads trying to find a way to get S.A into the war, we will end up shifting the balance of the game, and let’s face it, other than ANZAC, America is the only nation that stands to benifet from S.A, and everyone agrees not to make the US more powerful. I say screw S.A and focus on territories with strategic value, and if the US wants to toil in S.A for a total of $8 and maybe a place to build a minor, than let them as long as thats all they get from it. Under the suggestion submitted above, it will allow neutral to enter the game without an earthquake like effect…. which is something we should be avoiding.
I don’t really mind S. America being out of the running in most games. However, I have used S. America to destroy N. America with Germany (and Japan landing in Alaska/Threat to W. USA) before.
Argentina = Minor Complex
Brazil = Minor Complex
Venezuaela = Minor Complex
and
Chile = Minor Complex
Coupled with very minor reinforcements as needed allowed for Central America to be traded (W. Indies gone) with lots of submarines in SZ 101 and SZ 10…USA was pretty crippled…then again, I did lose Berlin to the Russians that game…
@Cmdr:
I don’t really mind S. America being out of the running in most games. However, I have used S. America to destroy N. America with Germany (and Japan landing in Alaska/Threat to W. USA) before.
Argentina = Minor Complex
Brazil = Minor Complex
Venezuaela = Minor Complex
and
Chile = Minor ComplexCoupled with very minor reinforcements as needed allowed for Central America to be traded (W. Indies gone) with lots of submarines in SZ 101 and SZ 10…USA was pretty crippled…then again, I did lose Berlin to the Russians that game…
No offense Jen, but I will go out on a limb and say that some of the situations you describe in your games (like the one above) are very rare to games played by most of the members here.
I didn’t mean to imply this happens routinely! It was unique to that game, specifically! I was trying to kill America first and I did so, but again, that was game specific and I don’t think I could repeat the process against the same person!
@Young:
@Cmdr:
I don’t really mind S. America being out of the running in most games. However, I have used S. America to destroy N. America with Germany (and Japan landing in Alaska/Threat to W. USA) before.
Argentina = Minor Complex
Brazil = Minor Complex
Venezuaela = Minor Complex
and
Chile = Minor ComplexCoupled with very minor reinforcements as needed allowed for Central America to be traded (W. Indies gone) with lots of submarines in SZ 101 and SZ 10…USA was pretty crippled…then again, I did lose Berlin to the Russians that game…
No offense Jen, but I will go out on a limb and say that some of the situations you describe in your games (like the one above) are very rare to games played by most of the members here.
Understood, what do you think of my suggestion in reply #118?
It looks good to me, but maybe we need to stipulate that they go allied or axis but to the power closest to them? So the United States of America does not suddenly get Turkey while at peace.
Or better, why not toss a die?
1-2 America
3-4 England
5-6 Russia
1-3 Germany
4-6 Italy
(Afghanistan and Mongolia are the only ones on the Pacific map, seems obvious how they should default - to me anyway.)
@Young:
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.
If we were going that way I would say the closest, but I prefer to keep it simple and say they turn pro allies, or pro axis.
@special:
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.
A practical question: those neutral naval units, which miniatures are players going to use for them?
When the block is attacked the defender chooses which country will control the units and replaces the neutral units with pieces of his own.
@special:
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.
A practical question: those neutral naval units, which miniatures are players going to use for them?
When the block is attacked the defender chooses which country will control the units and replaces the neutral units with pieces of his own.
So the neutrals are active right away?
Correct, like the current A3 mongolia rule. This means the attacker will have to expect a counter attack right away.
Okay.
Could be good in the way that a neutral fleet needs to be fought as well before their country is invaded, if by amphibious assault. (ergo no coastals)
That was my thinking, and if those ships are not hit then they have a chance to get away, meaning the invading power will probably try and kill them.
Jimmy,
wheatbeer, special forces, and yourself have put a lot of effort into this rule. work among yourselves using all the input from this thread, and give use your best suggestion to look at (mark it with a bold red title).
Thanks.
@Young:
….If we bang our heads trying to find a way to get S.A into the war, we will end up shifting the balance of the game, and let’s face it, other than ANZAC, America is the only nation that stands to benifet from S.A
I think making neutral IPCs a 1 time bonus makes a lot of sense, kind of like taking the IPCs won for taking the capital of the neutral country (Madrid, Istanbul, etc.). It also solves one potential problem I think we were talking about with regards to the UK gov’t in exile rule: Canada might build a couple transports and go on an adventure in South America instead of the US to get that income for the allies but not suffer the USA’s 10IPC penalty. If UK in exile can collect for territories outside Canada (which they can according to the rule as it now stands), then South America would be their stomping ground.
I think I have come across an issue with my version of the Neutral blocks in regards to Sweden. If Germany can collect the NO while Sweden is Neutral, then that means in order for the allies to block this NO they will have to invade Sweden.
Not sure if this is an issue or if we can instead connect that NO to Denmark/Sweden, just an observation I have come across.
