Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

@Young:

I these suppose to be rule suggestions to be voted on?, because if these were entered into a published rule book, we would all be lost, and where are the bold red titles disguising them from other posts?

Vote on Rule 1, or Rule 2.  Simple, easy, you dont have 400 choices (yea, I’m going to keep harping on that. lol.)  I’ll amend it so there’s a red title for ya.

No, I typed it out, but I will do so again:

Neutral Armies

If you vote yes:  Take the IPC value of the neutral territory and multiply it by the number of rounds the game has been played.  If this territory is attacked, then your opponent (or the one closest to this territory if more than one opponent) may use this money to purchase extra defenders for this (or these) territories.  This does not effect territories that are not attacked or annexed due to being pro-Allies/Axis status.

If you vote no:  Then there are no extra armies at all.  What is on the board is on the board.

I’m tired and a bit tipsy from the wine I had with dinner right now.  Basically, yes you get extra armies, no you dont.  (See, it’s so easy I can say it while drunk - you can’t say its too hard to understand for someone who is just downloading the rules for the first time!)  :evil:

I think James has written it out in more detail but I don’t remember where the thread is.

I don’t think there’s any danger to beefing up neutrals in this way. Worst case scenario, neutrals become prohibitive to attack and it’s no different than OOB/A2/A3 where they tend to be ignored anyways.

@JamesAleman:

When a pro-neutral or strict-neutral is invaded: The defending player (decided by whoever is closer to that territory) multiplies the income value of the country by the turn number and builds the units desired to participate in the defense of the territory alongside the starting units posted on the board. Unspent income is kept as bonus IPCs plundered or taken by the future owner upon conversion.

When a pro-neutral is occupied during noncombat: As above, except the new owner must builds units in that territory using as much accrued income as possible, then only the fractional income that remains is sent to the capital during collect income phase.

I found the thread, it’s under “variants”

FYI my current submission for consideration is back on page 7.

Except I don’t think you should get the IPC to spend if you annex a territory.  There will be a lot more territories to annex in the neutral blocks and allowing this to be done (buying units for annexed territories) is going to have the opposite effect we want, it’s going to shut down attacking neutrals - even in the cases we do it now.

Keep the part where if you attack it then it gets extra units based on its “income” for the game - get rid of the rest.

@wheatbeer:

@JamesAleman:

When a pro-neutral or strict-neutral is invaded: The defending player (decided by whoever is closer to that territory) multiplies the income value of the country by the turn number and builds the units desired to participate in the defense of the territory alongside the starting units posted on the board. Unspent income is kept as bonus IPCs plundered or taken by the future owner upon conversion.

When a pro-neutral is occupied during noncombat: As above, except the new owner must builds units in that territory using as much accrued income as possible, then only the fractional income that remains is sent to the capital during collect income phase.

I found the thread, it’s under “variants”

Version 1C has won the vote for Neutral Blocks.  Any setup changes, including those to Neutral armies, should be done after playtesting.

@Young:

@Vance:

Version 1C has won the vote for Neutral Blocks.  Any setup changes, including those to Neutral armies, should be done after playtesting.

I agree.

Yes, the armies were assuming 1C rules, just an extra poll to determine if they are included or not.

I would say the answer to that is No because that’s not what people voted for.  There are no setup changes specified.

@Vance:

I would say the answer to that is No because that’s not what people voted for.  There are no setup changes specified.

I said to have another vote, take rule 1C as the base.  Then allow people to vote on adding armies to those neutrals that are attacked.  It’s a simple binary vote: 
A)  Yes - If a true neutral is attacked, then the side that did not initiate the attack may purchase extra units in the amount of the territory value times the number of rounds before the territory was attacked in the territory. 
B)  No.  They get what’s printed on the board, nothing more, nothing left in perpetuity.

OK I will post that as a rule proposal in the main delta thread and people can vote for or against the idea.

@Vance:

OK I will post that as a rule proposal in the main delta thread and people can vote for or against the idea.

Sounds good.  I’ll be happy either way, but I saw his rule and said “Hey…now that’s something we should at least consider in Delta!”

@Cmdr:

@Vance:

I would say the answer to that is No because that’s not what people voted for.  There are no setup changes specified.

I said to have another vote, take rule 1C as the base.  Then allow people to vote on adding armies to those neutrals that are attacked.  It’s a simple binary vote:  
A)  Yes - If a true neutral is attacked, then the side that did not initiate the attack may purchase extra units in the amount of the territory value times the number of rounds before the territory was attacked in the territory.  
B)  No.  They get what’s printed on the board, nothing more, nothing left in perpetuity.

umm, I don’t like this but it is at least a direction.

How do we know option 1C needed troops?  If we are considering adjusting force pools for neutrals, then who is to say one of the other options isn’t better?  Layering rules is going to end up with page upon page of little exceptions and rule addendums.

If the issue is that neutrals need a force pool adjustment,(which I believe they do) then perhaps we should look at that when voting for proposals?  Only reason I suggest this is because it seems my proposal is simple, clear, and has precedent if not in other Larry Harris games than at least Xeno.  Perhaps we should vote on which version of neutral force pools we want to add.

Blocks to be decided but are considered essential
1.  Listed force pools in the index after nation setup.
2.  Have force pool adjusted by multiplying the ipcs of the territory by the number of turns.
3. Have force pool adjusted by adding inf equaling the value of the territory in ipcs.
4. Random roll for unit additions.
5.  Assign force pool additions based on the value of the territories name, where A=1 inf, B= 1 art, C= 2 inf…etc.
6.  No addition to neutral force pools.

Notice how some of these options are far more confusing, muddling, and too much like homework to be added into a table top game played by friends with beer and pretzels on hand?

I vote simple.

@JimmyHat:

Notice how some of these options are far more confusing, muddling, and too much like homework to be added into a table top game played by friends with beer and pretzels on hand?

I vote simple.

Simple is good!

Especially for something that should not be a primary strategy.