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.
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”
Much better detail, thank you.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
Jim,
Really, we cannot justify taking 1C away now that it is the clear winner. So all we can really do is vote on adding too 1C or not adding anything to 1C.
That’s all I really want, personally. I cannot speak for anyone else as to whether or not they think it’s important enough to add this modification to the rule or not. I, personally, see no harm in allowing a vote to add a new condition to 1C or leave it off. If there are enough people who want to add something, then it should be added, if not, then it should not be added.
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.
Obviously, 1C won, so 1C is in the ruleset for Delta +1. That won’t change either way.
@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.
It is cool thought that at least people are realizing that neutrals need additional units, especially if segregated into neutral blocks. The only issue people had with my proposal was that it might be too tempting for the Axis to hit Turkey, if that is the case then negating the Caucusus NO would fix that, although I don’t think that will be necessary. The additional forces added and the fact that the remaining territories in the block immediately join the other side will do the trick.
Since nobody can tell me why my proposal is bad I’m going to stick to it. 1C is great and all but the 10 ipcs the US has to pay is silly because its singling out 1 nation over the others. Also it doesn’t include even rudimetnary force pool additions which I feel are going to be the simplest and also easiest way to balance the blocks.
