Neutral Blocks Discussion - Delta+1

I am going to amend my idea slightly, adding in the US ipc cost of invading neutrals.

I also think it might be a good idea to have 2 or 3 options which people can playtest and report back on.  That is unless we get a consensus.

Should it be  considered that some strict neutrals could be pro axis or pro allies but have been left out, example, I have seen suggestions that Argentina should have been pro Axis. I dunno, if we are changing rules why not look into this.

That is certainly possible, you should flesh it out a bit and enter it as an idea.  That way when we start the voting people can vote on it.

Switzerland should be the only strict neutral that cannot be invaded. At all. Ever.

Semi-Block Neutral Rules

This rule set withdrawn.  Now working on a collaborative rule set incorporating other contributors ideas.

Oh, I like Jimmy’s idea of America paying a penalty for invading a true neutral!

@Young:

@Cmdr:

Oh, I like Jimmy’s idea of America paying a penalty for invading a true neutral!

Personally, I would like to minimize the “rules for some but not for others” philosophy as much as possible.

But we already have such rules!

England:  One country, two economies.  This should apply to America as well, but it does not.  (My opinion and due to size and scope of the real WWII).

Russia:  NO based on whether or not allied units are in Russia (SZ 125 one.)

Russia:  Can be at war with Japan, but not Germany or Italy - all other nations are at war, or not at war and not restricted from war if they are at war already.

I don’t see how forcing the American to pay for the pleasure of invading Afghanistan would be out of line with the other “special” rules that Larry established.  Especially given that, I feel, the idea is to curtail America from turning into a cheap immitation of Adolf Hitler (invading all it’s neighbors regardless of world opinion.)

@Young:

@Cmdr:

Oh, I like Jimmy’s idea of America paying a penalty for invading a true neutral!

Personally, I would like to minimize the “rules for some but not for others” philosophy as much as possible.

First, there is already a huge penalty for attacking Switzerland.  The territory doesn’t give you any tactical advantage, is not worth ipcs, and is defended by 2 inf.  Any idiot who invades Switzerland I hope takes a casualty.

I agree, and I think there may be a better way for this to be approached but I haven’t seen it.  My idea of having all the other countries in the block switch to the other side is not really working.  Sure in Samerica if US attacks Columbia perhaps the Axis can get those SAmeican inf into a stack, and they will probably collect a few ipcs before US takes all territories, but that also means 1 attack for US is activating an entire continent.

Having Argentina be pro-axis sounds cool, but the Axis are almost never going to get over there, and whats to keep US from attacking Argentina from Brazil and not activating the rest of the continent?

Like Jenn said the 3ipcs is to help keep US honest, but really since they make so much more ipcs than the other countries, they should have a slightly more expensive penalty to grab ‘neutrals’.  BTW, didn’t colombia join the allies too?

Oh, I don’t mind Argentina being Axis.  I can see Japan grabbing it.  (Heck, I’ve seen Australia get Brazil so many times, it’s not hard for me to imagine Japan gettnig Argentina.)  I could take that or lose it.

I think the 3 IPC penalty for acting like a fascist (ie like Germany) for America is better than my idea of just banning America from ever invading a strict neutral.  At least it allows America to do what they want.  (Keeping in mind with just their base pay (52 IPC) they can invade up too 17 strict neutrals with change left over, this is not a hardship!)

A little off topic, but with Gamer’s Paradise games, we used to say Switzerland was worth 10 IPC a round to the owner, because of all the swiss banks…unrealistic then, probably still now, but was fun!  Like the Free Parking of Axis and Allies.

Agrentina as pro axis means US can attack them and not activate the rest of the continent.  In fact they could land in Brazil, attack Arg next round, and then sweep back up SAmerica.

JimmyHat, I like your rules much better now that you added the 3 IPC penalty for US invading strict neutrals.  That may be a better solution than my prohibitions on the Allies.  I would be happy with either implementation though.

I am not sure about your Sweden rule though.

I agree that Sweden is where we could use some refinement, what don’t you like about it?

Things I like: Sweden is like Mongolia, they are both very concerned what Stalin does.  Scandinavia is surrounded by 3 capitals, there should be some action there.  Historically the Western Allies wanted to keep Scandinavia outta communism.  Lastly Sweden doesnt fit into any blocks and this gives us way to have incentive/disincentive to invade.

German NO:  Germany gets 5 IPC if Sweeden is Pro-Axis, Axis Controlled or Neutral without regard to Norway or Denmark.  K.I.S.S. right?

Or better:

German NO:  Germany gets 3 IPC if Sweeden is Pro-Axis, Axis Controlled or Neutral without regard to Norway or Denmark.
AND
German NO:  Germany gets 2 IPC if Norway and Finland are German or Pro-Axis.

@Cmdr:

1 German NO:  Germany gets 5 IPC if Sweeden is Pro-Axis, Axis Controlled or Neutral without regard to Norway or Denmark.  K.I.S.S. right?

Or better:

2 German NO:  Germany gets 3 IPC if Sweeden is Pro-Axis, Axis Controlled or Neutral without regard to Norway or Denmark.
AND
German NO:  Germany gets 2 IPC if Norway and Finland are German or Pro-Axis.

1.  Swedish Iron Ore NO:  I agree with Jenn if those conditions are met than Germany gets the NO.

2.  This seems a bit too much, lots of things to keep track of.  Why do you propose Germany get 2 ipcs for those 2 territories?  Finnish metals and Norwegian fish?

The only issue I see is if Germany can control Norway and Finland, then they might see advantage in attacking Sweden.  They would still get the ore mines and now the 3 ipcs from Sweden.  We could say that any invasion of Sweden by Germany would see the Swedes sabotage their own mines or they take damage or whatever and the NO is canceled.  I just don’t want to see Germany invade Sweden, they liked their ‘aryan’ brothers and were recruiting there.

I don’t think letting Germany attack Sweden is a problem.  They will likely lose 2 or more infantry attacking Sweden.  So, it will likely take two turns of holding Sweden before they even recoup the cost of invading.  Germany is unlikely to attack it G1, so that means Germany won’t experience a net gain until the end of turn 4 at the earliest.

They will also have to pay special attention to guarding Scandinavia or the Allies will get to enjoy Sweden’s IPC later.

Honestly, option two was really there for an option two.    I probably should not have mentioned it.  I was going to go along the line of having something outside Sweeden and remembered reading a book about the Norway children smuggling gold and placing the bars under snowmen for the Americans to retrieve that night and was “hmm…sure that could be an NO.”  Other than that one book (not sure if it was fantasy or reality, but cool story!) I had no real reason to mention it.

I have to agree, Sweeden should be Sweeden.  It’s ability to help Germany should not be effected by Norway or Denmark.  I do like the idea of Sweeden just up and joining Germany if Russia takes Finland.

I wonder if an NO for control of France (if Germany controls W. France, S. France and France) would be good.  It would deprive 2 IPC from Italy.